alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 10

- 00856

- CV

Adam E. SALAZAR

, Appellant

v.

Roberto D. ROSS , M.D.,

Appellee

From the 225th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2007

- CI

- 02712

Honorable Peter A. Sakai , Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 8, 2011

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

Appellant’s brief, which was due on April 25, 2011 , has not been filed. On May 6, 2011

,

this court ordered appellant to show cause in writing by May 23, 2011, why this appeal should

not be dismissed for want of prosecution. Appellant did not respond. Th e appeal is dismissed

for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). Costs of appeal are taxed

against appellant.

PER CURIAM
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 18, 2020

No. 04

- 19

- 00836

- CV

Al SUAREZ , as Mayor of the City of Converse; Jeff Beehler, as Pl ace 5 Member, City Counsel of the City of Converse; Kathy Richel as place 1 Member, City Counsel of the City of Converse; Shawn Russell, as Place 3 Member, City Counsel of the City of Converse; Marc Gilbert, as Place

6 Member, City Counsel of the City of C onverse; Le Ann Piatt, as City Manager of the City of Converse; Holly Nagy, as Secretary of the City of Converse and City of Converse

, Appellants

v.

Katherine SI LVAS

, Appellee

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2 019CI22419 Honorable Mary Lou Alvarez, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

On February 12 , 2020, appellee filed a second unopposed motion for a six

- day extension of time to file appellee’s brief. The unopposed motion is GRANTED. It is ORDERED that appellee’s motion is due no later than February 1 8 , 2020.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 18th day of February, 2020

.

___________________________________ Michael A . Cruz

, Clerk of Cour t
#### Henry B. Kirkland et al., Appellants, *v.*Arthur Leary, Respondent.

(Argued November 21, 1872 ;

decided Novenber 26, 1872.)

*679Appeal dismissed upon authority of *Wright*v. *Hunter*(46 N. *Y.}*409); also affirming doctrine of *Downing*v. *Kelley*(48 N. Y.; 433), that resort cannot be had to opinion of General Term to determine whether new trial was granted upon questions of law or fact.

*William F. Shepard*for the appellants.

*John Berry*for the respondent.

Andrews, J.,

reads opinion for dismissal of appeal.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.
THEODORE R. KULONCOS K! 

GoVE RNO R 

September 21. 20 I 0 

Dennis McLerran, Regional Administrator 

U.S. Envirorunentall>rotection Agency, Region 10 

1200 6th Avenue, Suite 900 

Seattle, W A 9810 I 

RE: Placement of Astoria Marine Construction on National Priori ties List - Concurrence 

Dear Me. McLerran: 

We have been infonned of U.S. Environmental Protection Agcncy (EPA) Region 

I O's plan to place Astoria Marine Construction on the National Priorities List. Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) stafT, after rcviewing the facts and 

communi cating with local stakeholders, have recommended our concurrence. I agree with 

this recommendation. Therefore, pursuant to 40 CFR 300.425(2), this letter serves as 

official documentation ofOregon's concurrence with placement of Astoria Marine 

Construction on the National Priorities List. 

The Astoria Marine Construction site is a boal refurbishment and maintenance yard 

located approximately three miles south ofthc City of Astoria in Clatsop County, Oregon. 

This facility - which sits on the east bank of the Lewis and Clark Rivcr, about onc mile 

upstream of its confluence with Young's Bay - ha s been in operation since the 1920's and 

employed as many as 100 workers during its peak production in th~ 1940-50's. The 

facility still provides ship repair and refurbishment services and clIm:nlly cmploys about 

10 workers. 

EPA's recent inspections show that contamination from historic industrial activities 

is present in site soils and groundwater on the facility site and has accumulated in Lcwis 

and Clark River sediments surrounding the facility. Elevated concentrations of petroleum 

constituents, heavy metals and marine pesticides on and ncar the sit e pose a threat to 

human health and ecological species. DEQ's records show some minor removal work was 

performed by the site owners in the mid-1 990's, but the most recent data show that 

remedial action is needed. 

STATE (APITOL,SAlE.M 9730!-4047 (503) 378- 3 !! 1 FAX (503) 378-4863 T1Y {503) 378-4859 

WWW.GOVERNOR.STATE.OR. US 
Dennis McLerran, Regional Administrator 

September 21, 2010 

Page Two 

I fully support listing the Astoria Marine Construction site on the National 

Priorities List. Placing this site on the National Priorities List is a criticill step to protect 

the health of local residents, threatened and endangt::red fish species, and recreational water 

users. 

TRK:me:jb 

c: 	 Dan Opalski , USEPA Region 10 

Dick Pedersen, Director, Oregon DEQ
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6784 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide for protective 

regulations when a species is listed as an endangered species. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 14, 2023 

Mr. STAUBER (for himself, Mr. NEWHOUSE, Ms. HAGEMAN, Ms. BOEBERT, 

and Mr. BENTZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To amend the Endangered Species Act of 1973 to provide 

for protective regulations when a species is listed as 

an endangered species. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘ESA Flexibility Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. PROTECTIVE REGULATIONS FOR ENDANGERED 

6 SPECIES. 

7 (a) PROTECTIVE REGULATIONS.—Section 4(d) of the 

8 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1533(d)) is 

9 amended to read as follows: 

2 

•HR 6784 IH

1 ‘‘(d) PROTECTIVE REGULATIONS.— 

2 ‘‘(1) THREATENED SPECIES.—Whenever any 

3 species is listed as a threatened species pursuant to 

4 subsection (c), the Secretary shall issue such regula5 tions as the Secretary deems necessary and advisable 

6 to provide for the conservation of such species. 

7 ‘‘(2) ENDANGERED SPECIES.—Whenever any 

8 species is listed as an endangered species pursuant 

9 to subsection (c), the Secretary may issue such regu10 lations as the Secretary deems necessary and advis11 able to provide for the conservation of such species. 

12 ‘‘(3) PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN ACTIVITIES.— 

13 Except as provided in paragraph (4), the Secretary 

14 may, by regulation issued under this subsection, pro15 hibit with respect to any threatened or endangered 

16 species any act prohibited under section 9(a)(1), in 

17 the case of fish or wildlife, or section 9(a)(2) in the 

18 case of plants. 

19 ‘‘(4) EXCEPTION.—Regulations described by 

20 paragraph (3) shall apply in any State which has en21 tered into a cooperative agreement pursuant to sec22 tion 6(c) only to the extent that such regulations 

23 have also been adopted by such State.’’. 

24 (b) EXCEPTION TO PROHIBITED ACTS.—Paragraphs 

25 (1) and (2) of section 9(a) of the Endangered Species Act 

3 

•HR 6784 IH

1 of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1538(a)(1) and (2)) are each amended 

2 by inserting ‘‘by regulations issued under section 4(d) or’’ 

3 after ‘‘as provided’’. 

Æ
6/3/2016

Grant	Leaverton

Advanced	Aerial	Inspection	Resources,	Inc.

32628	Decker	Prairie	Rd,	Suite	1

Magnolia,	TX	77355

gleaverton@aairteam.com

832-500-3171

Exemption	No.	11277

Regulatory	Docket	No.	FAA-2014-0873

U.S.	Department	of	Transportation,	Docket	Operations

ATTN:	Federal	Aviation	Administration	(FAA)	Administrator

West	Building	Ground	Floor,	Room	W12-140

1200	New	Jersey	Avenue,	SE

Washington,	DC	20590

Dear	Administrator,

This	letter	serves	to	request	that	the	FAA	approve the	below	proposed	amendment	to	the	

exemption	number referenced	above.		Advanced	Aerial	Inspection	Resources,	Inc.	(AAIR)	is	

requesting	that	its	current	333	exemption	by	amended	to	allow	the	company	to	operate	any	

small	UAS	platform	already	previously	approved	by	the	FAA.		All	flight	operations	will	

continue	to	be	conducted	pursuant to	the	operational restrictions outlined	in	our	current	

exemption	and	COA.		We	thank	the	Department	in	advance for	its	response to	this	petition.		

Should	any	further	information	by	required	from	AAIR	please	do	not	hesitate to	contact	our

team.

Respectfully,

Grant	Leaverton

Vice	President

Advanced	Aerial	Inspection	Resources,	Inc.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7090 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7090

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
          certain compensation to clinical trial participants.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 25, 2024

Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania (for himself and Ms. Houlahan) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 
          certain compensation to clinical trial participants.

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

SECTION 1. EXCLUSION OF COMPENSATION PROVIDED TO PARTICIPANTS IN 
              CLINICAL TRIALS.

    (a) In General.--Part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the 
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting after section 
139I the following new section:

``SEC. 139J. CLINICAL TRIAL PAYMENTS.

    ``(a) In General.--Gross income shall not include any amount 
received by an individual as payment or reimbursement for participation 
in an approved clinical trial (including amounts paid or reimbursed for 
meals, lodging, or other travel expenses incurred in connection with 
such participation).
    ``(b) Approved Clinical Trial.--The term `approved clinical trial' 
has the meaning given such term in section 2709(d)(1) of the Public 
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg-8(d)(1)).''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for part III of 
subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by inserting after 
the item relating to section 139I the following new item:

``Sec. 139J. Clinical trial payments.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to amounts paid after December 31, 2023.
                                 <all>
```
#### Dorothy LAFORTUNE, Claimant-Appellant v. David J. SHULKIN, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Respondent-Appellee

2016-2350

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Decided: September 8, 2017

*696Kenneth M. Carpenter, Law Offices of Carpenter Chartered, Topeka, KS, argued for claimant-appellant.

Sarah Choi, . Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented by Joyce R. Branda, Robert E. Kirschman, Jr., Allison Kidd-Miller; Y. Ken Lee, Martie Adelman, Christina Lynn Gregg, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

Before Moore, Chen, and Hughes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam.

Our jurisdiction to review decisions by the Veterans Court is limited by statute. Unless an appeal raises, a constitutional issue, we lack jurisdiction to review “a challenge to a factual determination” or “a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a particular case.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2). The issues raised on appeal are all limited to the appeal of fact findings as to whether Ms. LaFortune and the veteran entered into a civil/ceremonial or common-law marriage. We see no question of law. Because Ms. LaFortune’s appeal only involves factual determinations and the application of law to the facts of the case, Ms. LaFortune’s appeal is beyond the scope of our jurisdiction. We *dismiss*for lack of jurisdiction.

DISMISSED

Costs

No costs.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DIAHANN D. KING

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 2562

[ August 20, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, St.

Lucie County ; James W. McCann , Judge; L.T. Case No.

562015CF002488A

.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Nancy Jack, Assistant Public

Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Diahann D. King, Brooksville, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mi tchell A. Egber,

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, G ERBER and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Exhibit 12.3

CERTIFICATION    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002    (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of AerCap Holdings N.V. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

The
Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the "Form-20-F") of the Company fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 23, 2011

By:

/s/ KLAUS HEINEMANNKlaus Heinemann Chief Executive OfficerDate: March 23, 2011

By:

/s/ KEITH HELMINGKeith Helming Chief Financial Officer


---



QuickLinks
#### Joel R. GARCIA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dennis LEROUX, 7699; Stephanie D. Low, Maricopa County Attorney Prosecutor, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 16-15780

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 11, 2017 *

Filed April 21, 2017

Joel R. Garcia, Pro Se

Clarence E. Matherson, Jr., Assistant Counsel, Phoenix City Attorney’s Office, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee Dennis Leroux

Maxine S. Mak, Esquire, Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Civil Services Division, Joseph Isaac Vigil, Attorney, *528Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Division of County Counsel, Phoenix, AZ, for Defendant-Appellee Stephanie D. Low

Before: GOULD, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Joel R. Garcia appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 action alleging federal and state law violations related to his arrest and pretrial detention. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a determination that an action is time-barred, *Furnace v. Sullivan,*705 F.3d 1021, 1026 (9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.

The district court properly determined that Garcia’s action was time-barred because all claims against defendants accrued more than two years before Garcia filed his complaint. *See*Ariz, Rev. Stat. § 12-542 (two-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions); Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-821 (one-year statute of limitations for actions against any public entity or public employee); *TwoRivers v. Lewis,*174 F.3d 987, 991-92 (9th Cir. 1999) (for § 1983 claims, federal courts apply the forum state’s statute of limitations for personal injury claims, which begin to accrue “when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury”).

Garcia has waived his right to challenge defendants’ discovery responses and objections to his deposition notices. *See Yeti by Molly, Ltd. v. Deckers Outdoor Corp.,*259 F.3d 1101, 1108 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A stipulation or the withdrawal of an objection is tantamount to a waiver of an issue for appeal.” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6960 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the Emergency 

Medical Services for Children program. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 11, 2024 

Mr. CARTER of Georgia (for himself, Ms. CASTOR of Florida, Mr. JOYCE of 

Pennsylvania, and Ms. SCHRIER) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Public Health Service Act to reauthorize the 

Emergency Medical Services for Children program. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Emergency Medical 

5 Services for Children Reauthorization Act of 2024’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION OF GRANTS FOR EMERGENCY 

7 MEDICAL SERVICES FOR CHILDREN. 

8 Section 1910(d) of the Public Health Service Act (42 

9 U.S.C. 300w–9(d)) is amended by striking ‘‘and 

10 $22,334,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 through 2024’’ 


dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6960 IH

1 and inserting ‘‘$22,334,000 for each of fiscal years 2020 

2 through 2024, and $24,334,000 for each of fiscal years 

3 2025 through 2029’’. 

Æ 


dmwilson on DSKJM0X7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Corey DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Deveraux CANNICK, Aiello and Cannick, Kevin Keating, Defendants-Appellees.

15-3895-cv

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 2, 2017

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT: Corey Davis, pro se, Adelanto, CA.

FOR DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES: No appearance.

PRESENT: Jon 0. Newman, José A. Cabranes, Gerard E. Lynch, Circuit Judges.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-appellant Corey Davis, *pro se*and incarcerated, appeals from the District Court’s *sua sponte*dismissal of his complaint for lack of diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal.

“For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a party’s citizenship depends on his domicile.” *Linardos v. Fortuna,*157 F.3d 945, 948 (2d Cir. 1998). “[Ejstablishing one’s domicile in a state generally requires both physical presence there and intent to stay.” *Universal Reinsurance Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,*224 F.3d 139, 141 (2d Cir. 2000); *see Palazzo ex rel. Delmage v. Corio,*232 F.3d 38, 42 (2d Cir. 2000) (“To effect a change of domicile, two things are indispensable: First, residence in a new domicile]; and, second, the intention to remain there.” (internal quotation marks, omitted)).

Plaintiff submitted declarations stating that, prior to his incarceration, he moved to a residence in Florida. Even if the facts in those improperly sworn declarations were true, they were insufficient to establish Davis’s domicile in Florida, as the District Court concluded.

CONCLUSION

We have reviewed all of the arguments raised by Davis on appeal and find them to be without merit. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the November 16, 2015 judgment of the District Court.
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7100 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the organization of the Office of Survivors Assistance of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 7100 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Prioritizing Veterans’ 

3 Survivors Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF ORGANIZATION OF THE OFFICE 

5 OF SURVIVORS ASSISTANCE OF THE DEPART6 MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

7 Section 321(a) of title 38, United States Code, is 

8 amended by striking ‘‘in the Department’’ and inserting 

9 ‘‘in the Office of the Secretary’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 17, 

2024. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7100 

AN ACT 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify 

ance of the Department of Veterans Affairs. the organization of the Office of Survivors Assist-
**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**

 

In connection with this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Bridgeline Digital, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended September 30, 2017, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Roger Kahn, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition of the Company as of the dates presented and result of operations of the Company for the periods presented.

 

 

| Date:       January 26, 2018 |   | /s/ Roger Kahn                                                       |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                 | Name:  | Roger Kahn                                                           |
|                                                                 | Title: | President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer) |

 

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.