alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-20884 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus
SHERMAN MATTOX,
Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-00-CR-319-1

-------------------- June 28, 2001 Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM: *

Sherman Mattox (Mattox) appeals his guilty-plea

conviction fo r one count of being a felon in possession of a

firearm. He contends that there was an insufficient factual basis

to support his plea and that this court should reconsider its
jurisprudence regarding the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)

in light of Jones v. United States , 529 U.S. 848 (2000), and United

States v. Morrison , 529 U.S. 598 (2000).

“This court has repeatedly emphasized that the constitutionality of § 922(g)(1) is not open to question.” S ee
United States v. De Leon , 170 F.3d 494, 499 (5th Cir.), c ert.No. 00-20884 -2-
denied , 528 U .S. 863 (1999). The cases cited by Mattox do not

affect this determination. Consequently, the judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED

.
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH DIVISION 

ROBERT (BOB) ROSS, § 

§ 

 Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, § 

§ 

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-00343-Y 

§ 

ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL § 

FLIGHT ATTENDANTS, § 

MCGAUGHEY, REBER AND § 

ASSOCIATES, INC., JULIE § 

HEDRICK, AND ERIK HARRIS, § 

§ 

 Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs § 

UNION DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSETO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXTENSION TO 

RESPOND TO THE UNION DEFENDANTS’MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT 

The Union Defendants1 will not file a response in opposition to Plaintiff Ross’s 

motion (doc. 46) for extension to respond to the Union Defendants motion for summary 

judgment (doc. 42), and will leave the grant of the extension, and the length thereof, to the 

Court's discretion. 

Date: October 6, 2022 Respectfully Submitted, 

/s/ Sanford R. Denison

SANFORD R. DENISON 

Tex. Bar No. 05655560 

Baab & Denison, LLP 

6301 Gaston Ave., Suite 550 

Dallas, TX 75214 

Tel.: (214) 637-0750 

Fax.: (214) 637-0730 

Email: denison@baabdenison.com

1 “Union Defendants” shall refer collectively to Defendant/Counterclaim Plaintiff Association of 

Professional Flight Attendants (“APFA”) and to individual APFA officer Defendants Julie 

Hedrick and Erik Harris. 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 48 Filed 10/06/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 1196
2 

WILLIAM W. OSBORNE JR.* 

D.C. Bar No. 912089 

Osborne Law Offices P.C. 

5335 Wisconsin Avenue N.W., Suite 440 

Washington, D.C. 20015 

Tel.: (202) 243-3200 

Fax: (202) 686-2977 

Email: b.osborne@osbornelaw.com 

Counsel for Defendant Counterclaim Plaintiff 

Association of Professional Flight Attendants, and 

Defendants Julie Hedrick and Erik Harris 

*Admitted Pro Hac Vice 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 6th day of October 2022 a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

document was served on the below listed counsel of record for Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant 

Ross by a means permitted by Rule 5(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“F.R.C.P.”). 

KERRI PHILLIPS 

HEATHER ABREU 

K.D. Phillips Law Firm, PLLC 

5700 Tennyson Parkway, Suite 300 

Plano, Texas 75024 

Phone: (972) 327-5800 

Fax: (940) 400-0089 

Email: kerri@KDphillipslaw.com 

Email: Heather@KDphillipslaw.com 

MICHAEL R RAKE 

Michael R. Rake, Attorney at Law 

PO Box 1556 

Lake Dallas, TX 75065 

Tel.: (940) 498-2103 

Fax: (940) 498-2103 

Email: mrake1@mrakeattorney.com 

/s/ Sanford R. Denison

SANFORD R. DENISON 

Case 4:22-cv-00343-Y Document 48 Filed 10/06/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 1197
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 219 (Monday, November 13, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67728-67729]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28925]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-272-018]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

November 6, 2000.
    Take notice that on October 30, 2000, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern) tendered for filing to become part of Northern's FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, 
proposed to become effective on October 31, 2000.

Tenth Revised Sheet No. 66
Fifth Revised Sheet No. 66C

    Northern states that the above sheets are being filed to implement 
a specific negotiated rate transaction with UtiliCorp United, Inc. in 
accordance with the Commission's Policy Statement on Alternatives to 
Traditional Cost-of-Service Ratemaking for Natural Gas Pipelines.
    Northern further states that copies of the filing have been mailed 
to each of its customers and interested State Commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Secs. 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's rules and 
regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance 
with Sec. 154.210 of the Commission's regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to

[[Page 67729]]

intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This 
filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may 
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-28925 Filed 11-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
MDAQMD Rule 1117 – Graphic Arts B-3 

Final Staff Report, 01/21/10 
B-4 MDAQMD Rule 1117 – Graphic Arts

Final Staff Report, 01/21/10
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.42

                    EXPATRIATE BENEFIT ARRANGEMENTS

We have expatriate benefit arrangements with Mr. Haddleton, Ms. Strother and
another individual under which they are entitled to compensation for the
value of benefits they would have been entitled to had they not moved  from
the United Kingdom to the United States. Under these arrangements,
Mr. Haddleton and Ms. Strother receive payments equal to 10% of their total
cash compensation. The other individual receives payments equal to 10% of his
base salary.
#### HAYWOOD v. STATE.

No. 21941.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 4, 1942.

E. B. Chambers and John H. Dittmar, both of San Antonio, for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was adjudged to be a delinquent child, and was committed to the Gainesville State School for Girls for an indeterminate term not to extend beyond the time she should become twenty-one years of age, on July 23, 1944. From said judgment appellant gave notice of appeal.

No statement of facts, or bills of exception are found in the record. We discover no irregularities in procedure which would impair the validity of the judgment.

The judgment is, therefore, affirmed.
|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                         
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                                   
|View History:                                                                          
|                                                                                       
|No chart available.                                                                    
|No chart available.                                                                    
|                                                                                       
|                                                                                       
|Florida Refinery Alkylates Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        |        | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________ No. 96-10605 Summary Calendar

_____________________

ILLES P. CSORBA, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus VARO, INC., Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas (3:94-CV-1250-T)

_________________________________________________________________ December 11, 1996 Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Because a final judgment has been entered, this appeal is moot. Therefore, this appeal is
D I S M I S S E D.
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 Quarterly  Report of Secured Digital  Applications,  Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2005 as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"),   I,  Patrick  Soon-Hock  Lim,  Chief  Executive  Officer  (principal
executive officer) of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that, to
my 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 result of  operations of the
Company.


/s/ Patrick Soon-Hock Lim
--------------------------
Patrick Soon-Hock Lim
Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
May 13, 2005
#### SHERMAN v. STATE.

No. 24609.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 18, 1950.

None on appeal.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for selling intoxicating liquor in a dry area in Smith County, Texas ; punishment was assessed at a fine of $250.'

Appellant waived a jury, entered a plea pf guilty, and was fined as indicated.

No statement of facts or bills of exceptions are found in the record. Nothing is; presented for review. ■

The judgment'is affirmed.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Plaintiff

Defendant

v.

CASE NUMBER

NOTICE OF APPEAL

Date

Attorney/Pro Se Litigant Signature

Print Name

Telephone

Address

City, State, Zip

JUDGE

Notice is hereby given that

(Appellant's Name)

appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from the

(conviction and sentence); (sentence only); (order);(judgment)

entered in this action on

(Date)

DALLAS DIVISION

Hopkins 3:22-CV-00706-E

DOD Brown

Robert Hopkins, III

judgment

25 March 2024

24 May 2024

/s/ Kel McClanahan

Kel McClanahan

4702 Levada Terrace

Rockville, MD 20853

301-728-5908

Case 3:22-cv-00706-E Document 52 Filed 05/24/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1031
From: Howard L. Gilberg [mailto:Gilberg@guidaslavichflores.com]

Sent: Friday, August 02, 2013 4:55 PM

To: Nizich, Sharon; Barnett, Keith; Fruh, Steve; Tsirigotis, Peter; Ginsburg, Eric

Cc: Connie O'Neal; Eric Astrachan; Robert Hurt; Steve Wiederwax; Steve Willis

Subject: Florim May 2010 Stack Test: Request for Removal of Kiln 1 HF and HCl Data from MACT 

Floor Data Set

Attachment: Scanned from a Xerox multifunction device001.pdf

Sharon:

By the attached letter from Florim USA, we are requesting removal of the Florim USA May 

2010 Kiln 1 HF and HCl Kiln 1 data from MACT Floor data set. This presentation arises, in part 

from EPA and RTI questioning sua sponte the aberrational nature of the data from Run 2 in our 

March 28 meeting. That questioning and other matters led Florim to carefully revisit Run 2. 

You will recall that EPA has agreed, following our March 28 meeting, to remove the data 

generated in Run 3 of this stack test from the MACT Floor data set.

We request that EPA carefully consider and act on the attached letter. If there are any questions 

on its content, please contact me. 

In the meantime, do you have a report for us on the EPA’s consideration of Mr. Hartman’s 

corrected critique of the Stonepeak 2005 stack testing results, which I emailed to you at about 

2:00 pm CDT on July 11?

Thank you. 

Howard

Howard L. Gilberg

Guida, Slavich & Flores, P.C.

750 North St. Paul Street, Suite 200

Dallas, TX 75201

214.692-0009 - office

214.392-5230 - mobile

gilberg@gsfpc.com

www.theenvironmentallawfirm.com
`[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 315 Engrossed in House (EH)]

103d CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. CON. RES. 315

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Friday, October 
7, 1994, pursuant to a motion made by the majority leader, or his 
designee, in accordance with this concurrent resolution, it stand 
adjourned until noon on Tuesday, November 29, 1994, or until noon on 
the second day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to 
section 3 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and 
that when the Senate adjourns or recesses at the close of business on 
any day from Friday, October 7, 1994 through Friday, October 14, 1994, 
pursuant to a motion made by the majority leader, or his designee, in 
accordance with this concurrent resolution, it stand recessed or 
adjourned until 9 a.m. on Wednesday, November 30, 1994, or such time on 
that day as may be specified by the majority leader or his designee in 
the motion to recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after 
Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 3 of this 
concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. When the House adjourns on the legislative day of Tuesday, 
November 29, 1994, pursuant to a motion made by the majority leader, or 
his designee, in accordance with this concurrent resolution, it stand 
adjourned sine die, or until noon on the second day after Members are 
notified to reassemble pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent 
resolution; and that when the Senate adjourns at the close of business 
on Thursday, December 1, 1994, it stand adjourned sine die, or until 
noon on the second day after Members are notified to reassemble 
pursuant to section 3 of this concurrent resolution.
    Sec. 3. The Speaker of the House and the majority leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the minority leader of 
the House and the minority leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

            Passed the House of Representatives October 7, 1994.

            Attest:






                                                                 Clerk.
                                     







103d CONGRESS

  2d Session

                            H. CON. RES. 315

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

       Providing for an adjournment or recess of the two Houses.`
#### WALL v. STATE.

No. 25343.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 13, 1951.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

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

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor in a dry area; the punish•ment, a fine of $250.00.

The record before us contains neither bills of exception nor statement of facts. Nothing is presented for consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### ATKINS v. STATE.

No. 22756.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 9, 1944.

Letcher D. King, of Abilene, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was charged with a violation of the liquor laws of Taylor County, and was convicted by a jury and fined the sum of $100, hence this appeal.

The record is before this court without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is presented for review.

The judgment of the trial court is therefore affirmed.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 Certification of Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, J. Robert Paulson, Jr., certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Endocardial
Solutions, Inc.; 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: May 7, 2004 /s/ J. Robert Paulson, Jr.SignatureName: J. Robert Paulson, Jr.Title: Chief Financial Officer
NUMBER OF MAJOR SOUR CE BOILERS AND PROCE SS HEATER REPORTED I N

SURVEY AND NUMBER WI TH TEST DATA

No. with Test Data

Group No. of

Boilers No. of

Process

Heaters CO HCl Hg Metals PM

Coal: Stoker 360

PC 172

FBC 31

T OTAL 583 0 94 264 221 156 314

Gas: TOTAL 5,895 4,626 B: 295

PH: 361

Biomass: Stoker 214

Susp. Burner 50

FBC 20

Dutch Oven 10

Fuel Cell 15

TOTAL 336 80 139 70 65 154 180

D istillate Oil: TOTAL 689 36 50 6 1 1 18

R esidual Oil: T OTAL 326 58 18 4 1 2 38

TOTAL 7

, 829 4

, 800 9 57 344 288 313 550