alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Gregory POUND, Appellant, v. The HILTON AT LAKE CARILLON and Mandy Cataffo, Appellees.

Case No. 2D16-3509

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed February 21, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Antony Martyn CLEATON, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-1808

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

February 09, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Exhibit 31.1

Certifications

I, Gerry P. Smith,
certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of Office Depot, Inc.; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |                        
|------------------ |  | -----------------------
|/s/ Gerry P. Smith
|Name:              |  | Gerry P. Smith         
|Title:             |  | Chief Executive Officer
|Date:              |  | April 26, 2017
-86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

32 34 36 38 40 42


### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 06/01 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 01 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.92 N 77.01 WMeters AGL
NUMBER 13-20-00397-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

 

TROY CROWNOVER, Appellant,

v.

PAA CONSULTING, LLC, Appellee.

On appeal from the 117th District Court

of Nueces County, Texas.

ORDER OF ABATEMENT

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes

Order Per Curiam

This matter is before the Court on its own motion. The record before the Court fails 

to illustrate that all claims asserted by or against all parties have been 

disposed. Appellant attempts to appeal an order entered on August 10, 2020, in which

the trial court ordered partial final summary judgment and proports to sever all causes of 

action between Plaintiff Troy Crownover and Defendant PAA Consulting Inc. The order, 
however, fails to provide a new cause number for the severed party.

The record reflects litigation with other parties still pending under the original trial 

court cause number; furthermore, there is a line in the order where the new cause 

number, if any, would be written. Under these circumstances, a court of appeals

may abate a cause in order to permit clarification by the trial court. Lehmann v. Har-Con 

Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191 at 206 (stating the appellate court may allow an appealed order 

that is not final to be modified so as to be made final and may allow the modified order 

and all proceedings relating to it to be included in a supplemental record); see Tex. R. 

App. P. 27.2, 44.3.

Accordingly, we ABATE the appeal and REMAND the cause to the trial court for 

clarification. Upon remand, the trial court shall address the following:

1. Whether the trial court intended the judgment to be severed, and the new cause 

number;

2. Whether the trial court intended to completely dispose of all claims and all parties.

The trial court shall cause its findings and recommendations, together with any 

orders it may enter regarding the aforementioned issues, to be included in a supplemental 

clerk's record. Furthermore, the trial court shall cause a supplemental reporter's record of 

any proceedings to be prepared. The supplemental clerk's record and supplemental 

reporter's record, if any, shall be filed with the Clerk of this Court on or before the 

expiration of thirty days from the date of this order. This appeal will be reinstated upon 

receipt of the foregoing materials and upon further order of this Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

19th day of November, 2020.
EX PARTE Derrick L. WILLIAMS

CR-16-0040

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

February 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
Laura Ann CANCIO n/k/a Laura Ann Davis, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Juan Manuel CANCIO, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 3D17-1968

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

AUGUST 31, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
**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 connectionwith the Annual Report of Environmental Remediation Holding Corporation (the“Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 2003 (the “Report”),as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I EzeEchesi, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to suchofficer’s knowledge, that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.             The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,as amended; and

 

2.             The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:                            | /s/ Eze  Echesi |   | December 29,  2003 |
|--------------------------------|-----------------|--------|--------------------|
| Eze Echesi                     |            |
| Chief Financial Officer        |            |
| (Principal Accounting Officer) |            |

 

----
Brian HOBBS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1845

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 13, 2018 Rehearing Denied April 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Thomas SAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-1282

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
#### Ofelia Elizabeth ALVARADO-MELENDEZ and Genesis Elizabeth Lopez-Alvarado, Petitioners, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS, III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-73035

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted February 14, 2017 *

Filed February 23, 2017

Jeffrey O’Brien, Esquire, Attorney, The Law Office of Jeffrey O’Brien, Berkeley, CA, for Petitioner

Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, Claire Workman, Senior Litigation Counsel, OIL, DOJ— U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent

Before: GOODWIN, FARRIS and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). .

MEMORANDUM **

Ofelia Elizabeth Alvarado-Melendez and Genesis Elizabeth Lopez-Alvarado, natives and citizens of El Salvador, petition for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing their appeal from an immigration judge’s order denying their motion to reopen removal proceedings conducted in absentia. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motion to reopen for failure to establish exceptional circumstances, where they failed to attend their hearing because of a misunderstanding with their attorney. *See*8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(4)(ii); 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(1); *Valencia-Fragoso v. INS,*321 F.3d 1204, 1205-06 (9th Cir. 2003) (no exceptional circumstances where petitioner was late to her hearing due to confusion about the time).

To the extent petitioners contend that their former counsel was ineffective, we lack jurisdiction to review this unexhaust-ed claim. *See Tijani v. Holder,*628 F.3d 1071, 1080 (9th Cir. 2010) (‘We lack jurisdiction to review legal claims not presented in an alien’s administrative proceedings before the BIA.”).

We also lack jurisdiction to review the agency’s determination not to reopen sua sponte. *See Mejia-Hernandez v. Holder,*633 F.3d 818, 824-825 (9th Cir. 2011); *cf. Bonilla v. Lynch,*840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).

*552PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-01-2000
<CASH>                                             960,432
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      892,546
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        660,242
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,682,475
<PP&E>                                             610,934
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,577,977
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,480,155
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             5,651
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,885,895
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,577,977
<SALES>                                          1,186,839
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,186,839
<CGS>                                              620,613
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      924,917
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  14,161
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    261,922
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                261,922
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     81,500
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                       343,422
<EPS-BASIC>                                            .07
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .07



</TABLE>
Attachment 1

H.B. Robinson Water Balance DiagramAttachment 2

H.B. Robinson Semi-Annual Groudwater Monitoring Report – Febr uary 2009Attachment 3

H.B. Robinson Semi-Annual Groudwater Monitoring Report – Augus t 2009
| 1.   | The      Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of the Company for the annual period ended      December 31, 2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m);      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:            |   | February      3, 2009                 |
|------------------|--------|---------------------------------------|
|  Signature: |   |  /s/      Terry Lee              |
|  Title:     |   | Terry LeeChief      Executive Officer |
Jeffrey LATIMORE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-0123

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 13, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 21

RENTRAK CORPORATION & SUBSIDIARIES



|                                               |  |               
|---------------------------------------------- |  | --------------
|ENTITY                                         |  | DOMICILE      
|Rentrak Corporation                            |  | Oregon        
|                                               | 
|Domestic Subsidiaries                          |  |               
|Rentrak Latin American Stockholder, LLC        |  | Delaware      
|                                               | 
|Foreign Subsidiaries                           |  |               
|Rentrak Canada, Inc.                           |  | Canada        
|Rentrak Cayman Corporation                     |  | Cayman Islands
|Rentrak C.V.                                   |  | Netherlands   
|Rentrak B.V.                                   |  | Netherlands   
|Rentrak Australia Pty Ltd                      |  | Australia     
|Rentrak Argentina SRL                          |  | Argentina     
|Rentrak France SAS                             |  | France        
|Rentrak Germany GmbH                           |  | Germany       
|Rentrak Corporation Mexico, S. de R.L. de C.V. |  | Mexico        
|Rentrak Spain SL                               |  | Spain         
|Rentrak Holdings UK Limited                    |  | United Kingdom
|Rentrak Limited                                |  | United Kingdom
exv10w2






EXHIBIT 10.2




THIRD AMENDMENT

TO THE

A. H. BELO SAVINGS PLAN




     A. H. Belo Corporation, a Delaware corporation, pursuant to authorization by the Compensation
Committee of the Board of Directors, adopts the following amendments to the A. H. Belo Savings Plan
(the “Plan”).



     1. Appendix A of the Plan (“Participating Employers”) is amended by adding the following
entity thereto:



Belo Technology Assets, Inc.




     Executed at Dallas, Texas, this 31st day of March, 2009.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	A. H. BELO CORPORATION

 	 
	 	By  	/s/ Sheila Hartley
 	 
	 	 	Sheila Hartley 	 
	 	 	Vice President/Human Resources
Winston Dennard PINTO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-3329

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 22, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Thomas M. JAMES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Lorenzo ELI and Nicolas P. Villanustre, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-3034

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

March 31, 2017

*490Thomas James, Pro Se

Michael B. Brennan, Attorney, Gass Weber Mullins LLC, Milwaukee, WI, Jeb A. Crandall, Adriana Katzen, James F. Bleeke, Attorneys, Bleeke Dillon Crandall, PC, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant-Ap-pellee Lorenzo Eh

Bryan H. Babb, Attorney, Bose McKinney & Evans, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, for Defendant-Appellee Nicolas P. Villanustre

Before DIANE P. WOOD, Chief Judge, RICHARD A. POSNER, Circuit Judge, JOEL M. FLAUM, Circuit Judge

ORDER

We have before us the petitions for rehearing en banc, filed by Defendants-Appellees on February 8, 2017. We construe these petitions to include request for panel rehearing, and so construed, all members of the original panel have voted to grant panel rehearing.

After reviewing the briefs and the record, we have determined that the court would benefit from counseled briefs from Appellant, as well as oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C). Accordingly, we will recruit counsel for the pro se Appellant.

Accordingly, the petitions for rehearing are hereby GRANTED. The briefs previously filed by the parties are STRICKEN, and a further order designating counsel and setting a schedule for briefing and oral argument will follow.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON TEST PROCEDURE SNOPR FOR RESIDENTIAL 

CLOTHES DRYERS AND ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Wednesday, July 14, 2010

9 a.m. – 3 p.m. ET, Room 1E-245

Purpose

During this meeting the Department of Energy (DOE) will present the supplemental 

notice of proposed rulemaking on test procedures for residential clothes dryers and room 

air conditioners in standby mode, off mode, and active mode. This meeting is intended to 

familiarize interested stakeholders with DOE’s statutory requirements and proposed test 

procedures.

Agenda

9:00-9:20 am Welcome, Attendee Introductions, and Agenda Review

Doug Brookman

9:20-9:45 am Introduction and Regulatory Overview

Margaret Sullivan 

9:45-10:10 am Covered Products; Standby/Off Mode: Incorporating 

by Reference IEC 62301

James Battaglia 

10:10-10:45 am Standby/Off Mode: Determination of Modes to be 

Incorporated, Added Specifications to the Test Method 

and Measurements

James Battaglia 

10:45-11:00 am Break

11:00-11:30 am Standby/Off Mode: Calculation of Energy Use, 

Measures of Energy Consumption

James Battaglia 

11:30 am-12:00 pm Active Mode: Dryer Automatic Cycle Termination

James Battaglia 

12:00-1:00 pm Break for Lunch (on your own)

1:00-1:30 pm Active Mode: Vent-less Dryers, Detergent Specifications 

for Dryer Test Cloth Preconditioning

James Battaglia 
1:30-2:00 pm Active Mode: Changes to Reflect Consumer Usage 

Patterns and Capabilities

James Battaglia

2:00-2:30 pm Active Mode: Room Air Conditioner and Dryer 

Referenced Test Procedures, Technical Correction for 

Gas Dryers, Clarification to Dryer Gas Supply 

Conditions

James Battaglia 

2:30-3:00 pm Compliance with EPCA; Requirements; Effects of Test 

Procedure Revisions on Compliance with Standards

James Battaglia 

3:00 pm Closing Remarks and Adjourn

Margaret Sullivan
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ANGELA D. BIESECKER,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 15 MAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of May, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
EX PARTE Aaron Lamont JOHNSON

(In re: Aaron Lamont Johnson v. Anne-Marie Adams, A.C. Roper, and William Bell)

2160466

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to the Sup. Ct. for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
** **

**Exhibit 10**

 

** **

**Consent of Independent Registered PublicAccounting Firm**

 

We consent to the use of our reports dated February 15, 2017relating to the consolidated financial statements of New Gold Inc. and subsidiaries (“New Gold Inc.”) and the effectivenessof New Gold Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 40-F of New Gold Inc.for the year ended December 31, 2016.

 

 

*/s/ Deloitte LLP*

 

Chartered Professional Accountants

Licensed Public Accountants

Toronto, Canada

March 30, 2017
p. 1 

# OAR Box 1147 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 178)IV-E-5 1 Docket Number: 

# A-87-1 1

Printed 4/22/2008 2:42:57

PM Sheet 178 of 242

# i /^> , 

# x P. 2
$ .¥% \ UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y AN N ARBOR . MICHIGA N 4810 5 

### JU N 13198 8 OFFIC E O F AI R AN D RADIATIO N
MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT :
FROM : TO : Briefing for Departmen t o f Commerc e on Simplifie d

Onboar d Hardwar e Joh n F . Anderson , Senio r Projec t Manage r y . Standard s Developmen t an d Suppor t Branc h/ Docke t A-87-1 1 Affm4.*.*r—

On Jun e 2 , 1988 , a briefing wa s presente d t o the Departmen t o f Commerc e on the simplifie d onboard hardwar e white n w e have developed . Briefing material s used wer e the same it s for al l previou s presentation s o n thi s equipment . A n attendanc e lis t i s attached . Attachmen t 0554 w. P. 3

EPA/DO C Meeting . Name Joh n Anderso n Cheste r Franc e Joh n Gabrysiak Edward Levitio n A l Warne r Edwi n Skykin

d Rober t B . Gran t Representativ e EP A EP A EP A DO C DO C DOC DO C Phon e 374-827 2 374-833 8 374-822 3 202-377-066 9 202-377-066 9 202-377-061 4 202-377-198 5
#### Roger K. MCVEY, Petitioner, v. S.S. JOE BURFORD, INCORPORATED; West Virginia Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis Fund; Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor, Respondents.

No. 17-1683

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: August 17, 2017

Decided: August 21, 2017

Roger K. McVey, Petitioner Pro Se. Ashley M. Harman, JACKSON KELLY PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia, Rita A. Roppolo, Gary K. Stearman, U.S. DE*98PARTMENT OF LAR OR, Washington, D.C., for Respondents.

Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Roger K. McVey seeks review of the Benefits Review Board’s (Board) decision affirming the Administrative Law Judge’s decision and order denying black lung benefits, and the Board’s subsequent decision denying reconsideration. We dismiss the petition for appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

A party seeking review of a decision and order issued by the Board in a black lung benefits case must petition for review in the court of appeals within 60 days after the order is issued. 33 U.S.C. § 921(c) (2012). The 60-day period for seeking review is jurisdictional, and a petition for review must be filed with the clerk of this court to stop the running of the period. *Adkins v. Dir., Office of Workers Comp. Programs,*889 F.2d 1360, 1363 (4th Cir. 1989). The period “begins to run with the filing of a Board opinion with the Clerk of the Board.” *Mining Energy, Inc. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs,*391 F.3d 671, 676 (4th Cir. 2004) (emphasis omitted).

Here, the Board’s decision was issued and served on the parties on December 30, 2016. McVey filed a request for reconsideration with the Board on February 8, 2017. This request was not timely filed, however, and did not serve to toll the 60-day period for filing a petition for review in this court. *See*20 C.F.R. §§ 802.406, 802.407 (2016) (establishing 30-day period for requesting reconsideration by Board and providing that timely reconsideration request tolls period for filing petition for review). Absent tolling, the 60-day period for filing the petition for review expired on February 28, 2017. McVey’s petition for review was not filed until May 30, 2017.

Although McVey’s petition was filed within 60 days of the Board’s order denying his request for reconsideration, that order is not reviewable. *Betty B Coal Co. v. Dir., Office of Workers’ Comp. Programs,*194 F.3d 491, 496 (4th Cir. 1999). We therefore grant McVey’s motion to seal but dismiss the petition for appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DISMISSED*
BAY PERISO v. BAN VU

NO. 2018-C-0518

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 18, 2018

Denied.
L. S., mother of T. C., minor child, Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 1D17-3901

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.