alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 11/20/2019 by C lerk of Su preme Court



### I N T H E S U P RE M E C O U R T
S T A T E O F N O R T H D A KO T A

2019 ND 269

Eybon Avyon Watkins, Petitioner and Appellant

v.
State of North Dakota, Respondent and Appellee

No. 20190085

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable David E. Reich , Judge.

AFFIRMED.

P e r Curiam

.

Mark Sherer, Dickinson, N

. D

., for p etitioner and a ppellant ; s ubmitted on b rief.

Julie Lawyer, Bismarck, N

. D

., for r espondent and a ppellee ; submitted on b rief.1 Watkins v. State
No. 20190085

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Eybon Avyon Watkins appeals from an order denying his petition for

post -conviction relief. Following a jury trial, Watkins was convicted of
committing the offense of robbery in violation of N.D.C.C. § 12.1- 22 -01.

Watkins petitioned for post-conviction relief alleging ineffective assistance of

counsel during the trial. After a hearing, the district court denied the petition.

[¶2] We summarily affirm the district court’s order under N.D.R.App.P.
35.1(a)(2) concluding the court's findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and

the court did not err in determining that Watkins failed to establish his

counsel’s represe ntation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. The evidence supports the court’s findings that the errors Watkins claims his

counsel committed were attributable to trial strategy. Noorlun v. State

, 2007 ND 118, ¶ 14, 736 N.W.2d 477; N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2).

[¶3] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J. Jon J. Jensen Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte
Filed 12/5/16 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2016 ND 226

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Mark Anthony Butts, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20160125

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial District, the Honorable Bruce B. Haskell, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Laura C. Ringsak, 103 S. Third St., Ste. 6, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Marina Spahr, Assistant State’s Attorney, 514 E. Thayer Avenue, Bismarck, N.D. 58501, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.

State v. Butts

No. 20160125

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Mark Butts appeals the district court’s order denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea.  Butts argues the district court abused its discretion in concluding Butts failed to establish a fair and just reason why he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.  In State v. Lium, we laid out nine factors a district court could consider to determine whether a fair and just reason exists to withdraw a guilty plea prior to sentencing.  2008 ND 232, ¶ 17, 758 N.W.2d 711.  Here, we hold the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying these factors by denying Butts’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea.  Therefore, we affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(4).

[¶2]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Lisa Fair McEvers

Daniel J. Crothers

Dale V. Sandstrom

Carol Ronning Kapsner
1100 LOUISIANA        SUITE 3800    HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-5218        TELEPHONE (713) 651-9191     FAX (713) 651-0849



EXHIBIT 23.1



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS



We consent to the use of the name of this firm and of certain information contained in our reserve report as of December 31,
2001, prepared for Mariner Energy, Inc. ("Mariner"), in Mariner's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001.





RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.

Houston, Texas
March 25, 2002



|100, 530 - 8TH AVENUE, S.W.600 17TH STREET, SUITE 1610N | CALGARY, ALBERTA T2P 3S8DENVER, COLORADO 80202-5416 | TEL (403) 262-2799(303) 623-9147 | FAX (403) 262-2790(303) 623-4258
|------------------------------------------------------- | --------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------- | --------------------------------
Opinion issued December 6, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-16-00554-CV

———————————

HARRIS COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, Appellant

V.

BRAY INTERNATIONAL INC. AND FLOW-TEK INC., Appellees

On Appeal from the 11th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2015-67399

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Harris County Appraisal District, representing that it no longer 

wishes to pursue this appeal and the parties have settled the underlying dispute, has

filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal and expedite issuance of the 
2

mandate. No other party has filed a notice of appeal and no opinion has issued. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1), (c).

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

42.1(a), 43.2(f). We direct the Clerk of this Court to issue the mandate within seven

days of the date of this opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 18.1(c). We dismiss any other 

pending motions as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Bland.
## Development of Chemical Precipitation Purchased Equipment Costs:

Sand Filters

Purchased Equipment Costs are the sum of the following cost elements:

(1) Pump Costs

(2) Tank Costs

(3) Chemical Feed System Costs

(4) Mixer Costs

(5) Clarifier Costs

(6) Filter Press Costs

(7) Sand Filter Costs

Each cost component includes the cost of freight and associated ancillary equipment such as piping, valves, and

controllers.

Th is tele phone contact report supports EPA’s development of cost element (7) by documenting EPA's

communication with a vendor regarding purchase costs for continuous backwash gravity sand filters used in the

Steam Electric cost model.Project No.: 0172. 08 .02 9 .0 4 4 DISTRIBUTION

Page _ 1 _ of __ 1

_

Project Name: Steam /Cost/Compliance Modeling

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Outgoing Call Date: 03/ 18 / 2011 Time: 11 :00 am EST

Company Name: Siemens Contact Name: Miguel Gutierrez

Phone No : ( 2 29 )

- 227

- 8 778

Name: Rekha Hareendran ETI Professionals, Inc.

GENERAL SUBJECT: Vendor cost request for continuous backwash gravity sand filters for a chemical precipitation wastewater treatment

system.

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On Friday

, March 18 , 20 1 1 at 1 1 : 0 0 am I contacted Mr. Miguel Gutierrez . I explained to M r

. Gutierrez that we

are working on conceptual level costing of a chemical precipitation wastewater treatment system to treat FGD

(flue gas desulfurization) wastewater fr om steam electric power plants

, and a s a part of this project we

are trying to collect cost information on different components or units of a chemical p recipitation system

.

I told Mr. Gutierrez that we are interested in c ontinuous backwash gravity sand filters for flows ranging from

30,000 gpd to 1,000,000 gpd (20 to 700 gpm) . I requested information such as purchase cost, cost for ancillary

equipments a nd power consumption (if applicable) . Mr

. Gutierrez indicated that he would like to have

information on the expected solids content with the flow rates provided by us.

Mr. Gutierrez agreed to send information on tank units as well as concrete basins

, and he w ill also list the

assumptions (for solids content) made for the cost estimate

. Mr. Gutierrez indicated that it could take him a

week to gather the requested information. I followed up with an e mail to Mr. Gutierrez with all the information

provid ed during this call.
Exhibit 32

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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 of ASPI, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K
for the twelve  months  ending  June 30, 2009 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the  "Report")  I, David J.  Cutler,
President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, and Director of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 USC  Section  1350,  as adopted  pursuant to
section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief:

         (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 results of operations of the
Company.


Date: October 13, 2009

By: /s/ David J. Cutler
   ----------------------
David J. Cutler
Chief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10048

Summary Calendar 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee 

v. 

ERICK MAYORGA, 

Defendant-Appellant 

Appeals from the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:15-CR-130-1 

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Erick Mayorga 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). 

Mayorga has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the 

relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Mayorga’s response. 

We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

 

* 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

December 6, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10048 Document: 00513786150 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/06/2016
No. 16-10048

2 

issue for 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: 16-10048 Document: 00513786150 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/06/2016
1

Daniels, Nia (FAA)

From: Daniels, Nia (FAA)

Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 9:39 AM

To: 'multicoptermaui@gmail.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Request for Additional Information: Multicopter Maui LLC (Docket No. FAA-2015-1227)

July 27, 2015 

Dear Mr. Tassara: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-1227). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s)(i.e. - fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the 

proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the maximum weight (including 

payload). This information can be located in the aircraft manual(s). 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov and submit 

any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via e-mail to 

333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the information 

described above by August 10, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without 

notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

Nia Daniels, ARM‐108

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Rulemaking, Airmen & Airspace Rules Division

800 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

PH: (202) 267 ‐ 7626

Fax: (202) 267 ‐ 5075

nia.daniels@faa.gov
**Exhibit 21**

 

**Subsidiaries of Firearms Training Systems, Inc.**

 

The Company has one wholly owned subsidiary, FATS, Inc., which is the operating subsidiary (the Operating Subsidiary). As of March 31,2005, FATS, Inc. had five wholly owned subsidiaries: Firearms Training Systems Limited, which is based in the United Kingdom; F.A.T.S. Singapore Pte, Ltd.; Firearms Training Systems Netherlands, B.V.; FATS Canada, Inc., which is based in Montreal,Canada (Canada); and Firearms Training Systems Australia Pty Ltd. On April 1, 2004, FATS Canada, Inc. and FATS Canada Holdings, Inc. completed an amalgamation under Section 185 of the *Canada Business Corporations Act* with FATS Canada, Inc.continuing as the amalgamated corporation.
Exhibit 13.2




CARTHEW BAY TECHNOLOGIES INC.




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 of Carthew Bay Technologies Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brian D. Clewes, Secretary, Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.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/ Brian D. ClewesBrian D. ClewesSecretary, Treasurer, and Chief Financial OfficerNovember 14, 2011
# C_2015112EN.01000201.xml

| 2.4.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.4.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.7501 — China Shipbuilding Power Engineering Institute/Wärtsilä Technology/CSSC Wärtsilä Engine)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2015/C 112/03)

On 25 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 English 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 32015M7501. 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 32015M7501. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

1

---
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-11007

Summary Calendar

 

DANNY O. CRAWFORD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF RICHARDSON, 

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(3:98-CV-731-L)

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

August 7, 2002

Before DAVIS, WIENER, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Danny O. Crawford appeals the district

court’s take-nothing judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee (“the

City”) following a bench trial. Crawford asserts seven issues,

challenging, inter alia, the sufficiency of the evidence to support

the factual findings of the City’s Civil Service Board and the

district court, and the legal conclusions of that court. 
2

We have reviewed the record on appeal, the appellate briefs of

the parties, and the extensive Memorandum Opinion and Order of the

district court, which fully explicates the operative facts and

pertinent law. We are convinced by our review that the district

court’s thorough disposition of Crawford’s largely meritless case

correctly applied the pertinent law to the material facts.

Essentially for the reasons set forth by the district court in its

comprehensive opinion, the judgment of that court is, in all

respects,

AFFIRMED.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

FORT WORTH 

NO. 02-15-00329-CV 

In the Interest of A.J., a minor child § 

§ 

§ 

§ 

From the 360th District Court 

of Tarrant County (360-583535-15) 

December 1, 2016 

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot 

JUDGMENT 

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s order. It is ordered that the order of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

It is further ordered that appellant N. E. H. (Father) shall bear the costs of 

this appeal, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _/s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot______________ 

 Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2767 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2767

  To authorize certain Federal departments to enter into contracts to 
carry out existing authorities to protect United States facilities from 
                           unmanned aircraft.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 21, 2021

    Mr. Lee introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To authorize certain Federal departments to enter into contracts to 
carry out existing authorities to protect United States facilities from 
                           unmanned aircraft.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Enhanced Protection from Unmanned 
Aircraft Attacks Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORITY TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS TO PROTECT FACILITIES FROM 
              UNMANNED AIRCRAFT.

    (a) Authority.--The following Federal departments are authorized to 
enter into contracts to carry out the following authorities:
            (1) The Department of Defense for the purpose of carrying 
        out activities under section 130i of title 10, United States 
        Code.
            (2) The Department of Homeland Security for the purpose of 
        carrying out activities under section 210G of the Homeland 
        Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 124n).
            (3) The Department of Justice for the purpose of carrying 
        out activities under section 210G of the Homeland Security Act 
        of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 124n).
            (4) The Department of Energy for the purpose of carrying 
        out activities under section 4510 of the Atomic Energy Defense 
        Act (50 U.S.C. 2661).
    (b) Federal Acquisition Regulation.--Not later than 180 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the Federal Acquisition 
Regulatory Council shall amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation to 
implement the authority provided under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
# C_2014391EN.01000201.xml

| 6.11.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 391/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.11.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 391/2

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

5 November 2014

2014/C 391/02

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2480 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 143,21 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4426 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,78430 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 9,2164 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2043 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,5740 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,823 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 309,05 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2336 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4193 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,7919 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4494 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4281 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,6747 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6135 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6170 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 360,83 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,9000 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,6310 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6628 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 223,74 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,1798 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 56,288 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 55,3520 |
| THB | Thai baht | 40,993 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,1428 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,9834 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 76,7511 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2480

JPY

Japanese yen

143,21

DKK

Danish krone

7,4426

GBP

Pound sterling

0,78430

SEK

Swedish krona

9,2164

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2043

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,5740

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,823

HUF

Hungarian forint

309,05

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2336

RON

Romanian leu

4,4193

TRY

Turkish lira

2,7919

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4494

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4281

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,6747

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6135

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6170

KRW

South Korean won

1 360,83

ZAR

South African rand

13,9000

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,6310

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6628

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 223,74

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,1798

PHP

Philippine peso

56,288

RUB

Russian rouble

55,3520

THB

Thai baht

40,993

BRL

Brazilian real

3,1428

MXN

Mexican peso

16,9834

INR

Indian rupee

76,7511

---

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

1

Source

---