alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered August 28, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 01274

- CV

THE SHOPS AT LEGACY (RPAI) L.P., AN ILLI NOIS LIMITED

PARTNERSHIP, Appellant

V.

DEL FRISC O'S GRILLE OF TEXAS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIM ITED LIABILITY COMPANY, A ND DEL FRISCO'S REST AURANT GROUP,

INC., A DELAWARE COR PORATION, Appellee s
On Appeal from the 416th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 416

- 03957

- 2018

ORDER

A ppellant The Shops at Legacy (RPAI), L.P.’s motion for extension of time
to file a motion for rehearing or en banc reconsideration is GRANTED

. Appellant’s motion for re hearing or en banc reconsideration is now due to be filed
on or before September 21, 20 20.

/s/ AMANDA L. REICHEK JUSTICE
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway,

Justices 

# Order

April 9, 2010

139541

- 2 & (56)

139544

- 5

GREAT WOLF LODGE OF TRAVERSE

CITY, LLC,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 139541

- 2

COA: 281398, 281404

Ingham CC: 06

- 001484

- AA

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, MPSC U

- 14593

Defendant

- Appellant,

and

CHERRYLAND ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

GREAT WOLF LODGE OF TRAVERSE

CITY, LLC,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 139544

- 5

COA: 281398, 281404

Ingham CC: 06

- 001484

- AA

MICHIGAN PUBLIC SE RVICE COMMISSION, MPSC U

- 14593

Defendant

- Appellee,

and

CHERRYLAND ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the applications for leave to appeal the July 14, 2009

judgment of the Court of Appeals are considered, and they are GRANTED. The parties

shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) whether Cherryland Electric

Cooperative is entitled to provide any component of electric service to Great Wolf Lodge

of Traverse City or its buildings and facilities, (2) whether the Michigan Public ServiceI, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________ __________________ Clerk April 9, 2010

y0406 2

Commission must impose interest on the refund it ordered Cherryland Electric

Cooperative to pay, and (3) whether the Michigan Public Service Commission must levy

a fine, under MCL 460 .558, on Cherryland Electric Cooperative.

The motion of Michigan Electric Cooperative Association for leave to file a brief

amicus curiae is GRANTED. The Association of Businesses Advocating Tariff Equity

and the Electric Consumers Resource Council are invited to file briefs amicus curiae.

Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this

case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
Exhibit 32.2
                                                                    ------------

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


In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Golden River Resources
Corporation (the "Company") for the nine months ended March 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"),
the undersigned, Peter Lee, Chief Financial 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:

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

(2)  The information  contained in the report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



Date:     May 14, 2007


                                          /s/ Peter Lee
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          Peter Lee
                                          Director, Secretary and
                                          Chief Financial Officer



                                                                              24
No. 11-9851.

#### King *v.*Florida Parole Commission et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.3


                        [RYDER SCOTT COMPANY LETTERHEAD]

                      CONSENT OF RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.

As independent oil and gas consultants, Ryder Scott Company, L.P., hereby
consents to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on
Form S-4, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about
April 7, 2003, of information from our reserve report dated February 25, 2003,
entitled "Chesapeake Energy Corporation--Estimated Future Reserves and Income
Attributable to Certain Leasehold Interests as of December 31, 2002." We also
consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such Registration
Statement.



/s/ Ryder Scott Company, L.P.
-----------------------------
    Ryder Scott Company, L.P.

Houston, Texas
April 4, 2003
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 the Quarterly Report of Windswept Environmental
Group, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended October
1, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I , Michael O'Reilly, Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



                                                /s/ Michael O'Reilly
                                             -----------------------------------
                                             Michael O'Reilly
                                             President and
                                             Chief Executive Officer

                                             Dated: November 15, 2002
October 7th, 2015

U. S. Department of Transportation

Docket Management System

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, DC 20590

Re: Request for Additional Information: Aerial NET, Inc. (FAA-2015-3133)

Dear Sir or Madam:

This is in reply to your e-mail request for additional information regarding the intended operations of 

Aerial Net Inc while operating small UAS in the national airspace for commercial purposes

(Appendix A for a copy of the request). 

Aerial Net Inc is currently planning on flying small multi-rotor aircraft and small helicopter aircraft. 

Our current fleet is comprised of

1. DJI Phantom 3

a. No payload, 1.2kg max takeoff weight

b. DJI Phantom autopilot

2. Vario XLC V2 Helicopter

a. 15kg payload (including fuel), 32kg max takeoff weight (typical payload will be 4kg 

camera + 11kg fuel)

b. Micropilot MP2128 HELI Autopilot

In addition to these two aircraft, we are in the process of procuring the following octocopter.

1. DJI Spreading Wings 1000+

a. 6.5kg payload, 11kg max takeoff weight

b. DJI A2 autopilot

If you have any additional questions or concerns please feel free to contact me.

Respectfully,

Nathan R. Huntoon

Ph: 972-971-6491

Email: nathan.huntoon@aerialnetinc.com

Address: 4702 Grant Ct

Frisco, TX, 750035
Appendix A

From: Parker, Joshua (FAA)

Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2015 9:55 AM

To: 'nathan.huntoon@aerialnetinc.com'

Cc: '333exemptions@faa.gov'

Subject: Request for Additional Information: Aerial NET, Inc. (FAA-2015-3133)

Dear Mr. Huntoon:

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA2015-3133). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your 

petition.

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

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

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

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

submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or electronically via email to 

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

information described above by October 19, 2015. If we do not receive the information, we will close the 

docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

Joshua Parker

Program Analyst

Office of Rulemaking

800 Independence Ave SW., Suite 812

Washington, DC 20591

Joshua.parker@faa.gov
Interim Decision #1914

MATTEROF GUERRA
In Bond Proceedings

A-13460457

Decided by Board October 17, 1968

The Board of Immigration Appeals lacks jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a bond determination under 8 CFR 242.2(b), where the alien is being held in custody after having failed to appear for deportation.
ON BEHALF or RESPONDENT: Constantine N. Bangles, Esquire 69 west Washington Street Chicago, Illinois 60602 (Memorandum filed)

This appeal takes issue with the actions of the District Director in issuing a warrant on August 8, 1968 for the arrest and detention of the alien and requiring the alien to be released under bond in the amount of $3,500. On June 24, 1968 the alien, native of Libya and citizen of Italy, was the subject of deportation proceedings brought under section241(a) (2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The respondent requested the privilege of voluntary departure which was denied by the special inquiry officer on the finding that the respondent was not a person of good moral character. No appeal wastaken from those findings. Upon the decision of the special inquiry officer finding that the respondent should be deported, 

### the Immigration Service served upon the respondent notice on Form 1-294 as to the country to which deportation had been directed and on August 2, 1968 the Service further notified the respondent of the departure arrangements made for his deportation. Failingto surrender himself for deportation, the instant warrant of deportation was issued and on September 23, 1968 the alien was brought into the custody of the Service. The attorney for the alien states that the requirement of a bond in the amount of $3,500 or the requirement of a bond forthe release of said alien is unreasonable, inequitable and is excessive. Counsel for the alien further requested the alien's release on



### 40

### Interim Decision #1914
his recognizance and for other and further relief as the Board of Immigration Appeals may see fit to grant herein. We are called upon to decide whether we have jurisdiction to accept the appeal in the instant matter. Pursuant to S CPR 242.2(b), 

### a District Director ... "May exercise the authority ... to continue or detain an alien in, or release him from, custody, to determine whether an alien shall be released under bond, and 

### the amount thereof if any ... The alien may appeal to the Board ofImmigration Appeals from any such determination. The foregoing provisions concerning notice, reporting and appeal 

### shall not apply 

### when the Service notifies the alien that it is ready to execute the prder of deportation and takes him into custody for that purpose." (Emphasis supplied.) The warrant of arrest and the subsequent confinement came after the alien had failed to appear

### for deportation and as a consequence we are prohibited from assuming jurisdiction in the instant matter.
ORDER: it is ordered that the appeal be and the same is

### hereby dismissed.



### 41
#### DELPHIX CORP., Appellant v. Joseph MATAL, Performing the Functions and Duties of the Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Intervenor

2016-2063, 2016-2064, 2016-2065, 2016-2069

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

December 12, 2017

J; David Hadden, Fenwick & West, LLP, Mountain View, CA, argued for appellant. Aso represented by Saína S. Shamilov; Todd Richard Gregorian, Phillip John Haack, San Francisco, CA.

Philip J. Warrick, Office of the Solicitor, United States Patent and Trademark Office, Alexandria, VA, argued for interve-nor, Aso represented by Nathan K. Kelley, Thomas W. Krause, Brian Racilla, Coke Morgan Stewart.

(Prost, Chief Judge, Lourie and Hughes, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
No. 11-9980.

#### Betskoff *v.*Martin Groff Construction Co., Inc.

Ct. Sp. App. Md. Certiorari denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 18 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 18

   Entitled the ``Citizen's Tax Protection Amendment'', proposing an 
    amendment to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit 
                         retroactive taxation.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 7, 1997

Mr. Royce introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
   Entitled the ``Citizen's Tax Protection Amendment'', proposing an 
    amendment to the Constitution of the United States to prohibit 
                         retroactive taxation.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article--

    ``Congress shall pass no law increasing taxes or fees which takes 
effect prior to its enactment.''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Francisco Mendoz RAYMUNDO, Petitioner, v. Jefferson B. SESSIONS III, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-74247

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted November 14, 2017 Pasadena, California

Filed November 30, 2017

Miguel Angel Olano, Miguel Olano, Attorney at Law, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner

Dawn S. Conrad, Trial Attorney, OIL, Robert Michael Stalzer, Trial Attorney, DOJ — U.S. Department of Justice, Civil *713Division/Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, Chief Counsel ICE, Office of the Chief Counsel, Department of Homeland Security, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent

Before: NGUYEN and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and EATON,* Judge.

*

 Richard K. Eaton, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation.

MEMORANDUM **

Petitioner Francisco Mendoz Raymundo petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings. We grant the petition and remand.

1. The BIA concluded that Raymundo failed to show that he was part of a cognizable social group because it found that the case that he relied on, *Tchoukhrova v. Gonzales,*404 F.3d 1181 (9th Cir. 2005), *vacated sub nom. Gonzales v. Tchoukhrova,*549 U.S. 801, 127 S.Ct. 57, 166 L.Ed.2d 7 (2006), “is not good law.” The BIA’s failure to conduct any further analysis was an abuse of discretion. The Supreme Court vacated *Tchoukhrova*for reasons completely unrelated to the definition of particular social groups for individuals seeking asylum and related relief. *See Tchoukhrova,*549 U.S. 801, 127 S.Ct. 57, 166 L.Ed.2d 7; *Gonzales v. Thomas,*547 U.S. 183, 126 S.Ct. 1613, 164 L.Ed.2d 358 (2006). We therefore grant the petition and remand for the BIA to analyze this issue in the first instance in light of *Arteaga v. Mukasey,*511 F.3d 940, 944-45 (9th Cir. 2007) and *Henriquez-Rivas v. Holder,*707 F.3d 1081, 1084-85, 1087-91 (9th Cir. 2013) (en banc). *See Rodriguez-Lariz v. INS,*282 F.3d 1218, 1227 (9th Cir. 2002) (remanding motion to reopen, in part, because the BIA failed “to engage in any substantive analysis” of the petitioners’ claim).

2. The BIA also failed to adequately analyze, and in one instance misstated, the record evidence in concluding that Raymundo failed to submit credible, direct, and specific evidence to support his fear of persecution. For example, the State Department’s 2010 Country Report on Mexico found “widespread human rights abuses in mental institutions across the country,” including “the use of physical and chemical restraints and lobotomies on patients.” Yet the BIA erroneously characterized Raymundo’s evidence as “limited” to “reports on conditions of general violence in Mexico and inferior resources for treatment of mental health.” Because “the BIA abuses its discretion when it fails to provide a reasoned explanation for its actions,” *Movsisian v. Ashcroft,*395 F.3d 1095, 1098 (9th Cir. 2005), we remand for the BIA to engage in this analysis in the first instance.

PETITION GRANTED and REMANDED.

**

**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
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           7,951
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,461
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          77,449
<DEPRECIATION>                                (42,066)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 188,796
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        65,706
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    (17,363)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    48,343
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,341
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,294
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,994
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,867
<INCOME-TAX>                                       938
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,929
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,929
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.21
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 115 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 115

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
 permit the Congress to relinquish claims of the United States to the 
portion of the State of Minnesota that lies north of the 49th parallel.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 18, 1998

 Mr. Peterson of Minnesota introduced the following joint resolution; 
          which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
 permit the Congress to relinquish claims of the United States to the 
portion of the State of Minnesota that lies north of the 49th parallel.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``Nothing in this Constitution limits any act of the Congress to 
relinquish claims of the United States to the portion of the State of 
Minnesota that lies north of the 49th parallel, if before such 
relinquishment the registered voters who reside in such portion as of 
the date of the proposal of this amendment vote, under procedures 
established by the Congress, by at least a two-thirds majority, in 
favor of the full incorporation of such portion into Canada, and if 
contemporaneous with such relinquishment such portion is so 
incorporated and the residents of such portion as of the date of the 
proposal of this amendment are granted permanent dual citizenship of 
the United States and Canada.''.
                                 <all>
```
file:///G|/...11,%202012%20and%20%20Div%2012/Federal%20Register%20-%20Proposal/Comments/EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0494-0006.html[3/15/2013 3:35:08 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: March 14, 2013

Received: February 15, 2013

Status: Posted

Posted: March 13, 2013

Tracking No. 1jx-83p9-l4nq

Comments Due: March 13, 2013

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0494

OR 2012 Heat Smart Program and Misc revisions

Comment On: EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0494-0001

Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: Oregon; Heat Smart Program and Enforcement

Procedures

Document: EPA-R10-OAR-2012-0494-0006

Comment on FR Doc # 2013-02964

Submitter Information

General Comment

I agree with Oregon's proposal and the EPA's subsequent revisions that they propose to Oregon's

State Implementation Plan. Air quality is a huge priority that not many people pay attention to and

what the state is doing in regards to removing uncertified wood stoves and solid fuel heating devices

(when homeowners sell) will only further and help air quality control. 

Broadening the rule to be statewide will create a larger area that reduces smoke and potential

hazards that can come from the burning in the wood stove. One of the revisions to be made by the

state is to add limitations to what can be burnt. This can also bring more quality to the air.

The changes that they are proposing to be made are in line with the CAA, which is one of the best

environmental laws that the country has had. The sweeping legislation has called for limitations on

emissions and to achieve quality air and ozone protections. Approval of the Heat Smart program is

essential and may encourage other states to act under the same intent.
No. 11-9847.

#### Lira *v.*Florida.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 5th Dist. Certiorari denied.