alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Need to return call by / at/between and

. Signature: Project No.: 0317.01.005.510 Page 1 of 1

Project Name: DMR20 11 

### CBI?

Yes

No TELEPHONE CALL RECOR D

Incoming

Outgoing Date: 12/11/13 Time: 10:06 am

pm

Company Name: Jerritt Canyon Mine

– Elko, NV ERG Staff Name: Julia Kolberg

Contact Name: John Barta Contact Phone Number: ( 775) 738

- 5600

General Subject: 20 11 TRI Discharges



### TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

On December 11, 2013 at 10:06am I called John Barta (775

- 738

- 5600) and spoke with him regarding 2011 TRI

Discharge data from his facility (Jerritt Canyon Mine). He requested to be sent an e

- mail detailing the

information that we are looking for. He provided his e

- mail as jbarta@jerritt.com

.

One December 16, 2013 at 1:47pm I called back to follow up and make sure that he had received the e

- mail.

He has forwarded it to the appropriate parties and will respond with an estimated date for when the information

will be available.

On December 17, 2013 at 3:12pm John returned my call with their discharge representa tive, Rick. They stated

that there was an error in the way that they reported

- the metal concentrations were supposed to be in parts per

million, but had not been divided by 1,000,000 and were a factor of six high er than they should have been.
EX PARTE D.L.G.

(In re: the Matter of P.D., a minor child)

2160654

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

May 24, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Chief Executive Officer of W Holding Company, Inc. (the
"Registrant"), hereby certifies that to the best of his knowledge, on the date
hereof:

      (a)   the Form 10-K of the Registrant for the Period Ended December 31,
            2004, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange
            Commission (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
            Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (b)   information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
            respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
            Registrant.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to the Registrant and will be
retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

                                             /s/ Frank C. Stipes
                                             ---------------------------------
                                             Frank C. Stipes, Esq.
                                             Chairman of the Board, Chief
                                             Executive Officer and President
                                             March 16, 2005
Exhibit 31.2



MUZAK HOLDINGS LLC

Section 302
Certification



Certification of the Chief Executive Officer



I, Lon E. Otremba, Chief Executive Officer of Muzak Holdings LLC certify
that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Muzak Holdings
LLC;



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;



3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:



(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure
that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



5.
The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and



(b) Any fraud, whether or
not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.



Date: April 15, 2005



|                              
|------------------------------
|                              
|/s/ Lon E. Otremba            
|Name: Lon E. Otremba          
|Title: Chief Executive Officer
John YOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3878

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 1, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 10.32
                                    AMENDMENT
                                       TO
                              AMENDED AND RESTATED
                            1989 STOCK OPTION PLAN OF
                               GALEY & LORD, INC.


                  AMENDMENT  (this  "Amendment")  to Amended and  Restated  1989
Stock Option Plan of Galey & Lord,  Inc.,  as amended  (the "Plan).  Capitalized
terms used  herein but not  defined  herein  shall  have the  meanings  ascribed
thereto in the Plan.

                 WHEREAS,  the  Board  of  Directors  of Galey & Lord,  Inc.,  a
Delaware Corporation (the "Corporation"),  previously adopted the Plan which was
approved by the stockholders of the Corporation;

                 WHEREAS,  the Board of Directors of the Corporation  adopted an
amendment  to the Plan,  subject  to the  approval  of the  stockholders  of the
Corporation;

                 WHEREAS,  the  stockholders  of the  Corporation  approved  the
amendment  to  the  Plan  set  forth   hereinbelow  at  the  Annual  Meeting  of
Stockholders of the Corporation held on February 7, 1995; and

                 WHEREAS,  all terms and  conditions of the Plan,  other than as
specifically amended as set forth in this Amendment,  shall remain in full force
and effect.

                 NOW THEREFORE, the Plan has been amended as follows:

 
 1.    Section 5 of the Plan was amended by inserting the following
sentence immediately after the second sentence thereof:

                  "No Optionee who is an  executive  officer of the  Corporation
shall,  during any period of three fiscal years of the  Corporation,  be granted
Options to purchase more than an aggregate of 400,000 Shares."

                  IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the  Secretary  of the  Corporation  has
executed this  Amendment and certifies  that the amendment to the Plan set forth
above  accurately  reflects  the  amendment  to the Plan adopted by the Board of
Directors  of  the  Corporation   and  approved  by  the   stockholders  of  the
Corporation.


                                       /s/ Michael R. Harmon              

                                       Michael R. Harmon, Secretary
Mark JUSTICE v. Sherri JUSTICE

2160695

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 16, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Appellant,

v.

PETER GARZA, INDIVIDUALLY

AND AS NEXT FRIEND OF S.G., A

M INOR

, AND ON B EHALF OF THE

E STATES OF STEPHANIE GARZA,

TAYLOR GARZA, PETER JAMES

GARZA, AND JESSE GARZA,

D ECEASED , and JIM FISK and

MARY FISK

,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 18

- 00193

- CV

Appeal from the

83rd District Court

of Pecos County, Texas

(TC# P

- 7725

- 83

- CV )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal and

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore dismiss

the appeal. We further order costs of the appeal are taxed against the party incurring same, and

this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018.

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
#### Guillermo AYALA-PEREZ, aka Guillermo Perez, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 15-72762

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*591Submitted March 8, 2017 *

Filed March 16, 2017

Christopher John Stender, Esquire, Attorney, Federal Immigration Counselors, AZ, PC, Phoenix, AZ, for Petitioner

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

Before: LEAYY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Guillermo Ayala-Perez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“U”) order denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. Our jurisdiction is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen and review de novo questions of law. *Mohammed v. Gonzales,*400 F.3d 785, 791-92 (9th Cir. 2005). We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Ayala-Perez’s motion to reopen as untimely, where it was filed more than 15 years after his final order of removal, *see*8 C.F.R. § 1003.23(b)(1), and Ayala-Perez failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the filing deadline, *see Avagyan v. Holder,*646 F.3d 672, 679 (9th Cir. 2011) (equitable tolling is available to an alien who is prevented from timely filing a motion to reopen due to deception, fraud, or error, as long as petitioner exercises due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

Ayala-Perez’s contention that the BIA erred in denying sua sponte reopening for lack of due diligence does not raise a legal or constitutional error to invoke our jurisdiction. *See Bonilla v. Lynch,*840 F.3d 575, 588 (9th Cir. 2016).

We lack jurisdiction to consider Ayala-Perez’s contentions regarding due process violations at his underlying 1999 removal proceedings because this petition is not timely as to the IJ’s 1999 decision. *See*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publi*592cation and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Tiffany Shawnee LOWE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-5249

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 5, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
#### Christopher Lee GAITHER, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Gregory S. DAVID, Assistant Warden; Ray D. Cruz, Captain; Gene W. Smith, Captain; Deana R. Davis, Correctional Officer V; Andrew M. Gratz, Sergeant, Defendants-Appellees

No. 16-11107 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed July 12, 2017

Christopher Lee Gaither, Pro Se

Before JOLLY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Christopher Lee Gaither, Texas prisoner # 01821218, appeals the dismissal of his civil rights complaint against several prison officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. However, after Gaither filed his appellate brief in this court, the district court granted Gaither’s motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and reopened the case. Because the district court explicitly vacated the judgment of dismissal from which Gaither appealed, this appeal does not present a live controversy and is moot. *See Rocky v. King,*900 F.2d 864, 867 (5th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED as MOOT, and Gaither’s motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

*

 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 Cm. R. 47.5.4.
EX PARTE Danny L. SMITH

CR-16-0409

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

June 21, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Mand. pet. dismissed.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Allen J. Bernstein, certifythat:

 

1.               Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Morton’s Restaurant Group,Inc.;

 

2.               Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a) Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date:  May 17, 2004 |
|--------------------------|
|                     |
|                     | /s/  ALLEN J. BERNSTEIN |   |
|                     | Allen  J. Bernstein |
|                     | Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
M A N D A T E

TO THE 156TH DISTRICT COURT of SAN PATRICIO COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 31st day of

August, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Luis Baldemar Rios Hernandez a/k/a

Arturo Rios,

Appellant,

v.

W-S Industrial Services, Inc. Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-14-00404-CV (Tr.Ct.No. S-13-5374CV-B-1)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 20th day of November, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK

FILE COPY
#### Joan Marie WILLIAMS, Petitioner-Appellant v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee

No. 16-10759 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed October 25, 2017

Joan Marie Williams, Pro Se

Before REAVLEY, PRADO, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Joan Marie Williams, former federal prisoner # 24135-077, was convicted of conspiracy to launder monetary instruments and to structure financial transactions in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 in 1993. The district court denied Williams’s *387third petition for a writ of coram nobis challenging her conviction. The writ of co-ram nobis is an extraordinary remedy available when a prisoner has completed her sentence and is no longer in custody for purposes of seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 28 U.S.C. § 2255. *United States v. Dyer,*136 F.3d 417, 422 (5th Cir. 1998); *see also*28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). We review the district court’s “factual findings for clear error, questions of law de novo, and the district court’s ultimate decision to deny the writ for abuse of discretion.” *Santos-Sanchez v. United States,*548 F.3d 327, 330 (5th Cir. 2008), *vacated on other grounds,*559 U.S. 1046, 130 S.Ct. 2340, 176 L.Ed.2d 559 (2010). Williams has not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying her petition for a writ of eoram nobis.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
519	E	Oak	Hill	Drive,	Spring,	Texas	77386-1282

Phone:		888-396-5924	•	Email:		paul.ramirez@globaluai.com

1 |	Page

July	22,	2015

To: US	Department	of	Transportation

Docket	Management	System

1200	New	Jersey	Ave,	SE

Washington,	DC	20590

From: Paul	Ramirez,	President	&	COO

Unmanned	Ad-Hoc	Industries,	Inc.

519	E	Oak	Hill	Drive

Spring,	TX	77386-1282

Re: Amendment	to	Exemption	Application	No.	FAA-2015-1059-0001 filed	pursuant	to	Section	333	of	

the	FAA	Reform	Act	and	Part	11	of	the	Federal	Aviation	Regulations	in	Regulatory	Docket	No.	

FAA-2015-1059.

Summary	of	Exemption	Request

Unmanned	Ad-Hoc	Industries,	Inc.	(UAI)	has	filed	an	application	for	Exemption	numbered	FAA2015-1059-0001	(hereinafter	the	Exemption)	for	multiple	purposes	including:

Agriculture,	Oil,	Gas,	and	Mineral	Survey/Scan

3-Dimensional	Terrain	and	Structural	Modeling

Disaster	Response,	including	Emergency	Search	&	Rescue

Critical	Infrastructure	Monitoring,	including	Spectral	&	Thermal	Analysis

Security	Awareness

Unmanned	Ad-Hoc	Industries,	Inc.	hereby	requests	an	amendment	to	the	Exemption	to	allow	two	

additional	models	of	unmanned	aircraft	systems	(UAS)	that	fully	comply	with	the	conditions	of the	

Exemption.	The	addition	of	two	new	UAS	platforms	will	benefit	the	public	by	providing	a	safer,	more	

efficient	and	cost	effective	alternative	to	traditional	methods	of	inspection,	survey,	engineering	analysis	

and	monitoring.		The	commercially	available	DJI	Inspire	1 UAS	and	DJI	S1000 UAS	(with	A2	flight	

controller)	have	been	successfully	granted	exemption	from	regulation	by	the	FAA;	see	reference

Exemption	No.	12075,	12080,	and	12088	among	others.	Appropriate	manufacturer	documentation	has	

been	submitted	as	supplemental	information	with	this	amendment	request,	showing	the	likeness	

platform-wise	between	UAI’s	previously	petitioned	exemption	request UAS	(the	High	Endurance	Folding	

Frame,	HEFF)	and	the	requested DJI	UAS’.

Please	do	not	hesitate	to	contact	the	undersigned	should	there	be	any	questions	on the	matter.

Respectfully,

Paul	Ramirez

President	&	COO

UAI,	Inc.
Routh Meloul TZUBELI and ShimsonTzubeli, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. Alain KESLASSY and Evelyne Keslassy, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s)

CASE NO.: 3D17-2376

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 27, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                CERTIFICATION OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB
                                       OF
                           PINNACLE DATA SYSTEMS, INC.

                       FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 30, 2002

The undersigned is the Chief Financial Officer of Pinnacle Data Systems, Inc.
(the "Registrant"). This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report
on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002.

I certify that such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that the information contained in such 10-QSB Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Registrant.

This certification is executed as of August 13, 2002.   /s/ Michael R. Sayre
                                                        ----------------------
                                                        Chief Financial Officer

                                      -18-