alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SANDRA ROMERO-VALENZUELA,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-71525

Agency No. A093-142-519

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted November 13, 2012** 

Before: CANBY, TROTT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Sandra Romero-Valenzuela, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing her appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying her motion to reopen. We have

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, ReynosoFILED

NOV 16 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-71525

Cisneros v. Gonzales, 491 F.3d 1001, 1002 (9th Cir. 2007) (per curiam), and we

grant the petition for review and remand for further proceedings.

In concluding that the agency lacked jurisdiction to reopen RomeroValenzuela’s proceedings as a result of her prior deportation, the BIA did not have

the benefit of Reyes-Torres v. Holder, 645 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2011), in which we

held that 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(d) did not preclude the filing of a motion to reopen

after the petitioner had been removed. See Reyes-Torres, 645 F.3d at 1076-77; see

also Reynoso-Cisneros, 491 F.3d at 1002 (treating departure bars under 8 C.F.R.

§§ 1003.2(d) and 1003.23(b)(1) as substantively identical). We remand to the BIA

in light of this intervening caselaw.

In light of our disposition, we need not address Romero-Valenzuela’s

remaining contentions.

PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; REMANDED.
**EXHIBIT 32.1**I, Steven Strasser, Chief Executive Officer of Power Efficiency Corporation, certify, pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that: 1. the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended June 30,2006 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and  2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Date:August 13, 2007           BY:                             /s/ Steven Strasser   Steven Strasser   Chief Executive Officer   The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code)and is not being filed as part of a separate disclosure document.
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00255

- CR

Christopher Ray Regalado v. The State of Texas

On Appeal from the 105th District Court of Kleberg County , Texas Trial Cause No. 13

- CRF

- 0195

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
June 2 8 , 2018
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (No. 33-75870), Form S-8 (No. 333-05645), Form S-8 (No.
333-52955), Form S-8 (No. 333-62426) and on Form S-3/A (No. 333-60490) of
PetroCorp Incorporated of our report dated March 15, 2003, relating to the
audited financial statements, which appear in this Annual Report of PetroCorp
Incorporated on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002.

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Tulsa, Oklahoma
March 20, 2003
<PAGE>   1
                                   Exhibit 12



                      RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES*


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                              Fiscal Year
                                                          1995          1996           1997           1998           1999
                                                      -----------   -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
                                                                              (dollars in thousands)
<S>                                                   <C>           <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Income before income taxes
     and extraordinary items                          $   (25,443)  $   (16,778)   $    11,986    $     4,939    $   (22,458)
Fixed charges:
     Interest expense                                      16,599        14,843         13,893         12,249         12,408
Amortization of debt expense                                  575           582            606            510            502
                                                      -----------   -----------    -----------    -----------    -----------
     Total fixed charges                              $    17,174   $    15,425    $    14,499    $    12,759    $    12,910
                                                      ===========   ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========
Income before income taxes, extraordinary
     items and fixed charges                          $    (8,269)  $    (1,353)   $    26,485    $    17,698    $    (9,548)
                                                      ===========   ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                        (0.48)x       (0.09)x          1.83x          1.39x        (0.74)x
                                                      ===========   ===========    ===========    ===========    ===========
</TABLE>


*For purposes of calculation of earnings to fixed charges, earnings consist of
income before income taxes and extraordinary items, plus fixed charges. Fixed
charges consist of interest on all indebtedness, amortization of debt expenses
and the estimated interest component of rent expense.
View History: Daily Weekly Monthly Annual Download Data (XLS File)

Created with Highcharts 3.0.1Henry Hub Natural Gas Spot PriceHenry Hub Natural Gas Spot Price

Henry Hub Natural Gas Spot Price (Dollars per Million Btu)

Decade Year-0 Year-1 Year-2 Year-3 Year-4 Year-5 Year-6 Year-7 Year-8 Year-9

1990's 2.49 2.09 2.27

2000's 4.31 3.96 3.38 5.47 5.89 8.69 6.73 6.97 8.86 3.94

2010's 4.37 4.00 2.75 3.73

- = No Data Reported; -- = Not Applicable; NA = Not Available; W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data. 

Release Date: 6/4/2014

Next Release Date: 6/11/2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          24,363
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  680,317
<ALLOWANCES>                                    22,453
<INVENTORY>                                    857,598
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,572,981
<PP&E>                                       3,604,112
<DEPRECIATION>                                 754,850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,412,035
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,199,201
<BONDS>                                      1,158,528
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,080,842
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,412,035
<SALES>                                     13,591,303
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,645,228
<CGS>                                       13,019,754
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               13,220,531
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                17,827
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             125,492
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                297,499
<INCOME-TAX>                                    90,955
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            206,544
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   206,544
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Management System 1200 NewJerseyAve., SE Washington, DC 20590 12117/2014

Re: Amendment to Exemption 11064 issued pursuant to Section 333 ofthe FAA Reform Act and Part 11 ofthe Federal Aviation Regulations in Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2014-0356

Dear Sir or Madam; RC Pro Production Consulting LLC dba Vortex Aerial was issued an Exemption numbered 11064 (hereinafterthe Exemption) forthe purpose ofconducting scripted, closed-set filming forthe motion picture and television industry. RC Pro Production Consulting LLC dba VortexAerial herby requests an amendment tothe Exemption to allow an additional type of unmanned aircraft system (UAS) that fully complies with the conditions ofthe Exemption. RC Pro Production Consulting LLC dba Vortex Aerial wishes to operate the VA03-v1 with serial number 003VA03-v1 with registration number N532HS underthe same terms and conditions contained in the Exemption. Attached hereto, and submitted as a confidential document, is the Flight Operations and Procedures Manual (FOPM) forthe additional UAS. All operations ofthe additional UAS will be in full compliance with the terms ofthe Exemption. As this is an amendment to an existing exemption asking foronlythe addition ofanother type of unmanned aerial vehicle, RC Pro Production Consulting LLC dba Vortex Aerial respectfully submits that good cause exists sothat notice does not need to be published in the Federal Registerforthe requested amendment. Please contact the undersigned should you have any question concerning this request for an amendmentto the Exemption.



### cc: James Williams Robert Pappas Jake Troutman John McGraw Jonathan B. Hill

111298720v1 Sincerely yours,



# ~4-k~-u::::-· Christopher J Schuster RC Pro Production Consulting LLC dba Vortex Aerial 1930 Oakridge Drive Corona Ca 92882 (714) 916 3614
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 129 (Friday, September 21, 2012)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1632]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

 IN HONOR OF THE IBEW LOCAL 481 ON THIS 50TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE CIRCLE 
                               OF LIGHTS

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. ANDRE CARSON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, September 21, 2012

  Mr. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to honor 
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 481, whose 
generous contribution of time and talent has helped to make the Circle 
of Lights the premier holiday event for central Indiana for the past 
fifty years.
  On the Friday after Thanksgiving, the remarkable transformation of 
Indianapolis's signature landmark, Monument Circle, into the world's 
largest Christmas tree symbolizes the beginning of the holiday season 
for Hoosiers. The extraordinary efforts of IBEW Local 481 have helped 
to make the Circle of Lights one of the largest public events in 
central Indiana.
  Today, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating IBEW Local 
481 for their outstanding contributions to this awe-inspiring holiday 
event. The Circle of Lights simply would not be possible without their 
expertise and generous support. My wife, Mariama, my daughter, Salimah, 
and I eagerly await the lighting of the world's largest Christmas tree 
in the company of Hoosiers from all across the Great State of Indiana.

                          ____________________
```
OXIDES OF SULFUR ANNUAL EMISSION REPORT

Company Name Holcim (US) Inc.Site Name Devils Slide PlantCompany ID - 2001Site ID - 10007NOTE: Be aware that this report uses different methods of calculating emissions than are required for the 2006 Emissions Inventory.

1 1998 17342 421-BF1 30500623 No 16758 Natural Gas 

This form is to be used by sources that have emitted 100 tons or more of SOx in any calendar year after 1999, and that are not subject to acid 

reporting requirements (40CFR Part 75). Row 1 in the following table(s) contains historical inventory data for the listed component. Row 2 is us

process emissions using the same method that was used in the historical data. The inputs required are in green font. To insert the new data yodata. Row 3 (shaded) is used to show and calculate any changes in the method of calculation from 1998 to 2006 (i.g. emission factors, % of su

breakdowns, estimation methods). If the current method of calculating the SOx emissions does not work with the equation provided in row 3, th

provided in the row 4. Rows 3 and 4 should have the same calculations as contained in the 2006 Emission Inventory.

Year DAQ ID

Pt Source

ID SCC

Description of 

Process

NSPS 

(Yes/No)

Associated 

Stack ID

Raw Material or 

Fuel used

Kiln Fuel

1 1998 17342 421-BF1 30500623 No 16758 Natural Gas 

2

2006 (using 1998 method of calculation) 17342 421-BF1 30500623 No 16758 Natural Gas 

3

2006 (if method of calculation is different from 1998) 17342 421-BF1 30500623 No 16758 Natural Gas Formula for calculating emissions

1998 Emissions = (Emission Factor x Hours of Operation) / 2000

Kiln Fuel

Kiln Fuel

4

2006 CalculationsNOTE: In 1998 the major fuel used was coal with 17% of the fuel Natural Gas.

Kiln Fuel
OXIDES OF SULFUR ANNUAL EMISSION REPORT

Company Name HolcimSite Name Devils Slide Plant

Secondary Control

Units

1059 btu/cf n/a 0 n/a 0 

ating Emissions

If Throughput is a Fuel Primary Control

C

Ef

Name of

Primary Control

Control 

Code (See 

List)

Name of

Secondary 

Control

Control Code (See 

List)

Heating

Value Units

%

Sulfur

How Sulfur 

Content is calculated

%

Ash

1059 btu/cf n/a 0 n/a 0 

1027 btu/cf n/a 0 n/a 0 

1027 btu/cf n/a 0 n/a 0 
0 4 Stack Test 4/1998 73.2 lbs/hr

Estimate Method

Emission 

Factor

 Emissions 

from 

Breakdown 

(tons/year)

Estimate 

Code Units

0 4 Stack Test 4/1998 73.2 lbs/hr

0 4 Stack Test 10/14/02 116 lbs/hr

0 4 lbs/hr

Component

Current 

Emissions

Adjusted 

Emissions

Kiln (Natural Gas) 451.414 451.414Mobile 4.248 4.248TOTAL 455.662 455.662
EQUIPMENT NOT RUN IN 1998 THAT EMITS SOx

DAQ ID 

Point 

Source ID Description of Process How sulfur content was calculated
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No. 333-3226 of CITGO Petroleum Corporation on Form S-3 and in Registration
Statement No. 333-11656 of PDVSA Finance Ltd. and Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A.
on Form F-4 of our report dated February 11, 2000, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of CITGO Petroleum Corporation for the year ended December
31, 1999.


Deloitte & Touche LLP


Tulsa, Oklahoma
March 24, 2000
May 2, 2016

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Aviation Administration

Docket Management System 

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Petition to amend Exemption No. 11801, Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2015-1019 

approved June 11, 2015

Dear Madam/Sir,

Donan Solutions LLC was issued Exemption No. 11801 under Section 333 of the "FAA 

Modernization and Reform Act of 2012" on June 11, 2015 for the purpose of aerial data collection. 

Donan herby requests an amendment to Exemption No. 11801 to allow for night operations with 

any aircraft identified on the List of Approved Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) under Section 

333 at regulatory docket FAA-2007-3330 at www.regulations.gov, when weighing less than 55 

pounds including payload. 

Donan respectfully submits that this requested amendment would not be precedent setting. 

Additionally, numerous similar amendment requests have previously been approved. Therefore,

Donan requests a determination that good cause exists to dispense with publication of the summary 

of this petition in the Federal Register and a grant of the requested amendment expeditiously by 

summary means.

Thank you for your timely consideration of this petition for amendment to Exemption No. 11801.
Sincerely,

Matthew Kenney

Technical Program Manager

DONAN

2101 Production Drive

Louisville, KY 40299

800-482-5611, ext. 2029

mkenney@donan.com
---

---

Exhibit 10.1

# CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of Elbit Vision Systems Ltd.
(the Company) on Form F-1 (File Nos 333-115095 and 333-145005), Form F-3
(File Nos 333-134591 and 333-114153) and on Form S-8 (File No.333-12456) of our
report dated July 15, 2009, which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an
explanatory paragraph regarding going concern uncertainty, relating to the consolidated
financial statements of the Company included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F for the
year ended December 31, 2008.

Brightman Almagor Zohar & Co.
Certified Public Accountants
A Member of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Tel-Aviv, Israel
July 15, 2009



---

---
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17

- 41277 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

–

Appellee ,

v.
ARMANDO ZARCO

- CONTRERAS, also known as Jose Luis Bravo

- Lopez , Defendant

– Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:17

- CR

- 1267

- 1

Before KING, ELROD, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: *
The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Armando Zarco

Contreras has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance
with Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores , 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Zarco

- Contreras h a s not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 8, 2018 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 17-41277 Document: 00514590754 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/08/2018No. 17

- 41277

2 therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolo us issue for appellate review. Accordingly, co unsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein , and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2. Case: 17-41277 Document: 00514590754 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/08/2018
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE

.

IN THE 

## A RIZONA 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEALS D IVISION O NE

S TATE OF ARIZONA , Respondent ,

v.

M ICHAEL JENSEN , Petitioner

.

No. 1 CA-CR 20-0582 PRPC

P etition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County No. CR2004-020949-001 The Honorable Howard D. Sukenic , Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL Michael Jensen, Florence Petitioner

M EMORANDUM DECISION Presiding Judge David B. Gass, Judge Michael J. Brown, and Judge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court. FILED 7-29-2021STATE v. JENSEN Decision of the Court

2 PER CURIAM : ¶1 Petitioner Michael Jensen seeks review of the superior court’s order denying his petition for post

- conviction relief. This is petitioner’s fifth petition. ¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this court will not disturb a superior court’s rulin g on a petition for post

- conviction relief. State v. Gutierrez , 229 Ariz. 573, 577, ¶ 19, 278 P.3d 1276, 1280 (2012). It is petitioner’s burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion by denying the petition for post

- conviction relief. See State v. Poblete , 227 Ariz. 537, ¶ 1, 260 P.3d 1102, 1103 (App. 2011) (petitioner has burden of establishing abuse of discretion on review). ¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior court’s order denying the petition for post

- conviction relief, and the petition for review. We find that petitioner has not established an abuse of discretion. ¶4 We grant review and deny relief.
EXHIBIT 23
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes  an
interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109,
 DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
## Williams , Rene e (OST) l^SCtJE TT)6T - Ci5T-f^^t - ^^7t ^

Subject : FW : (n o subject ) '.^. i L " - '.u'-'ivjv l

From : HITECCHEM@aol.co m [mailto:HITECCHEM@aol.com ] Sent : Tuesday , Apri l 06 , 201 0 5:3 6 A M To : Little , Cynthi a M (DOT ) Subject : (n o subject ) A s a residen t ofChisan a i t i s veryimportan tt o u s t o hav e ai rservic e fo rth e followin g reasons . 1 . Th e onl ywa yw e ca n ge t t o ou rhouse . 2.T o brin g i n foo d ,ga s an d tools . 3 . Medica l supplies . 4.A s w e ar e matur e adult s possibl e medica l flight s out . I fw e ca n b e an yassistanc e pleas e contac tus . Pleas e le t u s kno who wthi s turn s out . Your s Trul y Budd y& Lynd a Mice



## Care y Hic e Hite c Chemicals , Inc .
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-20737

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOHN SCOTT VANROMPAEY, also known as Scottie,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:09-CR-294-10

Before JONES, DENNIS, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent John Scott Vanrompaey has moved

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th

Cir. 2011). Vanrompaey has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with

counsel’s assessmentthat the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate

review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 9, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 11-20737 Document: 00512106939 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/09/2013
No. 11-20737

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 11-20737 Document: 00512106939 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/09/2013