alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
December 8, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DESERGIO GETERUS PARRISH, Appellant

NO. 14-14-00828-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-10622

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICKY LEE MOULDER,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:98-CR-7-ALL

- - - - - - - - - -

April 6, 1999

Before DAVIS, DUHE’ and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Ricky Lee Moulder has filed a

brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). 

Our independent review of the brief and record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused from further

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th

Cir. R. 42.2.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                         753,708
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  787,244
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,621,548
<PP&E>                                         884,972
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,359
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,895,065
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       11,257,472
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,000,000
<COMMON>                                        22,103
<OTHER-SE>                                  (4,260,509)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                (2,238,406)
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               441,709
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  402,925
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            13,873,116
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (27,608)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (13,806,724)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (13,806,724)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (13,806,724)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.66)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.66)


</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 16-1770

___________________________

John Mainama Omariba

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

Loretta E. Lynch, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

____________

 Submitted: November 29, 2016

Filed: December 5, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SMITH, BOWMAN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

John Mainama Omariba, a citizen of Kenya, petitions for review of an order of

the Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the decision of an

immigration judge denying him withholding of removal and relief under the

Convention Against Torture. After careful consideration, we conclude that
substantial evidence supports the decision. See De Castro-Gutierrez v. Holder, 713

F.3d 375, 379-82 (8th Cir. 2013). The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

-2-
#### King vs. Whiton and another, Ex’rs.

October 11.

If a referee is entitledto demand Us fees before filing his report, tbe party interested in haying it filed cannot compel the opposite party to advance the fees. — So *held*in a case where the party who had cited executors to account before the probate court, had appealed from its decision to the circuit court, where the matter was referred on her motion, and the referees, after agreeing upon their report, refused to file it until their fees were paid, und the plaintiff made affidavit that she was unable to pay them.

APPEAL from tbe Circuit Court for *Bock*County.

Tbe case is stated by tbe court.

*J. A. Sleeper,*for appellants.

*Sloan, Patten*& *Bailey,*for respondent.

*By ike Court,*

Paine, J.

This is an appeal from an order requiring tbe appellants to advance tbe sum of $162.00, ref*691erees’ fees. They bad been cited to account before tbe probate court on tbe application of tbe respondent, and sbe appealed from tbe decision of that court to tbe circuit court. The matter was there referred on her motion, and after tbe referees bad agreed on their report, they refused to file it until their fees were paid. On an affidavit showing this, and the respondent’s inability to pay, tbe judge made this order requiring tbe appellants to pay tbe fees within three days, and that in default thereof an execution should issue.

We know of no law justifying such a practice. Tbe fees of referees are taxable as costs, and if they are entitled to demand them before filing their report, there is no way by which either party interested in having it filed can compel the other to advance their fees. If the respondent was unable to advance them, that was unfortunate. But it would not constitute a reason for compelling the appellants to advance them, any more than it would for compelling them to advance money to secure the attendance of the respondent’s witnesses, or to pay counsel, or any other of the ordinary expenses of litigation.

The order is reversed, with costs. •
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00664-CV

Stephen TORRES,

Appellant

v.

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012-CI-13430

Honorable Stephani A. Walsh, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE MARTINEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

REVERSED and the cause is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent 

with this opinion. Costs of the appeal are taxed against the City of San Antonio.

SIGNED December 7, 2016.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
#### Mary M. Watson, Plff. *v.*John D. Phyfe *et al.,*Defts.

*(Supreme Court, New York Chambers,*

*Filed March*5, 1887.)

1. Pp.actxce — New trial — Calendar practice — Code Civ. Pro., § 997.

Where a judgment has been reversed on appeal, and a new trial granted, either party has the right to have the case advanced and placed on the day calendar for trial.

Andrews, J.

Plaintiff’s counsel is mistaken in supposing that the court has any discretion in regard to granting or denying this motion. The action has been once tried, and upon such trial the complaint was dismissed. On appeal, the decision of the court below was reversed and a new trial ordered. The defendant desires that a new trial should be speedily had, but the plaintiff wishes the *new*trial postponed.

It is perfectly well settled that in a case like this either party has a right to have the case placed on the day calendar for trial. It is not a question ofwhether the action shall have a preference which is addressed to the discretion of the court,'but a matter of absolute right.

There lias been some difference of opinion- in regard to the status of an action which has been once tried and where on appeal a new trial has been ordered. Section 977 of the Code provides that in this district an action once noticed for trial shall remain on the calendar until it has been disposed of. Whether an action which has been tried has been disposed of depends upon whether an appeal is taken, and upon the disposition of such appeal which is made by the general term. If a new trial is ordered the case cannot be said to have been disposed of.

In cases of this character it is considered by some of the judges that the action is to be regarded as holding the same position as though it had been marked “ generally reserved,” and that either party has a right to have it put on the day calendar on two days-’ notice. It is thought by others that in cases of this character the action must, in this district as well as in others, be renoticed for trial and a new note of issue filed with the clerk.

. So far as I am aware, however, it has always been held that in eases of this description either party has a right to have the case placed on the day calendar. An order must therefore be entered directing the elerk to place this action on the day calendar. The order will be settled on notice.
U.S. Department of Transportation Office ofthe Secretary OfTransportation January 20, 2015

Ms. LisaA. Harig Counsel for CompassAirlines, LLC McBreen & Kopko 1501 Lee Highway, Suite 180 Arlington, VA 22209
Dear Ms. Harig: 1200 NewJersey Ave., S.E. Washington, DC 20590

Thank you for promptly responding to our letter ofJanuary 8, 2015, pertaining to the request of Compass Airlines, LLC ("Compass") for confidential treatment of certain documents submitted to the Department in connection with the air carrier's request for amended authority. We have reviewed the submission and find that it does not fully respond to our January 8 letter with respect to Exhibit 2. Specifically, we only granted confidential treatment to the projected revenues and projected net income portions ofthe exhibit. We did not grant confidentialityto the air carrier'sprojected expenses. Thus, we askthat Compass provide us with arevised Exhibit 2. Also, since our last informal fitness review for Compass in 2011, we ask that the air carrier submit income statements for the 12-month periods ending September 30, 2012, and 2013. Lastly, Compass provided updated resumes for its key technical personnel and stated in its applicationthatthere have been no changes to its key managementpersonnel since the air carrier's last fitness review. Considering that nearly three years have elapsed since
our last review of the air carrier, please provide a list of Compass' key management personnel so that we are able to verify thatwe have reviewed eachperson's qualifications and compliance information. Thankyou for your cooperation inthis matter. Ifyouhave any questions, please feel free to contactme at 202-366-9721 orVanessa.balgobin@dot.gov.

VanessaR. Balgobin Analyst, Air CarrierFitness Division Office ofAviation Analysiscc: DocketDOT-OST-2014-0178
Mr. DavidJ.A. Hayes III, Esq. Vice President & General Counsel Trans States Holdings, Inc. 11495 Navaid Road Bridgeton, MO 63044 2
- -

August 27, 2014 

Carol Sutkus 

State of California 

Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District 

43301 Division St., Suite 206 

Lancaster, CA 93535-4649 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Air Resources Board 

P. 0 . Box 28 15 

Sacramento, California 95812 

661.723.8070 

Fax 661.723.3450 

Eldon Heaston, Executive Director 

Project Title: Amendment of A VAQMD Rule 701 -Air Pollution Emergency Contingency Actions 

Dear Ms. Sutkus: 

The Antelope Valley Air Quality Management District (AVAQMD) requests that the California Air 

Resources Board submit amended Rule 701 - Air Pollution Emergency Contingency, to the United States 

Environmenta l Protection Agency (USEPA) for inclusion in the State Implementation Plan (SIP). 

The amendments to Rule 70 I are primarily procedural in nature . They are intended to revise terminology 

to reflect the current name, status and structure of the A V AQMD. The amendment will also adjust 

Episode Criteria for PM 

The District requests CARB to submit the proposed amendment of Rule 70 I to replace the SIP version in 

effect in the A V AQMD. 

If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact me at (66 1) 723-8070, extension 2, or 

Barbara Lods at extension 3. Pl ease note that all documents required for a complete submission were sent 

electronica lly on August 27, 2014. 

Bret Banks 

Operations Manager 

BSB/bl CARB SIP Submittal Request A V Rule 70 I 052014 

0 Pr•nled on recycled paper Antelope valley
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Cause No. DA 22

- 0554

CHERYL VOEGEL,

Plaintiff & Appellant,

v.

DEVYN SALSBERY,

Defendant & Appellee,

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time,

there being no objection from the State, and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension

of time to and including January 6 , 202 3 , within which to prepare, file,

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of the Supreme Court

November 29 2022

11/29/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0554
Exhibit 99.36

News
Release
November 23, 2000

Trading Symbols:TRBD (EASDAQ)

TURBODYNE ANNOUNCES THE ELECTION OF  FRIEDRICH GOES AS CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD

Carpinteria, CaliforniaNovember 23, 2000Turbodyne Technologies, Inc.,
(EASDAQ: TRBD) reports that Dr.-Ing. Friedrich Goes has been elected to the position of Chairman of Board of Turbodyne Technologies, Inc.

On
November 17, 2000 at a meeting of the Board of Directors of Turbodyne Technologies, Inc., Dr.-Ing. Friedrich Goes was elected to the position of Chairman
of the Board. At the same meeting, the Board of Directors voted to relieve Professor Dr.-Ing. Peter Hofbauer of his duties as Chairman of the Board due to his heavy schedule and
responsibilities at FEV Engine Technology, Inc. in Auburn Hills, MI, where he holds the position of Executive Vice President. Dr. Hofbauer will continue to serve as a member of the Board
and to contribute his valuable experience to the Company.

Dr.-Ing.
Friedrich Goes has had a distinguished career in the automotive industry and brings substantial experience to the position. He was employed by Volkswagen AG for
32 years. He worked in the Research and Development Divisions in Germany, the United States and Spain, and from 1969 to 1994 he served as General Manager for Passenger Car Test &
Development and Corporate Engineering Planning. For eight years he was a member of the Board of Directors and Executive Vice-President for Product Engineering and Volkswagen/SEAT in Spain
and Volkswagen of America. Dr. Goes holds a Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering from the Technical University of Braunschweig, Germany.

Turbodyne
Technologies, Inc., a California based high technology company, specializes in the development of charging technology for internal combustion engines and the
development and manufacturing of high-tech assemblies for electrically assisted turbochargers and superchargers. Turbodyne Technologies' headquarters is located in Carpinteria, California,
and its European office is located in Frankfurt, Germany.

Contacts:

Kenneth
FitzpatrickInvestor Relations at California Headquarters: (800) 566-1130
Markus KumbrinkInvestor Relations at Frankfurt: +49-69-69-76-73-13

---

QuickLinks
```

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 65618]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-26047]

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

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED

Procurement List; Proposed Deletions

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled.

ACTION: Proposed Deletions from the Procurement List.

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

SUMMARY: The Committee is proposing to delete a product and service 
previously furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are 
blind or have other severe disabilities.
    Comments Must Be Received on or Before: 12/2/2013.

ADDRESSES: Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely 
Disabled, 1401 S. Clark Street, Suite 10800, Arlington, Virginia 22202-
4149.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION OR TO SUBMIT COMMENTS CONTACT: Barry S. 
Lineback, Telephone: (703) 603-7740, Fax: (703) 603-0655, or email 
CMTEFedReg@AbilityOne.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published pursuant to 41 
U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide 
interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed 
actions.

Deletions

    The following product and service are proposed for deletion from 
the Procurement List:

Product

NSN: 7930-01-367-0989--Cleaner, Water Soluble
NPA: Association for the Blind and Visually Impaired--Goodwill 
Industries of Greater Rochester, Rochester, NY
Contracting Activity: General Services Administration, Fort Worth, 
TX

Service

Service Type/Location: Janitorial/Custodial Service, Naval & Marine 
Corps Reserve Center, Spokane, WA
NPA: Career Connections, Spokane, WA
    Contracting Activity: Dept of the Navy, U.S. Fleet Forces 
Command, Norfolk, VA

Barry S. Lineback,
Director, Business Operations.
[FR Doc. 2013-26047 Filed 10-31-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6353-01-P
```
Dear Mr. Fiquett:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition 

(Docket No. FAA−2015−2875). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Provide a copy of the Motion Picture and Television Operations Manual (MPTOM) 

which is required by Order 8900.1, Volume 3, Chapter 8, Section 1. If you wish for us to 

proceed without this manual and remove closed-set filming from your proposed operation 

please inform of us of your intention by the requested response date listed below.

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 email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any 

further, we must receive the information described above by 11/11/15. 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) 267-4549.

Sincerely,

/s/

Michael J. Cameron

Program Analyst
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
UNAUDITED  CONDENSED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FILED WITH THE COMPANY'S  SEPT 30,
2000,  QUARTERLY  REPORT ON FORM  10-QSB AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY  BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<CIK>         0001104671
<NAME>       Cairo Acquisitions, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. Dollars


<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                               1
<CASH>                                        551
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              551
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         3,193
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      6,043
<OTHER-SE>                                    (8,685)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  551
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              0
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 8,094
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               0
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (8,094)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (8,094)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0


</TABLE>
August 8, 2016

Mr. Jason Snyder

Tri State Aerial Solutions

1236 12th Street

Nitro, WV 25143

Re: FAA–2016–4739

Dear Mr. Snyder:

This letter is to provide notification that we have reviewed your petition for exemption, and 

have determined that we will continue to process your petition. 

As referenced in the June 22, 2016, letter posted to your docket at www.regulations.gov, we 

are reviewing pending Section 333 petitions to determine if the recently-issued regulation, 

Operation and Certification of Small Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Title 14, Code of Federal 

Regulations, Part 107 (www.faa.gov/uas) will satisfy your request. We have determined that 

your request requires further regulatory relief (Tier 3), and we will continue working on your 

petition for exemption. 

We have found that your petition, if granted, would set a precedent. Therefore, we will 

publish a summary of your petition in the Federal Register for public comments, if we have 

not done so already.

We will advise you of the agency’s final decision on your petition as soon as possible. If you 

have any questions regarding your petition, please contact me at 333exemptions@faa.gov. 

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst