alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued September 26, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-19-00648-CV

———————————

LEGACY DCS, LLC, Appellant

V.

PLUMBING ACEE, INC. D/B/A SONNY'S PLUMBING, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 & Probate

Brazoria County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. CI59304

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant filed a restrictive appeal from the trial court’s default judgment 

signed on June 7, 2019. On September 10, 2019, the parties filed a joint motion to 

vacate the trial court’s judgment and dismiss the case with prejudice. The parties 

also ask that we tax costs against the parties who incurred them.
2

We grant the parties’ motion, vacate the trial court’s judgment of June 7, 2019,

and dismiss the underlying suit with prejudice. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1; 43.2(e). 

Any pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Component Performance Study: 1987-1998  (NUREG-1715)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, July 22, 2021
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



                           AMC, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
         (For the three and six months ended February 28, 1998 and 1997)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                 For the three months ended         For the six months ended
                                                        February 28,                      February 28,
                                                ----------------------------      -----------------------------
                                                    1998             1997             1998             1997
                                                -----------      -----------      -----------      -----------
<S>                                             <C>              <C>              <C>              <C>        
BASIC

Net Earnings                                    $ 5,434,832      $ 2,222,774      $ 6,690,027      $ 2,693,962

Weighted average outstanding common shares       61,962,751       61,962,751       61,962,751       61,962,751
                                                ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========

Basic Earnings Per Share                        $       .09      $       .04      $       .11      $       .04
                                                ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========

DILUTED

Net Earnings                                    $ 5,434,832      $ 2,222,774      $ 6,690,027      $ 2,693,962

Weighted average outstanding common shares       61,962,751       61,962,751       61,962,751       61,962,751

Net effect of dilutive securities                       (a)              (a)              (a)              (a)


Diluted earnings per share                      $       .09      $       .04      $       .11      $       .04
                                                ===========      ===========      ===========      ===========
</TABLE>

(a)      Not applicable as warrants are anti-dilutive.
Order entered January 1 3 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 13 - 01712 - CR LARRY DUNN, JR., Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F - 1259904 - M



### O RDER We GRANT appellant’s January 9, 2015 motion to permit current appointed appellate counsel to withdraw. We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to remove Lori L. Ordiway as counsel of record for appellant. We ORDER the trial court to appoint new appellate counsel for appellant and transmit a record including the order appointing new counsel to this Court within TEN DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with this or der. The appeal shall be reinstated ten days from the date of this order or when the record is received, whichever is earlier. This case is set for submission on oral argument on February 10, 2015 , and will remain set for submission on that date

. /s/ ADA BROWN PRESIDING JUSTICE
No. 86-819.

#### Glover Bottled Gas Corp. et al. *v.*National Labor Relations Board.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Human Systems Interface and Plant Modernization Process: Technical Basis and Human Factors Review Guidance (NUREG/CR-6637)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-6637 (PDF - 9.30 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** January 2000**Date Published:** March 2000

**Prepared by:** W. F. Stubler, J. M. O'Hara, J. C. Higgins/BNL J. Kramer/NRC

Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, NY 11973

J. Kramer, NRC Project Manager

**Prepared for:** Division of Systems Analysis and Regulatory Effectiveness Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

NRC Job Code J6012

Availability Notice

## Abstract

Hybrid human-system interfaces (HSIsy result from the combination of new (e.g., digital) and traditional technologies. New demands may be imposed on personnel in operating and maintaining these systems. These demands may result from many factors including the characteristics of the new technologies, the characteristics of the mixture of new and traditional technologies, the process by which the hybrid HSI is developed and used, and the way in which personnel are prepared to use the hybrid HSI. The objective of this study was to develop human factors review guidance on the processes by which hybrid HSIs are developed, implemented, and integrated into plant operations. A characterization framework was developed for describing the key characteristics of hybrid HSIs that are important to human factors engineering (HFE) reviews. Then, the research studies, HFE processes, and guidance related to system development and modernization were reviewed. This information was used as the technical basis upon which we developed the design review guidelines. This guidance applies to general work that should be undertaken and factors that should be considered in designing and implementing hybrid HSIs, particularly in upgrading existing HSIs. The establishment and analysis of design requirements, interface design, and the evaluation of the final system are addressed. Issues for further research were identified for process consideration for which the technical basis was insufficient to support guidance development.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 24, 2021
Wellsford Real Properties, Inc.
                         32 Rip Road, Hanover, NH 03755
                      Ph: 603-643-4102; Fax: 603-643-9021
                        E-mail: Rodney.DuBois@valley.net

March 10, 2001


Mr. Jeffrey H. Lynford, Chairman
Mr. Edward Lowenthal, President
Wellsford Real Properties, Inc.
535 Madison Avenue
New York, NY  10022


Dear Jeff and Ed,

As we have  discussed,  we have  decided  to extend  the term of the  Employment
Agreement dated May 3, 1999 so that the term will be through  December 31, 2001.
I understand that in the event of a "change of control" transaction prior to the
end of the term, you would intend to terminate the employment  sooner, in accord
with the change of control  provisions  of the  contract.  My Cash  Compensation
shall be $16,667 per month for the extension period,  plus bonus for 2001 at the
rate of the average  bonus award paid with respect to the first 20 months of the
contract (1999 and 2000),  subject of course to such bonus being approved by the
Board. There will be no further stock awards in connection with the extension of
the term.

I look  forward  to  working  with you on these  strategic  issues in the months
ahead.  Please confirm your agreement with these modifications to the Employment
Agreement by signing and returning a copy of this letter to me.

Sincerely,

/s/ Rodney F. Du Bois
---------------------
Rodney F. Du Bois

AGREED AND ACCEPTED:


/s/ Jeffrey H. Lynford         3/10/01   /s/ Edward Lowenthal           3/10/01
----------------------         -------   --------------------           -------
Jeffrey H. Lynford, Chairman    date     Edward Lowenthal, President      date
Wellsford Real Properties, Inc.          Wellsford Real Properties, Inc.
Exhibit 32.3

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of UnitedGlobalCom, Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended December 31, 2004,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Charles H.R. Bracken, Co-Chief Financial 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 the best of my knowledge:



|Date: March 14, 2005 |  | /s/CHARLES H.R. BRACKENCharles H.R. Bracken
Co-Chief Financial Officer
|-------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

JOSEPH M. UMAN, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 20-3004 

(D.C. No. 2:06-CR-20122-KHV-JPO-1) 

(D. Kan.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before MATHESON, BACHARACH, and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.**

_________________________________ 

This matter is before the court on the “Joint Motion for Summary 

Disposition/Affirmance.” The parties jointly move for summary affirmance of the 

district court’s judgment based on this court’s recent published decision in United 

States v. Salazar, 987 F.3d 1248 (10th Cir. 2021), en banc reh'g denied Apr. 12, 

2021. The parties acknowledge that this court’s decision in Salazar resolves 

Defendant-Appellant Uman’s appeal in the government’s favor, but the parties note 

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines 

of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for 

its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. ** Because this matter is being decided on a joint motion for summary 

affirmance, the panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not 

materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(f); 

10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore submitted without oral argument. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

April 28, 2021

Christopher M. Wolpert 

Clerk of Court
2 

that Mr. Uman preserves the issue on appeal for review in the United States Supreme 

Court. 

Accordingly, the joint motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED. Based 

on this court’s decision in Salazar, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate forthwith. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Contractors

# Technical Manual and User's Guide for MILDOS-AREA Version 4 (NUREG/CR-7212, ANL/EVS-15/9)

On this page:
        - Publication Information
        - Abstract

Download complete document
        - NUREG/CR-7212, ANL/EVS-15/9 (PDF – 3.78 MB)

## Publication Information

**Manuscript Completed:** December 2015**Date Published:** April 2016

**Prepared by:** B.M. Biwer, D.J. LePoire, S. Kamboj, and Y.-S. Chang

Environmental Science Division Argonne National Laboratory 9700 South Cass Avenue Argonne, IL 60439

Bruce Biwer, Argonne Program Manager Stephanie Bush-Goddard, NRC Project Manager

NRC Job Code Number F1228

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington DC 20555-0001

Availability Notice

## Abstract

The MILDOS-AREA computer code is used to estimate the radiological impacts of airborne emissions from uranium mining and milling facilities. The code allows users to consider both conventional uranium ore operations and operations associated with *in situ* recovery facilities. The code is used by license applicants and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff to perform routine radiological impact and compliance evaluations for various uranium recovery operations. As part of a major code update, the following improvements and additions were made to the code: (a) support for ores containing thorium-232 (Th-232) and its daughter radionuclides in addition to the currently supported uranium-238 (U-238) and its daughter radionuclides, (b) a revised area source model, (c) the capability to perform sensitivity analysis on specific input parameters, (d) the capability to use current meteorological data provided by the National Climatic Data Center, and (e) an interactive results module.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Thursday, March 25, 2021
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

BILAL SMITH,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 836 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 3rd day of June, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
No. 89-1421.

#### Powell et al. *v.*National Football League et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice White and Justice Blackmun would grant certiorari.
##### 



Exhibit 32 CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned officers of LCA-Vision Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify,
to such officers knowledge, that: This quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2004 of
the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in this Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company. Date:
November 1, 2004
    
    /s/ Stephen N. JoffeStephen N. Joffe
Chief Executive OfficerDate:
November 1, 2004
    
    /s/ Alan BuckeyAlan Buckey
Chief Financial Officer
 18
### Request for Information 550 Productions LLC (FAA-2015-4660) 9-AWA-AVS-333Exemptions (FAA)

Dear Mr. Keffer: This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

− 2015

− 4660). This information is necessary for the Fede ral Aviation Administrati on (FAA) to process your p etition.

z Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Op erations Manual (MPTOM) wh ich is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to proceed without this manual and remove closedset filming from your proposed operation please inform of us of your inte ntion by the requested response date listed below. Please submit the additional informati on (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov . Once your information has been submitted, plea se also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary information), as well as your comm ent tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exemptions@faa.gov. I f you want us to process your request any further, we mu st receive the information de scribed above by December 28, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we wi ll close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions, please f eel free to contac t me at (202) 267–2999. FAA Office of Rulemaking Sent : Friday , December 11, 2015 8:04 AM To: j onathan.bracewell@gmail.com
Exhibit
23.1





January
9, 2009





El
Capitan Precious Metals, Inc.


Suite
276


1325
Airmotive Way


Reno, NV
89502





Gentlemen:




The
undersigned hereby consents to the reference to the undersigned in the Annual
Report on Form 10-KSB of El Capitan Precious Metals, Inc. for the year ended
September 30, 2008 (the “Annual Report”), including without limitation
references in Item 2, to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission.




I also
confirm that I have read each of the references to me in the Annual Report and
concur with such statements. In giving this consent, the undersigned does not
admit that he is within the category of persons whose consent is required by
Section 7 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the rules and
regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission.




Sincerely,/s/
      Clyde SmithClyde
      Smith
### SERVED: JUNE 17, 2014**·:-;J)~TMENT** 

## Or U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO:t;J?:!;!SPORTATION O

FFICE OF HEARINGS
..,'"··;.:-· 

## C·;)-r.\ ..,.10'

## 'S

In The Matter Of: LIBERTY FOUNDATION, INC. Respondent 

### __,vr\1...1 Jl ttiPd ,'J 

### WASIDNGTON, DC ) ) ) ) 

### ) ) 

### Zfill! JUN 

## 18 A c;:**3~**
DocketNo. FAA-2012-0477 Case No. 2011-GL-03-0070



### · ORDERADOPTING THE PARTIES' JOINT PROPOSED CLOSING ARGUMENT SCHEDULE
OnApril2, 2014 an OrderDenying the FAA's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Declaring as Established Certain Undisputed Facts was filed. From April22, 2014 through April25, 2014 the parties presented testimony and other evidence at a scheduled Hearing in Atlanta, GA. OnApril 25, 2014, at the conclusion ofthe Hearing, the parties'jointmotionto file a post-hearing closing argument schedule on or before June 11, 2014 was granted. OnJune 13, 2014, the parties filed a Joint Proposed Written Closing Argument Schedule. Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 

### § 13.205(a)(6), and afterhaving reviewed all relevant caselaw, decisions, regulations, statutory authority,**inot~ons,** pleadings, and being fully advised;


### IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. The parties' Joint Proposed Written Closing Argument Schedule is hereby adopted: a) 

### June30,2014: Deadline for filing FAA's closing argument b) 

### August 8, 

### 2014: Deadline for filing Respondent's closing argument c) 

### September 8,**2~14:** Deadline for filing FAA's closing rebuttal argument

Attachment: Service List,- •

SERVICE LIST- BY U.S. MAIL ORIGINAL & ONE COPY Federal_Aviation Administration1 800 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, DC 20591 Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000

Mr. Christopher Stevenson Complainant's Counsel Office ofthe Regional Counsel P.O. Box 20636 Atlanta, GA 30320 TEL: 404-305-5200 FAX: 404-305-5223 Mr. Stuart A. Goldstein Respondent's Counsel Stuart A. Goldstein, P.A. 7300 North Kendall Drive, Suite 380 Miami, FL 33156 TEL: 305-670-1222 FAX: 305-400-0685 Judge J.E. Sullivan U S. Administrative LawJudge Office ofHearings, M-20 U.S. Department ofTransportation
_ 1200NewJersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) Washington, DC 20590 TEL: 202-366-6941 FAX: 202-366-7536 ONE COPY FDMS No. FAA-2012-0477 (Civil Penalty Action)

1 Service was by U.S. Mail.- For service in person orby expedited courier, use the following address: Federal Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1000, Washington, DC 20591; Attention: Hearing**Doc~et** Clerk, AGC-430. Page 2 of2
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that merely decide particular cases on the basis of

well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the

public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that

Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50348

Conference Calendar

__________________

ROI LE' SHILOH-BRYANT,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL KINABREW, Individually and in Official Capacity as

TDCJ-ID Correctional Guard; R.A. LEONARD, Individually and in

Official Capacity as TDCJ-ID Correctional Guard; LUANN TIPPIT,

Individually and in Official Capacity as a TDCJ-ID Clerk 3,

Counselor Substitute; RAUL MATA, Captain, Individually and in

Official Capacity as a TDCJ-ID Disciplinary Captain; R. HARVEY,

Individually and in Official Capacity as a TDCJ-ID Guard; OWEN, 

Doctor, Individually and in Official Capacity as a TDCJ-ID

Medical Personnel; JIMMY WOOD, Individually and in Official

Capacity as a Justice of the Peace,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. W-94-CA-113

- - - - - - - - - -

December 19, 1995

Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roi Le' Shiloh-Bryant's petition for writ of mandamus is

DENIED AS MOOT. The district court's determination not to

appoint counsel in this case was not an abuse of discretion. 
No. 95-50348

-2-

Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). The

district court is not precluded from appointing counsel, if

necessary, during the pendency of the proceedings. 

AFFIRMED.
# L_2017107DE.01003701.xml

| 25.4.2017 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 107/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2017

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 107/37

---

Berichtigung der Delegierten Verordnung (EU) Nr. 1255/2014 der Kommission vom 17. Juli 2014 zur Ergänzung der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 223/2014 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates zum Europäischen Hilfsfonds für die am stärksten benachteiligten Personen durch Festlegung des Inhalts der jährlichen Durchführungsberichte und der Schlussberichte einschließlich der Liste gemeinsamer Indikatoren

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 337 vom 25. November 2014
  )

Seite 47, Artikel 2 Absatz 3:

Anstatt:

„Zusätzlich zu den Informationen gemäß Absatz 1 müssen die Schlussberichte sowie die jährlichen Durchführungsberichte für die Jahre 2017 und 2022 Angaben über den Beitrag zur Erreichung der in Artikel 3 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 223/2014 aufgeführten Einzelziele und allgemeinen Ziele des FEAD sowie eine Bewertung dieses Beitrags enthalten.“

muss es heißen:

„Zusätzlich zu den Informationen gemäß Absatz 1 müssen die Schlussberichte sowie die 2017 und 2022 einzureichenden jährlichen Durchführungsberichte Angaben über den Beitrag zur Erreichung der in Artikel 3 der Verordnung (EU) Nr. 223/2014 aufgeführten Einzelziele und allgemeinen Ziele des FEAD sowie eine Bewertung dieses Beitrags enthalten.“

---