alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
2014 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

10-20-2014 

# U S A v . Dun g B ui

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ock e t N o . 11-3795

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2014 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U SA v . Dun g B ui " (2014). 2014 D e cisio n s . P a pe r 1096. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2014/1096

### PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ No. 11

- 3795

_____________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. DUNG BUI a/k/a DANNY BUI

Dung Bui, Appellant

______________ APPEAL FROM T HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA (D.C. Crim. Action No. 5

- 08

- cr - 00427

- 002) District Judge: Honorable Legrome D. Davis

______________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

June 26, 2014

______________ ORDER AMEN DING OPINION It appears that the full text of footnote number 1 did not appear in the version of the opinion filed earlier today. Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that an amended opinion is hereby filed. For the Court,

Marcia M . Waldron, Clerk Date: October 20, 2014
#### Erb, Appellant, vs. Erb, imp., Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Milwaukee county dated July 18, 1927: Oscar M. Fritz, Judge.

Life insurance. Judgment for defendant, from which plaintiff appeals.

For the appellant: *Walter Schinz, Jr.,*of Milwaukee.

For the respondent *Charlotte M. Erb: Quarles, Spence & Quarles,*attorneys, and *Howard T. Foulkes,*of counsel, all of Milwaukee.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-50511

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ARTURO GARCIA, also known as Arturo Garcia Lopez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:15-CR-2011-1

Before JOLLY, PRADO, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Arturo Garcia has 

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

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

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

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

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

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

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

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 21, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-50511 Document: 00513883215 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2017
No. 16-50511

2

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

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 16-50511 Document: 00513883215 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2017
\ 

) 

NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IA'RT 

DECLASSII"IED ON: 9 JULY 2012 ~SH\rll 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

.", 

29 March 1963 

SUBJECT: Discussion Regarding Project QUILL 

L A meeting was held in the office of Wr. _on 2.8 March 

regarding the security a8pect8 of Project QUILL. Those in attendance 

were~. Lt. Col. David Bradburn, Mr._. Mr. :wa •• a, 

Mr. _, and Mr._. 

2. Lt. Col. Bradburn indicated that he would be briefiDa the NIlO 

Staff regarding QUILL the following day arid would be happy to pre.ent 

the gist of hi. proposed briefing to the group. 

3. He then indicated what General Greer considered to be the 

mission of P-40 (Project QUILL). 

MISSION: a. Ion08phere effect on resolution. 

b. Radar technolpgy in satellite environment. 

OBJECTIVES: a. 100 feet resolution. 

b. Read out and recovery 

c. Minimum modification to existing radar. 

d. As soon as possible. 

APPROACH: a. With TAT (thrust 

RF4C radar on 

corollator . 

ented TIlor) AGENA D. 

optical 

b. With existing facilities (launch, track, recovery). 

c. ~ five payloads. fly three. 

SEGHET 

__ .~ ~ _. _ _ . __ .--1 
NRO APPROVED FOR RELEASE 

DECLASSIFIED BY: C/IART 

DECLASSIFIED ON: 9 JULY 2012 

4. Bradburn indicated that this would primarily be handled on 

a secret--special handling basis with respect to communications. He 

added that QUILL would not be used to look at Russia at this time. He 

also indicated that one of the bad features of QUILL was that it would 

radiate and that Soviet monitoring equipment might be able to determine 

the nature and extent o~ our use of radar from a satellite. 

5. Bradburn also indicated that the radar equipment should be 

able to photograph a track of land approximately 10 miles wide and 

up to 1500 miles in length. He indicated that the satellite would be 

• orbiting at about lZ5 miles above the earth. He said that rec 

J 

'filA"') 

'''4~''''L.' 

-WW/,"C 

- - - - iI .. ~ 

stations would be reading out the radar at 

_Vandenburg Air Force Base. He said that QUILL would probably 

be programmed for a 4-day orbit with the recovery of the data film . 

.;. Bradburn indicated that the management structure for QUILL 

would be as follows: 

A. SE/TD. system integration and Untenna-LMSC. 

B. Radar payloads. AGE. field support--Goodyear 

Aircraft. Phoenix. 

C. Radar cODSultin services. optical corollation--

7. Bradburn briefed the group from a chart with re spect to the 

type of contract funding. and cover stories which were under consideration. 

An approximation of his chart is as follows: 

It p.~ ," (N.lh..~~ 

MC ... TlONC b, 

• 

1 

J
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-21-00087-CV

Adrianne James, Appellant

v.

Javier Lascar and Brittany Peacock, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CV-20-005714, THE HONORABLE ERIC SHEPPERD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is an appeal from a forcible-detainer action. Pursuant to Marshall 

v. Housing Authority of City of San Antonio, 198 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2006), a court of 

appeals only maintains jurisdiction over an appeal of a forcible detainer action if there remains a 

live controversy between the parties over the right to “current, actual possession” of the property. 

The Court was unable to determine, based on its review of the record, whether it could exercise

jurisdiction over this appeal. Accordingly, on January 19, 2022, the Court asked Appellant to 

respond and explain how this Court may exercise jurisdiction over the cause. In addition, we 

cautioned that failure to timely respond might result in dismissal of this appeal. Appellant’s 

response was due on January 31, 2022. To date, Appellant has not filed a response. We 

therefore dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b), (c) (allowing 

dismissal for failure to comply with any notice requesting a response); Ugarte v. Eureka 
2

Holdings Acquisitions, LP, No. 03-20-00083-CV, 2021 WL 2064902, at *1 (Tex. App.—Austin 

May 21, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.) (dismissing forcible-detainer appeal where appellant failed to 

respond to notice requesting clarification of basis of jurisdiction).

__________________________________________

Edward Smith, Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Smith

Dismissed for Want of Prosecution

Filed: March 1, 2022
# AV1ACION CIV1L Km. 9 Y, 

### Carretera Panamericana, Ilopango, El Salvador, C. A.

Mr. Paul Gretch Director Office of International Aviation U.S. DepartmentofTransportation 4007 th Street, S. W. Room 6402 Washington, D. 

### C. 20590 Dear Mr. Gretch: 

### Telefono 2565-4405 y 

### Fax 2565-4408
AAC-GL -014-2012-DE-N ILOPANGO, 

### 10de Febrero de 2012

The El Salvador Civil Aviation Authority hereby confirms, that it will grant, on te basis of reciprocity, to any air carrier designated by the United States ofAmerica, the right to conduct fifth and seventh freedom traffic rights on schedules or non-schedules basis, which are in conformity to the Air Transport Agreement between the Government ofthe United States ofAmerica and the Government of El Salvador, signed on May8'' 1997. Sincerely yours,
# Anionic Polyacrylamide (PAM) Application (Ac.) (450) Conservation Practice Standard

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Anionic Polyacrylamide (PAM) Application (Ac.) (450) Conservation Practice Standard 

Download the national Anionic Polyacrylamide (PAM) Application (Ac.) (450) conservation practice standard and supporting documents.

## National Standard Document

NOTICE - National conservation practice standards should not be used to plan, design or install a conservation practice. To find these documents at the local level, visit our Field Office Technical Guide website.

Conservation Practice Name (Units) (Code) (Date Issued)

Anionic Polyacrylamide (PAM) Application (Ac.) (450) (9/2020) Standard Document(74.49 KB)

###   Supporting Documents

Anionic Polyacrylamide (PAM) Application Overview(307.37 KB)

Anionic Polyacrylamide (PAM) Application Network Diagram(94.21 KB)

Anionic Polyacrylamide (PAM) Application CPPE(24.91 KB)

##   Additional Information

### Conservation Practice Standards

On this page find links to national conservation practice standards and supporting documents.
Learn More

### Conservation Practice Standards Information

Learn about the information provided in conservation practice standards and supporting documents, such as overviews, worksheets, and network effects diagrams.
Learn More
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998             JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                      15,243,438              20,843,911
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                4,009,722               4,407,611
<ALLOWANCES>                                    56,000                  56,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            29,605,378              33,890,740
<PP&E>                                       5,895,214               4,174,022
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,320,073               1,544,774
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              33,933,126              42,296,627
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       13,839,181               7,018,775
<BONDS>                                        575,000                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                       122,614                 118,317
<OTHER-SE>                                  46,303,791              45,815,462
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                33,933,126              42,296,627
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            29,101,136              29,179,466
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               11,254,991               3,649,188
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            29,230,234              25,972,521
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             843,365                 852,939
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (10,540,724)                 410,696
<INCOME-TAX>                                   272,374                 345,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (10,813,098)                  65,196
<DISCONTINUED>                             (5,438,435)                 787,153
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                              (16,251,533)                 852,349
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.37)                    0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.37)                    0.07
        

</TABLE>
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In the Matter of D.T.M., a Child

No. 06

- 18

- 00071

- CV Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 of Gregg County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 5805

- J ). Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Morriss, Justice Burgess and Justice Stevens participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial court

. We note that the appellant has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RE NDERED APRIL 17, 2019 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors

Braintech, Inc.

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No. 333-126190, 333-64872 and 333-92253) on Form S-8 of Braintech, Inc. of our report dated February 9, 2006, except for note 18(b), which is as of March 21, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Braintech, Inc. as of December 31, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit) and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2005, annual report on Form 10-KSB of Braintech, Inc. Our report dated February 9, 2006, except for note 18(b), which is as of March 21, 2006, contains an explanatory paragraph that states that the Company has incurred recurring losses from operations which raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern. The consolidated financial statements do not include any adjustments thatmight result from the outcome of that uncertainty.

 

**SmytheRatcliffe (signed)**

Chartered Accountants 

Vancouver, Canada 

March 29, 2006
# C_2005082EN.01001501.xml

| 2.4.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/15

---

Action brought on 3 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities against the Italian Republic

(Case C-44/05)

(2005/C 82/31)

Language of the case: Italian

An action against the Italian Republic was brought before the Court of Justice of the European Communities on 3 February 2005 by the Commission of the European Communities, represented by E. Traversa and M. Huttunen, acting as Agents, with an address for service in Luxembourg.

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| 1. | declare that, by not having adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/30/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports or, in any case, by not having communicated such measures to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

declare that, by not having adopted the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/30/EC (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 March 2002 on the establishment of rules and procedures with regard to the introduction of noise-related operating restrictions at Community airports or, in any case, by not having communicated such measures to the Commission, the Italian Republic has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

1

| 2. | order the Italian Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

order the Italian Republic to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

The period prescribed for transposition of the directive into national law expired on 28 September 2003.

---

(1)  OJ L 85 of 28 March 2002, p. 40.

1

---
### Thursday, November 12, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC S ubmitted Electronically via the Federal Docket Management System (FDMS)

Re : Kimley

- Horn and Associates , Inc. Petition for Amendment to Exemption Docket FAA 2015

- 2693 , under Section 333 of the FAA Modernization and Ref orm Act, 49 U.S.C. 44701(f), and 14 C.F.R. Part 11, to add the DJI Inspire 1 Unmanned Aircraft

. To whom it may concern,
Kimley

- Horn and Associates Inc. would like to add an addendum to our request for exemption from Part 21 Subpart H; and Sections 91.203 (a) (1), 45.23 (b), 91.7 (a), 91.9, 61.113, 61.133, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151, and (91.401

- 91.417) Subp art E, of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). This proposed addendum would allow for the operation of an a dditional unmanned aircraft , DJI Inspire 1 for the purpose s of 

### aerial data acquisition, LiDAR survey, videography and photography

. This exemption cites simi larity with relief previously requested in Grant of Exemption Nos. 11445, 11062, 11109, 11112, 11213, and 11138

.
The DJI Inspire 1 is a multi rotor air craft similar to th e CineWing

- 6 already listed in our exemption request ( Exemption Docket FAA 2015

- 2693

- 0001 )

. At the time of su bmission of our request for exemption, the DJI Inspire 1 was newly released and not yet vetted in the industry and since that time has proven to be the best in breed technology for the p urposes we propose to fly under. We would like to request the addition of this unmanned a ircraft due to technology improvements, to remain competitive , and increased demand for services of this kind at Kimley

- Horn and Associates , Inc

. The User M anual v1.8 , Safety G uidelines v1.0 , and Maintenance Manual v 1.0 for the DJI Inspire 1 can be found at this link http://www.dji.com/product/inspire

- 1/download
No other changes are being asked for in the original request. I am the primary point of contact for this request and look forw ard to working with your office.

Respectfully ,

Bobby Valentine Firmwide Project Visualization , Kimley

- Horn and Associates Inc. 4582 South Ulster Street Suite 1500 Denver, Colorado 80237 d : (720)636

- 8304 c: (303)669

- 4165 bobby.valentine@kimley

- horn.com
fs1ex10iii_ea3swap.htm


     

     

     

    Exhibit
10.3

     

     

     

     

    ASSIGNMENT
OF CONVERTIBLE NOTE

     

    The
undersigned, Erin Reusch, for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which
is hereby acknowledged, hereby assigns to the parties listed below, all of its
right, title and interest, in that certain Convertible Promissory Note, for an
amount of Five Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars ($530,000) dated from 01/02/2001
and ending on 08/01/2004, entered into for services and monies rendered on
behalf of the Company by Robert Alick, executed by Energy Control Systems, Corp.
and in such portions or percentages as set forth by the names of the repective
assignees:

     

    Assignee
Name                     
Amount Assigned

     

    Robert S.
Pearson                  
100%

     

    A
facsimile transmission of the undersigned's signature shall be sufficient to
serve as my assignment of the subject Convertible Promissory Note.

     

     

    
      	 	/s/Erin
      Reusch,
	 	 Erin
      Reusch,
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1339 

To permanently authorize the special immigrant nonminister religious worker 

program. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 14, 2015 

Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. CARDIN) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permanently authorize the special immigrant nonminister 

religious worker program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SPECIAL IMMIGRANT NONMINISTER RELI4 GIOUS WORKER PROGRAM. 

5 Section 101(a)(27)(C)(ii) of the Immigration and 

6 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(27)(C)(ii)) is amend7 ed— 

8 (1) in subclause (I), by striking the comma at 

9 the end and inserting a semicolon; 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1339 IS

1 (2) by striking ‘‘before September 30, 2015,’’ 

2 each place such phrase appears; and 

3 (3) in subclause (II), by striking ‘‘, or’’ and in4 serting ‘‘; or’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS