alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. TINKER

PAGE 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

FORUM US, INC. § 

 § 

 Plaintiff, § 

v. § Case No. 6:20-CV-00150-ADA 

 § 

ODESSA SEPARATOR, INC. § 

 Defendant. § 

 

DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. TINKER 

I, Jeffrey A. Tinker, subject to the laws concerning perjury, hereby submit this Declaration 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and state as follows: 

1. My name is Jeffrey A. Tinker. I am over 18 years of age, of sound mind, and 

competent in all respects to make this Declaration. I have personal knowledge, or knowledge 

based on my review of records that are within my custody and control, of all the matters stated 

herein, and they are all true and correct. 

2. I am one of the attorneys representing Defendant Odessa Separator, Inc. in the 

above-referenced matter. During the course of litigation in the above-referenced matter, I 

obtained and discovered information in connection with this lawsuit. Accordingly, I have learned 

of and became aware of the following documents in my role as counsel for Defendant in the 

above-referenced matter. 

3. Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of page 5 of the Amendment 

After Final filed by the applicant on September 27, 2018, during prosecution of the Application 

Serial No. 15/229,369, the application that issued as Patent 10,132,151. 
DECLARATION OF JEFFREY A. TINKER

PAGE 2

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of the Notice of Allowability 

that was sent to the applicant on October 12, 2018, during prosecution of the Application Serial 

No. 15/229,369, the application that issued as Patent 10,132,151. 

5. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America 

that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on the 2nd day of 

October, 2020, in Dallas, Texas. 

/s/ Jeffrey A. Tinker___________________ 

Jeffrey A. Tinker 
Exhibit 6 

 

Exhibit 7
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

WAKESHA IVES

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 026

- C R

Appeal from the

384 th D istrict Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20130D04844 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant ’ s third motion for extension of time within which to

file the brief until September 8 , 2016

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO F ILE THE APPELLANT ’ S B R IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. J im Darnell

, the Appellant ’s attorney, prepare the

Appellant ’ s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before September 8 , 2016

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 8 th day of Ju ly , 20 1 6

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Hughes , JJ.
#### Claude D. CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27245.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 12, 1955.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted, in the County Court of Panola County,, for unlawfully operating a motor vehicle upon a public highway while his operator’s license was suspended, and his punishment .was assessed at a fine of $25.

Under such a charge, the state was under the burden of showing that there had been issued an operator’s license to appellant to drive a motor vehicle upon a public highway; that such license had been suspended; and that, while such license was suspended, appellant drove a motor vehicle upon a public highway.

To meet this requirement, the state here ■relies upon testimony that appellant drove his pick-up truck upon a.public highway in Panola County, on the date alleged, and that he drove said motor vehicle while his driver’s license was suspended.'

*402This proof is insufficient to sustain the allegations of the offense charged in the information because a driver’s license is not an operator’s license. We have held that there is no such license as a driver’s license known to our law. Hassell v. State, 149 Tex.Cr.R. 333, 194 S.W.2d 400; Holloway v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 484, 237 S.W.2d 303; and Brooks v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 258 S.W.2d 317.

Proof of the driving of an automobile while the driver’s license was suspended does not sustain the allegations of the information. The evidence being insufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
|                                                                                           
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                           
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                             
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                       
|View History:                                                                              
|                                                                                           
|No chart available.                                                                        
|No chart available.                                                                        
|                                                                                           
|                                                                                           
|Kentucky Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate, Proved Reserves Extensions (Million Barrels)
|                                                                                           

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4477 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4478 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4479 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4480 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4481 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4482 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4483 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4484 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4485 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4486 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4487 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4488 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4489 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4490 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4491 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4492 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4493 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4494 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4495 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4496 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4497 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4498 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4499 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4500 1994HeinOnline -- 59 Fed. Reg. 4501 1994
#### SMITH v. STATE.

No. 25148.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 7, 1951.

No attorney on appeal, for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appeal is from a conviction for utt-lawfully carrying a pistol. The jury as- ' sessed a penalty of $100 fine,

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bill of exception. The proceedings appear regular in every respect. No question is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Exhibit 31
                                   ----------


                                  CERTIFICATION


      I, Steve Bailey, certify that:

      1. I have  reviewed  this annual  report on Form 10-K,  and all reports on
      Form 8-K containing distribution and servicing reports filed in respect of
      periods  included  in the year  covered by this annual  report,  of CWALT,
      Inc., Alternative Loan Trust 2005-18CB;

      2. Based on my knowledge,  the  information in these  reports,  taken as a
      whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
      state a material fact necessary to make the  statements  made, in light of
      the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as
      of the last day of the period covered by this annual report;

      3.  Based on my  knowledge,  the  distribution  or  servicing  information
      required to be provided  to the trustee by the master  servicer  under the
      pooling and  servicing,  or similar,  agreement,  for  inclusion  in these
      reports is included in these reports;

      4. I am responsible  for reviewing the activities  performed by the master
      servicer under the pooling and servicing, or similar,  agreement and based
      upon my knowledge and the annual  compliance  review  required  under that
      agreement, and except as disclosed in the reports, the master servicer has
      fulfilled its obligations under that agreement; and

      5. The  reports  disclose  all  significant  deficiencies  relating to the
      master servicer's  compliance with the minimum  servicing  standards based
      upon the  report  provided  by an  independent  public  accountant,  after
      conducting  a review in  compliance  with the Uniform  Single  Attestation
      Program for  Mortgage  Bankers or similar  procedure,  as set forth in the
      pooling and servicing,  or similar,  agreement,  that is included in these
      reports.

      In  giving  the   certifications   above,  I  have  reasonably  relied  on
      information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank
      of New York, as Trustee.


      Date: March 27, 2006


                                              /s/ Steve Bailey
                                              -----------------------------
                                              Steve Bailey
                                              Senior Managing Director
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. 23-0330

STATE OF MONTANA, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

vs. 

CHRISTOPHER JAMES IRVINE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 13, 2023, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 4 2023

10/04/2023

Case Number: DA 23-0330
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 75 (Wednesday, April 18, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 23130]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-9222]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0711; FRL-9660-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Connecticut; Determination of Attainment of the One-hour Ozone Standard 
for the Greater Connecticut Area; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction of docket number.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This document corrects an error in the docket number of a 
final rule pertaining to a determination that the Greater Connecticut 
serious one-hour ozone nonattainment area did not meet the applicable 
deadline of November 15, 2007, for attaining the one-hour National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. In addition, that same 
final rule determined that the Greater Connecticut serious one-hour 
ozone nonattainment area is currently attaining the now revoked one-
hour NAAQS for ozone. The correct docket number for this action is EPA-
R01-OAR-2011-0711.

DATES: This correction is effective on April 18, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality 
Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England 
Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100, Boston, MA 02109-
3912, telephone number (617) 918-1664, fax number (617) 918-0664, email 
Burkhart.Richard@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On, March 16, 2012 (77 FR 15607), EPA 
published a final rulemaking notice announcing that the Greater 
Connecticut one-hour ozone nonattainment area did not meet its 
applicable one-hour ozone attainment date of November 15, 2007, based 
on 2005-2007 quality-assured ozone monitoring data. Separate from and 
independent of the first determination, EPA also determined that the 
Greater Connecticut one-hour ozone nonattainment area is currently 
attaining the one-hour ozone standard, based on the most recent three 
years (2008-2010) of complete, quality-assured ozone monitoring data at 
all monitoring sites in the area. In the March 16, 2012 final 
rulemaking, EPA inadvertently stated an incorrect docket number. The 
correct docket number for this action is EPA-R01-OAR-2011-0711. The 
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR) for this action (76 FR 72377; 
November 23, 2011) included the correct docket number. Thus, the public 
had appropriate opportunity to comment on the NPR.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, 
Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: April 5, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2012-9222 Filed 4-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```
#### In the Matter of Raymond P. Case, as Commissioner of the Tioga County Department of Social Services, on Behalf of Vicki DD., Respondent, v Robert EE., Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Family Court of Tioga County (Siedlecki, J.), entered June 25, 1987, which granted petitioner’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5, to adjudicate respondent as the father of the child of Vicki DD.

As with most paternity proceedings, this case involves the resolution of conflicting testimony and Family Court’s determination as to the credibility of witnesses will be accorded great deference *(see, Matter of Commissioner of Saratoga County Dept. of Social Servs. v Charles G.,*146 AD2d 854, 855). The evidence here, which included petitioner’s testimony of sexual relations with respondent and blood tests, does not compel a different result than that reached by Family Court; therefore, its findings will not be disturbed by this court *(see, Matter of Julie UU. v Joseph W.,*108 AD2d 1038, 1039). Furthermore, since there is no material deviation from the normal period of gestation, which ranges from 265 to 299 days, medical testimony was not necessary in this case *(see, Matter of Broome County Dept. of Social Servs. v Walter Z.,*149 AD2d 756, 757-758; *Matter of Pandozy v Perry X.,*141 AD2d 894, 896). Respondent’s remaining contentions have been examined and found to be lacking in merit.

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
-80 -78 -76 -74 -72

38 40 42



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲

▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 05/29 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 29 May 07

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.48 N 77.37 WMeters AGL
Case 6:20-cv-00175-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/05/20 Page 1 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00175-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/05/20 Page 2 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00175-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/05/20 Page 3 of 5
Case 6:20-cv-00175-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/05/20 Page 4 of 5
20-cv-00175-ADA Document 1 Filed 03/05/20 Pag
```

                                           CERTIFICATION

I, ALAN J. FOHRER, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2005, of Southern California Edison Company;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;

3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;

4.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

    (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

    (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and

    (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting; and

5.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors
and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

    (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

    (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.

Date:  November 4, 2005

                                             /s/ ALAN J. FOHRER
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             ALAN J. FOHRER
                                             Chief Executive Officer
```
#### LAWHORN v. STATE.

No. 25571.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 12, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for unlawfully selling intoxicating liquor in a dry area. The penalty assessed is a fine of $500 and confinement in the county jail for 30 days.

The transcript before us contains no notice of appeal, in the absence of which this court is without authority to consider the appeal. It is therefore dismissed.
Case 1:20-cv-00237-RP   Document 1-1   Filed 03/03/20   Page 1 of 1
# Gazzetta ufficiale C 83A/6 ap

| | ISSN 1725-258X |
| --- | --- |
| Gazzetta ufficiale
  dell’Unione europea | C 83A |
| | |
| Edizione in lingua italiana | Comunicazioni e informazioni | 49o anno6 aprile 2006 |

ISSN 1725-258X

Gazzetta ufficiale

dell’Unione europea

C 83A

Edizione in lingua italiana

Comunicazioni e informazioni

49o anno6 aprile 2006

---

| Numero d'informazione | Sommario | pagina |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | III   Informazioni |
| | Commissione |
| 2006/C 083A/1 | Avviso di un posto vacante di vicepresidente dell'Ufficio comunitario delle varietà vegetali (Grado A*12) (Articolo 29, paragrafo 2, dello statuto) — COM/2006/10022 | 1 |

Numero d'informazione

Sommario

pagina

III   Informazioni

Commissione

2006/C 083A/1

Avviso di un posto vacante di vicepresidente dell'Ufficio comunitario delle varietà vegetali (Grado A*12) (Articolo 29, paragrafo 2, dello statuto) — COM/2006/10022

1

| IT | |
| --- | --- |

IT

---

III Informazioni

Commissione

| 6.4.2006 | IT | Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea | CA 83/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.4.2006

IT

Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea

CA 83/1

---

AVVISO DI UN POSTO VACANTE DI VICEPRESIDENTE DELL'UFFICIO COMUNITARIO DELLE VARIETÀ VEGETALI

(Grado A*12)

(Articolo 29, paragrafo 2, dello statuto)

COM/2006/10022

(2006/C 83 A/01)

L'Ufficio comunitario delle varietà vegetali intende nominare un vicepresidente.

I candidati devono essere cittadini di uno degli Stati membri dell'Unione europea.

Il vicepresidente è nominato dal Consiglio in base a un elenco di candidati proposto dalla Commissione in seguito al parere espresso dal consiglio d'amministrazione dell'Ufficio. La retribuzione e le condizioni di lavoro sono quelle previste dallo statuto per i funzionari di grado A*12 delle Comunità europee. L'Ufficio comunitario delle varietà vegetali e la Commissione applicano una politica di pari opportunità.

La descrizione delle mansioni, i moduli per la presentazione delle candidature e le istruzioni per l'invio di tali moduli possono essere scaricati da Internet ai seguenti indirizzi:

| | http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/personnel_administration/working_senior_mgt_en.htm
  oppure |
| --- | --- |

http://europa.eu.int/comm/dgs/personnel_administration/working_senior_mgt_en.htm

oppure

| | http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/plant/propertyrights/index_it.htm |
| --- | --- |

http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/plant/propertyrights/index_it.htm

Il termine fissato per la ricezione delle candidature è l'8 maggio 2006 (per informazioni più dettagliate si rimanda alle istruzioni per la presentazione delle candidature).

---