alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
You are here: AirFire > SmartFire Fire Information System

Project Lead / Contact: Sim Larkin, USFS

V2 developed with funding from USFS FAM

Many thanks: P. Lahm

SmartFire Fire Information System

The SmartFire fire information system is a framework for aggregating, associating, and

reconciling wildland fire information from disparate sources. The current version of

SmartFire is Version 2, which includes significant advancements to data processing,

associating, and reconciliation algorithms. 

SmartFire v2 (SF2) can use any number of data sources, associating and reconciling

their information to avoid double counting of fires, and selectively utilizing the best pieces

of data from each source. 

USE

SmartFire v2 is in use for developing the 2011 U.S. EPA’s National Emissions Inventory (NEI) for wildland fire. Previous versions of

SmartFire were used in prior inventories, with SmartFire v2 first used in the development of version 2 of the 2008 U.S. EPA’s NEI.

Currently, real-time smoke prediction systems across the U.S. use SmartFire v1 with a change over to SmartFire v2 planned for Spring

2013.

A FRAMEWORK FOR RECONCILING FIRE INFORMATION

SmartFire is fundamentally a platform or framework for performing the tasks of:

Gathering fire information from disparate sources including satellite systems and ground based systems, real-time and

retrospective systems, and direct fire reports and ancillary data systems;

Manipulating the fire information from a given source into a hierarchical fire data information structure;

Associating fire information between difference sources to determine potential overlaps and duplications; and

Reconciling fire information from multiple sources to provide a single data stream for use in fire emissions inventories, fire models,

and smoke and air quality models.

As a framework, SmartFire includes multiple options and settings that will influence the resulting output reconciled fire information data

stream. Choices made as to which fire information source to use, which parameters to use, and which reconciliation algorithms to use

will fundamentally affect the resulting information. For this reason, when referencing SmartFire data, it is important to specify the full

configuration utilized when this data was created. 

AirFire

understanding weather, climate, air quality, and wildland fire

SmartFire Fire Information System | AirFire http://www.airfire.org/smartfire/

1 of 1 9/16/2015 10:06 AM
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

((((((((((((((((

No. 10-0109

((((((((((((((((

Paul James Koumjian, Petitioner

v.

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institution Division and University of Texas Medical Branch, Correctional Managed Care, Respondents

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

On Petition for Review

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((

**ORDER**

1.The petition for review, filed February 17, is **ABATED**.  *See*Tex. R. App. 53.7(a).

2.This case is abated until further order of this Court and is removed from the Court’s active docket.  It is the parties’ responsibility to immediately notify this Court once the court of appeals’ decision on the motion for rehearing is final.

Done at the City of Austin, this 29th day of March, 2010.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

Supreme Court of Texas

By Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk
-84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72

38 40 42 44



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 1000 18 12 06 00 08/04 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 04 Aug 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 10, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 133684 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 133684 

 COA: 274982 

Oakland CC: 1998-161396-FC 

RAND WALTER GOULD, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 19, 2007 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

d0830 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 10, 2007 

 Clerk
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commission of Fine Arts

Per 45 CFR 2102.3, the next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for February 15, 2024, at 9 a.m. and will be held via online videoconference. Items of discussion may include buildings, infrastructure, parks, memorials, and public art.

                    Draft agendas, the link to register for the online public meeting, and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our website:                     *www.cfa.gov.*                     Inquiries regarding the agenda, as well as any public testimony, should be addressed to Thomas Luebke, Secretary, U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, at the above address; by emailing                     *cfastaff@cfa.gov;*                     or by calling 202-504-2200. Individuals requiring sign language interpretation for the hearing impaired should contact the Secretary at least 10 days before the meeting date.                

Dated: February 5, 2024, in Washington, DC.

Susan M. Raposa,

Technical Information Specialist.

[FR Doc. 2024-02622 Filed 2-8-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6330-01-P
Exhibit 32.2



                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly  Report of Soyo Group,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the  Securities and
Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the undersigned,  Nancy
Chu, Chief  Financial  Officer of the Company  certifies,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and


(2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


 /s/ Nancy Chu
-----------------------
Nancy Chu
Chief Financial Officer
May 15, 2007
#### Mrs. Anna Bell (Lay) HARRISON et vir, Petitioner, v. Herbert CHESSHIR et al., Respondent.

No. A-7082.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Jan. 28, 1959.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 25, 1959.

Calloway Huffaker, Tahoka, by Harold Green, Tahoka, for petitioner.

Morgan L. Copeland, County Atty., Terry County, Brownfield, Hackney & Crawford, Brownfield, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petitioner, Mrs. Anna Bell (Lay) Harrison, had before the Court of Civil Appeals points of error asserting that there was no evidence to support the findings of the jury made the basis of the judgment against her, and also points of error asserting that the findings were so against the overwhelming weight and degree of the evidence as to be manifestly wrong and unjust.

The Court of Civil Appeals, after-reviewing only the evidence in support of the jury’s findings, overruled all such points under a rule of law stated by it as follows: “It is elementary law that if there be sufficient evidence of probative force to support the findings of the jury the parties to the suit and the appellate courts are bound thereby. In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury’s findings we must give credence only to the evidence and circumstances favorable to the findings and disregard all evidence, to the contrary.” 316 S.W.2d 912.

The rule of law applied by the Court of Civil Appeals in deciding the “no evidence” points is a correct one, but it is an incorrect one for deciding the “insufficient evidence” points. In applying the quoted rule to the latter type of points the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals is in direct conflict with the opinion of this Court in In re King’s Estate, 150 Tex. 662, 244 S.W.2d 660. See also 30 T.L.R. 803. We warned in Tudor v. Tudor, Tex.Sup., 314 S.W.2d *815793, that reversal for this type of error, if preserved, would necessarily follow.

Petitioner’s application for writ of error presents no other point of error requiring reversal of the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, but the error above referred to leaves us no alternative but to reverse the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals and remand the cause to that court for determination by that court of appellant’s (petitioner’s) points of error Nos. 2, 4 and 6 under the correct rule of law. Rule 483, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED




PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002









In connection with the Amendment No. 3 to Annual Report of Apollo Solar Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:




(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s/Jingong Pan


Jingong Pan


Chief Executive Officer and Chairman


November 29, 2010








/s/ Wilson Liu


Wilson Liu


Chief Financial Officer


November 29, 2010










A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Apollo Solar Energy Inc. and will be retained by Apollo Solar Energy, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request
Exhibit
      32.1





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**LEV
      PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Lev Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joshua
      D. Schein, Ph.D., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
      to
      18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,
      that:





(1)
          The report fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
      all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of
      the
      Company.





Date:
                August 13, 2007
            
            /s/
                Joshua D. Schein, Ph.D.Joshua
                D. Schein, Ph.D.Chief
                Executive Officer





*This
      Certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and shall not be deemed “filed” by the Company for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, whether made before or after the
      date of this Report, irrespective of any general incorporation language
      contained in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required
      by Section 906 has been provided to Lev Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and will be
      retained by Lev Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request* *.*
Exhibit 24.1

POWER OF ATTORNEY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

We, the undersigned officers and directors of Parlex Corporation, hereby
severally constitute and appoint Robert A. Rieth and Peter J. Murphy, and
each of them singly, our true and lawful attorneys, with full power
indicated below, to sign for us the Report on Form 10-K of Parlex
Corporation for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2001 and any required
amendments thereto, hereby ratifying and confirming our signatures as they
may be signed by our said attorneys to said Report and any and all such
amendments.

Witness our hands on the dates set forth below:

Dated: September 28, 2001

* /s/ Herbert W. Pollack                              Director
---------------------------------------
      Herbert W. Pollack

* /s/ Sheldon A. Buckler                              Director
---------------------------------------
      Sheldon A. Buckler

* /s/ Richard W. Hale                                 Director
---------------------------------------
      Richard W. Hale

* /s/ M. Joel Kosheff                                 Director
---------------------------------------
      M. Joel Kosheff

* /s/ Peter J. Murphy                                 Director
---------------------------------------
      Peter J. Murphy

* /s/ Lester Pollack                                  Director
---------------------------------------
      Lester Pollack

* /s/ Benjamin Rabinovici                             Director
---------------------------------------
      Benjamin Rabinovici
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00377-CR

RALPH DEWAYNE WATKINS,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 13th District Court

Navarro County, Texas

Trial Court No. D36507

O R D E R

Appellant’s Objection to Motion to Extend Time, filed on July 13, 2017, is 

overruled. Appellant’s Motion to Strike State’s Brief and Proceed to Submission, filed on 

the same date, is denied. The State’s Second motion for extension of time to file its brief 

is granted. 

PER CURIAM
Watkins v. State Page 2

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Objection overruled

Motion denied

Motion granted

Order issued and filed July 19, 2017
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 In connection with the Quarterly Report of Greenfield Online, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 to be filed with
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the Report),
I, Dean A. Wiltse, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, that:  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company as of the dates and for the periods covered by the Report. Date: August 27, 2004
    
    By: /s/ Dean A. WilsteDean A. WiltsePresident and Chief Executive Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Greenfield Online, Inc. and will be retained by Greenfield Online,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

I, W. Gray Hudkins, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, that the Annual Report of Langer, Inc. on Form 10-K forthe year ended December 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information containedin such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents in all materialrespects the financial condition and results of operations of Langer, Inc.

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished tothe Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

| Date: March 30, 2006 |   |   |   | /s/ W. GRAY  HUDKINS                    |
|---------------------------|--------|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|                      |   |   |   | W. Gray Hudkins                         |
|                      |   |   |   | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

CARLOS TORRES,

Defendant Below,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 608, 2018

§

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

§ 

§ Cr. ID 1708002168 (N)

§ 

§

Submitted: May 6, 2019

 Decided: June 12, 2019

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; SEITZ and TRAYNOR, Justices.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the appellant’s Supreme Court Rule 26(c) brief, his

attorney’s motion to withdraw, and the State’s response, it appears to the Court that:

(1) On July 30, 2018, the appellant, Carlos Torres, pleaded guilty to one 

count of second degree assault and one count of endangering the welfare of a child. 

The Superior Court ordered a presentence investigation. On November 30, 2018, 

the Superior Court sentenced Torres to a total of nine years of Level V incarceration, 

suspended after three years for eighteen months of Level III probation. This is 

Torres’ direct appeal.

(2) Torres’ counsel on appeal has filed a brief and a motion to withdraw 

under Rule 26(c). Counsel asserts that, after a complete and careful examination of 
2

the record, there are no arguably appealable issues. Torres’ attorney informed him

of the provisions of Rule 26(c) and provided Torres with a copy of the motion to 

withdraw and the accompanying brief. Counsel informed Torres of his right to 

supplement his attorney’s presentation. Torres did not file a written response raising

any issues for this Court’s consideration. The State has responded to the position 

taken by Torres’ counsel and has moved to affirm the Superior Court’s judgment.

(3) The standard and scope of review applicable to the consideration of a 

motion to withdraw and an accompanying brief under Rule 26(c) is twofold: (a) this 

Court must be satisfied that defense counsel has made a conscientious examination 

of the record and the law for arguable claims; and (b) this Court must conduct its 

own review of the record and determine whether the appeal is so totally devoid of at 

least arguably appealable issues that it can be decided without an adversary 

presentation.1

(4) The Court has reviewed the record carefully and has concluded that 

Torres’ appeal is wholly without merit and devoid of any arguably appealable issue. 

We also are satisfied that Torres’ counsel has made a conscientious effort to examine 

the record and the law and has properly determined that Torres could not raise a 

meritorious claim in this appeal.

 

1 Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 83 (1988); McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, 486 U.S. 429, 

442 (1988); Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967).
3

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State’s motion to affirm is 

GRANTED. The judgment of the Superior Court is AFFIRMED. The motion to 

withdraw is moot.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Gary F. Traynor

Justice
#### Maggie HELTON, Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH of Kentucky, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 25, 1955.

Cornette & White, Harlan, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., Wm. F. Simpson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This case is before us on appeal from a judgment fining the appellant $100 and sentencing her to 30 days in jail for the offense of keeping or having in her possession intoxicating liquor for sale in dry territory.

Finding no prejudicial error, the judgment is affirmed.

HOGG, J., not sitting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          72,729
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,729
<PP&E>                                         259,020
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,452,832
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          729,441
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,406
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,946,485
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,452,832
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  537,697
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,545
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (546,242)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (546,242)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (546,242)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.13)


</TABLE>