alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
4000 Town Center Boulevard • Suite 310 • Canonsburg PA 15317 | P 724.745.0100 | F 724.745.0600 | www.marcelluscoalition.org April 2 0 , 2011

Secretary Michael Krancer Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Rachel Carson State Office Building

400 Market Street Harrisburg, PA 17101

Dear Secretary Krancer:

On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Marcellus Shale Coalition (MSC), I write to you today to express our commitment to meet the call of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to halt the delivery of flowback and pr oduced water from shale gas extraction to the facilities that currently accept it

under special provisions of last year’ s Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) regulations. Our members are carefully reviewing their operations and support achieving this milestone by May 19, 2011. The MS C

shares the DEP’ s dedication to the protection of public water supplies and is taking this action as a clear demonstration of that commitment. This decision is a further reflection of our Guiding Principles for

respo nsible natural gas production

– including our focus on state of the art environmental protections and increased transparency in our operations throughout the Commonwealth.

This action was spurred by our exposure to new research on increased levels of bromide in western Pennsylvania waterways and coming to a better understanding of how our industry can mitigate bromide loading. We expect to be actively involved with you and your department as we develop and implement the technologies and processes that will allow for th e additional increase in water reuse and treatment in such a short period of time. Concurrently, we encourage you and your department to conduct additional

evaluation of the various sources of bromide in the Commonwealth’ s waterways and their role in

cont ributing to trihalometha ne (THM) formation downstream. With this holistic approach, the residents of the Commonwealth can be satisfied that the issue will be addressed in a sustainable way.

The MSC recognizes the historic opportunity before the Commonwea lth at this critical juncture. To maximize the benefits of this opportunity for future generations, we understand that we must continue to operate responsibly with regard to our most important resources, notably Pennsylvania’ s environment.

Thank you for your leadership on this issue. The MSC and its members look forward to working with you and your staff on a successful implementation of this ambitious and worthy pursuit.

Sincerely,

Kathryn Z. Klaber

President

Marcellus Shale Coalition

Cc: Mr. Patrick Henderson, Energy Executive
# C_2014368EN.01000101.xml

| 17.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 368/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 368/1

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

16 October 2014

2014/C 368/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2749 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,95 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4455 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,79700 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,1931 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2061 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,4565 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,546 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 308,90 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2286 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4300 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,9017 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4645 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4446 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,8891 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6117 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6255 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 358,14 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 14,2101 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8071 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6648 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 653,93 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2025 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 57,327 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 52,4040 |
| THB | Thai baht | 41,423 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,1688 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,3750 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 78,8628 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2749

JPY

Japanese yen

134,95

DKK

Danish krone

7,4455

GBP

Pound sterling

0,79700

SEK

Swedish krona

9,1931

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2061

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,4565

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,546

HUF

Hungarian forint

308,90

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2286

RON

Romanian leu

4,4300

TRY

Turkish lira

2,9017

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4645

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4446

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,8891

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6117

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6255

KRW

South Korean won

1 358,14

ZAR

South African rand

14,2101

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8071

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6648

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 653,93

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2025

PHP

Philippine peso

57,327

RUB

Russian rouble

52,4040

THB

Thai baht

41,423

BRL

Brazilian real

3,1688

MXN

Mexican peso

17,3750

INR

Indian rupee

78,8628

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In the Matter of : No. 103 DB 2020 (No. 70 R ST 2020)

:

A. VICTORIA SHILTON : Attorney Registration No. 69992

:

PETITION FOR REINSTATEMENT :

FROM RETIRED STATUS : ( Out of State )

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 25 th day of September

, 2020 , the Report and Recommendation of

Disciplinary Board Member dated September 1 7 , 2020

, is approved and it is ORDERED

that A. Victoria S hilton

, who has been on Retired Status

, has never been suspended or

disbarred, and has demonstrated that s he has the moral qualifications, competency and

learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is,

hereby reinstated to active status as a member of th e Bar of this Commonwealth. The

expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of this matter shall

be paid by the Petitioner.
#### Emil Kimmel, Plaintiff, *v.*United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Defendant.

Municipal Court of New York, Borough of Bronx, Second District,

January 21, 1938.

*Thomas K. Saltzman,*for the plaintiff.

*William*J. *McArthur [Maury M. Katz*of counsel], for the defendant.

*908Levy, J.

The defendant issued to plaintiff a so-called merchants protective bond which, *inter alia,*provided coverage up to $100 for loss “ occasioned by hold-up, as defined in Condition 1, inflicted upon the obligee [the plaintiff], or any of the obligee’s employees, occurring upon and while said premises are open for .business,” Condition 1 of the contract defined “ hold-up ” as *“*a felonious and forcible taking of property by violence inflicted upon the obligee or any of the obligee’s employees, or by placing such persons in fear of violence.”

The plaintiff is the owner of a small candy store. On August 21, 1937, while the policy was in force, the store was in sole charge of the plaintiff’s wife. Shortly before noon a man entered, ordered and obtained from Mrs. Kimmel a bottle of ginger ale and went into a telephone booth in the store. He did not drink the ale nor use the phone but watched the plaintiff’s wife as she was counting the plaintiff’s money. Mrs. Kimmel noticed this and became frightened and concealed the box containing the money.

The man left the phone booth, went to the sidewalk in front of the store and dropped the bottle of ale. He then returned and ordered a new bottle of ale. The plaintiff’s wife complied and then she fetched a broom in the store and left to sweep the sidewalk. A few minutes later the man left the store and passed Mrs. Kimmel while she was still sweeping the sidewalk. Thereupon she returned to the store and found that the money which she thought she had concealed was missing. The loss claimed was eighty-two dollars.

Assuming that the man walked away with the money, the issue in this case is, was the taking a *“*hold-up ” as defined in the policy? That is, was it (1) felonious, and (2) forcible, and (3) perpetrated by placing the plaintiff’s wife in fear of violence?

We can assume that Mrs. Kimmel was placed in fear of violence. We can assume further that there was a taking and that this taking was felonious. I cannot find, however, that there was any “ forcible ” taking within the meaning of the contract of coverage. It seems to me that the taking in this case constituted a pilfering or sneak theft. The loss was occasioned by surreptitious larceny rather than by a forcible hold-up. Unfortunately for the plaintiff the agreement of indemnity in this case covers one type of loss, not the other, and the court is bound by the unambiguous language of the contract voluntarily entered into between the parties.

I find for the defendant on the facts and the law, dismissing the complaint on the merits. Five days’ stay of execution after entry and service of judgment.
#### Bound vs. Beach and others.

SnEitnn?: *Fee for copy of writ, etc.*

Where delivery of a copy of any "writ or other paper in an action is a necessary part of the service thereof, the fact that plaintiff voluntarily furnishes such copy does not affect the sheriff’s right to demand the statutory fee for making it, under section 1, ch. 133, R. S. 1858.

APPEAL from the Circuit Court for *Waushcvra*County.

The plaintiff delivered to the defendant *Beach,*for service, a summons and complaint in an action brought by him against several defendants residing and being in the county of which *Beach*was sheriff. At the same time the plaintiff furnished *Beach*with the necessary number of printed copies of the summons and complaint, and he used such copies in making the service. *Beach*exacted of the plaintiff the statutory fees for making such copies, which the plaintiff paid under protest. This action was brought on the bond of the sheriff, against him and his sureties therein, to recover treble damages under the statute (R. S., ch. 133, sec. 66) for the taking of such alleged illegal fees.

The bond is set out, and the above facts are alleged in the complaint. The defendants demurred to the complaint on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action. The plaintiff appealed from an order sustaining the demurrer.

The cause was submitted on the brief of *Henry Hayden*for the appellant, and that of *B. L. D. Potter*for the respondent.

LyoN, J.

We think the demurrer was properly sustained. The statute provides that the sheriff shall be entitled to a fee of ten cents per folio for *“*making a copy of any bond or undertaking, summons, writ, complaint or other paper served or taken, when required by law or demanded by a party.” R. S. 1858, ch. 133, sec. 1. We think this provision extends to every case in which delivery of a copy is a necessary part of *601the service. The sheriff is responsible for the accuracy of the copy served, and must necessarily verify it by comparison with the original before he can safely serve it; and the fee given by the statute is, doubtless, in part to indemnify him for such responsibility. It is quite immaterial where or how he obtains the copy which he serves. If he writes it himself, he *makes*it. So also if he employs a clerk to write it, or a printer to print it. And if some other person writes or prints it for him voluntarily (as in this ease), if the sheriff uses the copy thus furnished, we think he *makes*the copy within the meaning of the statute, and may lawfully demand and receive the prescribed statutory fees therefor. If the party requiring the service would avoid the payment of such fees by furnishing the necessary copies, he should specially contract with the sheriff to that effect. In this case, in the absence of any agreement on the subject (and none is alleged in the complaint), the fact that the plaintiff voluntarily furnished the necessary copies of the summons and complaint for service does not interfere with the right of the sheriff to demand and .receive the statutory fees for making such copies.

*By the Court.*■ — The order sustaining the demurrer to the complaint is affirmed.
• 

• - , C' ... - ' • 

I ~ -

r • V j {) fZ 

' " 

~ 

I 

~ A 

(_ "' ... ~ 

, ~ -

r 

-

... . 

, 

. I - --

. . - . ~ 

i..\ • 

-

.. ~ 

• . ' . . I 

. - .. ' 

'.'. i.. 

- "' ~ • I I f',.. .,
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF HOMECOM COMMUNICATIONS, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED 
DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       2,541,932
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  776,174
<ALLOWANCES>                                    95,384
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,227,518
<PP&E>                                       1,500,879
<DEPRECIATION>                                 703,616
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,565,490
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          961,793
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           507
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,447,942
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,565,490
<SALES>                                        351,363
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,292,410
<CGS>                                          228,694
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,601,311
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             5,851,366
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               167,675
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             445,216
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,204,140)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,204,140)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,204,140)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.44)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.44)
        

</TABLE>
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed August 

5, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-20-00150-CV

JESSICA JIMENEZ, Appellant

V.

VANLE PROPERTIES, LLC, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law #4

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 19-CCV-065820

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an appeal from a judgment signed February 12, 2020. On July 14, 

2021, appellant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. The 

motion is granted. 

We dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Hassan.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 May 20, 2015

a0513

Order 

Clerk

May 20, 2015

149053 & (36)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 149053

COA: 311726

Allegan CC: 11-017191-FC

DANNON LEWIS ANES,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

By order of November 26, 2014, the prosecuting attorney was directed to answer 

the application for leave to appeal the February 13, 2014 judgment of the Court of 

Appeals. On order of the Court, the answer having been received, the application for 

leave to appeal is again considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-14438

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

Agency No. A026-061-844

RODOLFO MARIO MARAVILLA, 

 Petitioner,

 versus

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, 

 Respondent.

________________________

Petition for Review of a Decision of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

________________________

(November 29, 2016)

Before WILLIAM PRYOR, JORDAN and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Case: 15-14438 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 1 of 3 
2

Rodolfo Mario Maravilla petitions for review of an order that expedited his 

removal from the United States as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. See

8 U.S.C. §§ 1228(b), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). Maravilla argues that the Department of 

Homeland Security failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he is an 

alien and that the Department violated his right to due process during the expedited 

removal proceedings. We dismiss in part and deny in part Maravilla’s petition.

We lack jurisdiction to review the finding that Maravilla is an alien. 

Maravilla received written notice that he was subject to removal as a native and 

citizen of Mexico who had been convicted twice in the Florida courts for drugrelated crimes and that he had ten days to submit evidence to rebut the charge. See

8 C.F.R. § 238.1(b)(2)(i). Maravilla failed to respond to the notice. “[A]bsent a 

cognizable excuse or exception,” we “lack jurisdiction to consider a claim raised in 

a petition for review unless the petitioner has exhausted his administrative 

remedies.” Amaya–Artunduaga v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 463 F.3d 1247, 1250 (11th Cir. 

2006). We dismiss this part of Maravilla’s petition.

The Department did not violate Maravilla’s right to due process. To 

establish a violation of due process, an alien must prove that he was deprived of 

liberty without notice or an opportunity to respond and that he was substantially 

prejudiced by the alleged error. Indrawati v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 779 F.3d 1284, 1299 

(11th Cir. 2015). Maravilla did not dispute that he was removable and instead 

Case: 15-14438 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 2 of 3 
3

applied for withholding of removal. Maravilla argues that he “did not have actual 

physical possession of the Notice” until three days before a response was due, but 

he failed to request an extension of time to respond despite being informed of that

right in the notice. And Maravilla cannot prove that he was prejudiced by the 

delay. Maravilla acknowledges that “he does not know where he was born” and he 

fails to identify any evidence that would have changed the outcome of his 

proceeding. We deny this part of Maravilla’s petition.

PETITION DISMISSED IN PART, DENIED IN PART.

Case: 15-14438 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 3 of 3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco,CA 94105

Robert D. Fletcher Deputy Executive Officer California Air Resources Board P.O. Box 2815 

## MAR 2

## 2 2011

Sacramento, CA 958 12 Dear MFtcher: / On December 30,2010, the California Air Resources Board submitted revisions to the California State ImplementationPlan (SIP). We have reviewed materials submitted with the following rules and found that they fulfill the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 5 1,Appendix V.



### In addition, the submittal included the following rules which implement the SCAQMD's Title V program. These rules should have been submitted, with the proper documentation, as a Title V program revision, rather than a SIP revision. ARB should submit a written request to withdraw the SIP submittal of Rules 3000-3006, and resubmit the rules as a Title V program revision. APCDIAQMD South Coast South Coast

This addresses all revisions in this submittal. 

### In the coming months we will review the complete revisions for action pursuant to Clean Air Act section 1lO(k). Questions regarding our completenessreview should be directed to Cynthia G. Allen at (415) 947-4.120. Sincexel y, Rule #

1714

.- 3008

Director, ~irbivision Rule Title Preventionof Significant Deteriorationfor Greenhouse Gases Potential to Emit Limitations

### cc: Dr. 

### Barry Wallerstein Executive Officer South Coast AQMD Mr. Jorge L. 

### Fernandez, Chief Program EvaluationBranch Stationary Source. Division
**Exhibit 99.3**

** **

 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

 

To the Board of Directors of John Deere Capital Corporation

 

 

We have examined management’s assertion that John Deere CapitalCorporation (the Company) has complied as of and for the period from inceptionto October 31, 2005, with its established minimum servicing standards describedin the accompanying Management’s Assertion – John Deere Owner Trust 2005 datedJanuary 24, 2006.  Management is responsiblefor the Company’s compliance with those minimum servicing standards.  Our responsibility is to express an opinionon management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance based on ourexamination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standardsestablished by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, asadopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board and accordingly,included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliancewith its minimum servicing standards and performing such other procedures as weconsidered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for ouropinion.  Our examination does not providelegal determination on the Company’s compliance with its minimum servicingstandards.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied withthe aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the period frominception to October 31, 2005, is fairly stated in all material respects basedon the criteria set forth in Appendix I.

 

 

January 24, 2006

 

19

----
# C_2015095EN.01001402.xml

| 21.3.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/14 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/14

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7496 — Panasonic/Ficosa Inversion/Ficosa International)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 95/04)

On 17 March 2015, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in the English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7496. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32015M7496. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---