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

(2004/C 65 E/044)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-0797/03

by Paulo Casaca (PSE) to the Commission

(14 March 2003)

Subject:   Objective information from the Commission on the environmental damage of industrial farming of carnivorous fish

In his reply to my Written Question E-0009/2003 (1) the Commission repeated its asseveration (see the reply to question E-2675/02 (2)) that I had expressed the view that ‘fish farming is a principal threat to the sustainable development of fisheries’, which is simply untrue, as I explained in question E-0009/2003 and reiterate here.

In Portugal, the production of clams, for example, has traditionally been far more important than the farming of carnivorous fish, employing a very large number of — generally low-paid — workers, and making a major contribution to their incomes; it is now threatened by tourism-related pollution (e.g. at Ria Formosa), but this is an issue on which the Commission and its ‘fish farming strategy’ are completely silent.

Reports from the academic community, the major environmental organisations and the press flatly contradict the Commission's defence of the farming of carnivorous fish both in its Parliamentary replies and in its ‘strategy’.

This being so, when does the Commission intend to provide objective, independent data on the damage to sustainable fisheries caused by the farming of carnivorous fish?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(22 April 2003)

As already pointed out in reply to the two previous written questions on the same subject from the Honourable Member (E-2675/02 and E-0009/03) the Commission's opinion on aquaculture, be it intensive fish farming, or extensive bivalve cultivation, is expressed by its Community strategy for sustainable development of European aquaculture (3). The strategy has been welcomed by both the Parliament and the Council, respectively on 16 and 28 January 2003.

The concerns expressed by the Honourable Member on the impact that aquaculture may have on the aquatic ecosystem are addressed in the strategy, together with the measures that, in the opinion of the Commission, are needed to allow for the establishment of an environmentally sound industry.

Concerning the specific case of the pollution generated by tourism on the shellfish waters, these are tackled in the framework of Council Directive 79/923/EEC of 30 October 1979 on the quality required of shellfish waters (4). The Directive asks the Member States to designate shellfish waters, and to establish programmes in order to reduce pollution in these waters.

----

(1)OJ C 161 E, 10.7.2003, p. 167.

(2)OJ C 155 E, 3.7.2003, p. 40.

(3)  COM(2002) 511 final.

(4)OJ L 281, 10.11.1979.

----
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 310 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 310

   Commending Kelly D. Johnston for his service to the United States 
                                Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 1, 1996

  Mr. Lott (for himself, Mr. Daschle, and Mr. Nickles) submitted the 
        following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
   Commending Kelly D. Johnston for his service to the United States 
                                Senate.

Whereas Kelly D. Johnston faithfully served the Senate of the United States as 
        Secretary of the Senate during the 104th Congress, and discharged the 
        duties and responsibilities of that office with unfailing dedication and 
        a high degree of efficiency;
Whereas, as an elected officer of the Senate and as an employee of the Senate 
        and the House of Representatives, Kelly D. Johnston has upheld the high 
        standards and traditions of the United States Congress, from his service 
        on the staff of the House of Representatives from the 96th through the 
        101st Congress and then on the staff of the Senate from the 102nd 
        through the 104th Congress; and
Whereas, through his exceptional service and professional integrity as an 
        officer and employee of the Senate of the United States, Kelly D. 
        Johnston has earned the high esteem, confidence, and trust of his 
        associates and the Members of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate recognizes the notable contributions of 
Kelly D. Johnston to the Senate and to his country and expresses to him 
its appreciation and gratitude for faithful and outstanding service.
                                 <all>
```
IV

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 79

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a postage stamp should be issued

to mark the 85th anniversary of the dedication of the Tunkhannock

Creek Viaduct, now known as the Nicholson Viaduct, in Nicholson, Pennsylvania.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 14, 1997

Mr. MCDADE (for himself and Mr. SAXTON) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that a postage stamp

should be issued to mark the 85th anniversary of the

dedication of the Tunkhannock Creek Viaduct, now

known as the Nicholson Viaduct, in Nicholson, Pennsylvania.

Whereas the United States Postal Service selects subject for

commemorative postage stamps from among notable

events and landmarks of historic significance to the United States of America;

Whereas the construction of the Tunkhannock Creek Viaduct,

now known as the Nicholson Viaduct, in Nicholson,

Pennsylvania, was one of the greatest engineering feats

of the early twentieth century;
2

•HCON 79 IH

Whereas construction of the Nicholson Viaduct started in

May of 1912 and was completed in the autumn of 1915,

which even with modern technology would be a very short

period for building such a structure;

Whereas the Nicholson Viaduct is 2,375 feet long and 240

feet above the stream level, and over 300 feet above bedrock;

Whereas the materials which make up the 12 spans of the

Nicholson Viaduct include 163,000 cubic yards of concrete, 2,280,000 pounds of reinforcing steel, and 185,000

barrels of cement;

Whereas the Nicholson Viaduct was built by the Delaware,

Lackawanna, and Western Railroad with a workforce of

approximately 500 men, less than half of whom were

skilled laborers;

Whereas the Nicholson Viaduct was constructed as part of a

modernization program to shorten the length of the railroad, reduce the grades, and eliminate curves in order to

reduce running times;

Whereas the Nicholson Viaduct is an important part of our

Nation’s industrial heritage; and

Whereas November 6, 2000, will mark the 85th anniversary

of the dedication of the Tunkhannock Creek Viaduct, now

known as the Nicholson Viaduct: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that—

3 (1) a postage stamp should be issued to com4 memorate the 85th anniversary of the dedication of

5 the Nicholson Viaduct; and
3

•HCON 79 IH

1 (2) the Citizens’ Stamp Advisory Committee of

2 the United States Postal Service should recommend

3 to the Postmaster General that such a postage

4 stamp be issued.

Æ
<PAGE>


                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             Washington, D.C. 20549

                                    FORM 8-K

                                 CURRENT REPORT

         Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
                                     of 1934

       Date of Report (date of earliest event reported): February 6, 2003
                               (January 29, 2003)

                            GlobalSantaFe Corporation
             (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

          Cayman Islands                    1-14634               98-0108989
   (State or other jurisdiction    (Commission File Number)    (I.R.S. Employer
of incorporation or organization)                            Identification No.)

                              15375 Memorial Drive
                              Houston, Texas 77079
              (Address of principal executive offices and zip code)

        Registrant's telephone number, including area code: 281-925-6000


<PAGE>


Item 5. Other Events.

     On January 29, 2003, GlobalSantaFe Corporation issued a news release
reporting fourth quarter and full year 2002 financial results. The news release
is included as Exhibit 99.1 to this Current Report on Form 8-K and is
incorporated herein by reference.



                                       2

<PAGE>


Item 7. Financial Statements, Pro Forma Financial Information and Exhibits.

     (c) Exhibits.

     99.1    Press Release dated January 29, 2003.


                                       3

<PAGE>

                                    SIGNATURE

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

                                    GLOBALSANTAFE CORPORATION

                                     By: /s/ Alexander A. Krezel
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Alexander A. Krezel
                                        Vice President, Secretary and
                                        Associate General Counsel

Date:  February 6, 2003


                                       4

<PAGE>




                                Index to Exhibits

       Exhibit Number                          Description
       --------------                          -----------
            99.1                Press Release dated January 29, 2003
1

The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the Northern District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-3933

___________

Bryan Bach, husband; Jennifer *

Bach, wife, *

*

Appellants, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Northern District of Iowa.

Gregory Charles Linnell, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: June 4, 1999

Filed: July 6, 1999

___________

Before MCMILLIAN, LOKEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Bryan and Jennifer Bach appeal the district court’s1

 dismissal of their diversity

tort suit as time barred. After carefully reviewing the record and the parties’

submissions, we conclude that the case was transferable to the federal court in Iowa

under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because of lack of venue in Minnesota, and that the court

did not err in applying the Iowa statute of limitations. See Wisland v. Admiral
2

Beverage Corp., 119 F.3d 733, 736 (8th Cir. 1997) (§ 1404(a) transfer requires

application of law of transferee court), cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 1043 (1998). We also

find no error in the district court’s conclusion that the Bachs’ amended complaint

substituting parties did not relate back to the date of the original complaint under the

standards of Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(3). Dismissal was appropriate for the reasons the

district court stated, and an extended discussion is not warranted.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
**Exhibit 99.1**

 

SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION

 

Thecertification set forth below is being submitted to the Securities and ExchangeCommission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 1350 of Chapter 63of Title 18 of the United States Code.

 

May 9, 2003

 

Charles T. Chrietzberg,Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of Northern California Bancorp, Inc.certifies:

 

1.               thatthis periodic report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.               thatinformation contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of NorthernCalifornia Bancorp, Inc..

 

 
|   | /s/ Charles  T. Chrietzberg, Jr. |   |
|--------|----------------------------------|--------|
|   | Charles T.  Chrietzberg, Jr.     |   |
|   | Chief  Executive Officer         |   |
|   | and  President                   |   |

 

----
#### COM. v. PELZER, C.

1927 MDA 2016

Superior Court of Pennsylvania.

09/07/2017

CP-40-CR-0001989-2001 (Luzerne)

Affirmed
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R ECONSIDERATION E N B ANC

Appellate case name: Jose Juan Cardenas v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 11

- 01123

- CR

Trial court case number: 1309968

Trial court : 184th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: April 11, 2013

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered t hat the motion for reconsideration en banc is DENIED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Michael Massengale

______

Acting for the Court

Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland, Sharp, Massengale, Brown,

and Huddle participated in the consideration of this motion

.

Da te: May 13, 2013
# BUEHLER ASSOCIATES ---ATTORNEYS-------------------- J.C. Buehler· 

### L. Craig Turner· , Jill S. McGinnis

Of Counsel Jeffrey. 

### A. Doty Carolyn E. Leeman John Cloutier' * Registered Civil Mediator; also admitted Illinois *'also admitted Mississippi t admitted Illinois, Florida Not A Partnership



## Federal AviationAdministration 800 Independence Avenue S.W. Washington, DC 20591 

# RECEIVED JAN 292014 HEARING DOCKET

ATrN: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 WilburWright Bldg- Suite 2Wl000 Re: SolutionsAir Charter, LLC, 

## Case No. 2011SW910191 REQUEST FOR HEARING 777 East 86th Street Box 40924 Indianapolis, Indiana 46240-0924 (317) 253-8686 (317) 253-9371 Fax
Email:jcb @buehlerlaw.com cturner@ buehlerlaw.com jmcginnis@ buehlerlaw.com Dorothy Simone, Manager/Paralegal



## In accordance

## with 14 

## C.F.R. 13.16, 

## SolutionAir Charter, LLC, requests a hearing onthe agency's Final Notice ofProposed Civil Penalty, receivedJanuary 21, 2014.



## J.c>Buehler Attorney for Solutions Air Charter, LLC CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
A copy ofthis Request for Hearing, with attachments, was forwarded by First Class U.S. Mail to Nicholas R. Milliard, Esq. at the FAA Office ofChiefCounsel, on Janua1y 22, 2014.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00179-CR

Calvin Conway, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, 277TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 99-294-K277, HONORABLE DON HUMBLE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

In January 2000, appellant Calvin Conway pleaded guilty to attempted indecency with a 

child by contact. Tex. Pen. Code Ann. ' 15.01(a) (West 1994), ' 21.11(a)(1) (West Supp. 2003). 

Pursuant to a plea bargain, the district court deferred adjudication and placed appellant on community 

supervision. He now appeals from the judgment of conviction rendered after the court revoked supervision, 

adjudicated him guilty, and assessed punishment at imprisonment for seven years.

Appellant=s court-appointed attorney filed a brief concluding that the appeal is frivolous and 

without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), by 

presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds to be 

advanced. See also Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. 
2

App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Jackson v. State, 485 S.W.2d 

553 (Tex. Crim. App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969). 

Appellant filed a pro se brief. In it, he argues that he did not violate the conditions of 

supervision as found by the district court. The decision to proceed with an adjudication is not appealable. 

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 42.12, ' 5(b) (West Supp. 2003). Thus, the pro se brief presents nothing 

for review.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs and agree that the appeal is frivolous and 

without merit. We find nothing in the record that might arguably support the appeal. Counsel=s motion to 

withdraw is granted.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.

 

Mack Kidd, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, B. A. Smith and Yeakel

Affirmed

Filed: January 30, 2003

Do Not Publish
Phantom Stock Agreements - Schedule of Directors and Officers






							
	 
	EXHIBIT 10.13


	OMEGA FLEX, INC.

	 

	Phantom Stock Agreements

	 

	Schedule of Directors and Officers

	 

	As of December 31, 2013

	 

	Director/Officer 

	Type 

	Number 

	Grant Date 

	Grant Price 

	Maturity Date 

	Vesting Schedule 


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Dean Rivest

	Full

	1,500 

	03/03/2010 

	$10.52

	03/03/2014

	3 years 


	 
	Full

	1,500 

	03/03/2011 

	$13.14

	03/03/2015

	3 years


	 
	Full

	1,500 

	02/16/2012 

	$16.68

	02/16/2016

	3 years


	 
	Full

	1,500

	03/03/2013

	$15.01

	03/03/2017

	3 years


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Paul Kane

	Full

	1,500 

	03/03/2010 

	$10.52

	03/03/2014

	3 years 


	 
	Full

	1,500 

	03/03/2011 

	$13.14

	03/03/2015

	3 years


	 
	Full

	1,500 

	02/16/2012 

	$16.68

	02/16/2016

	3 years


	 
	Full

	1,500

	03/03/2013

	$15.01

	03/03/2017

	3 years


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Edwin Moran

	Full

	1,500 

	03/03/2010 

	$10.52

	03/03/2014

	3 years


	 
	Full

	1,500 

	03/03/2011 

	$13.14

	03/03/2015

	3 years


	 
	Full

	1,500 

	02/16/2012 

	$16.68

	02/16/2016

	3 years


	 
	Full

	1,500

	03/03/2013

	$15.01

	03/03/2017

	3 years


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Steven Treichel

	Full

	2,100

	03/03/2010 

	$10.52

	03/03/2014

	3 years


	 
	Full

	2,100

	03/03/2011 

	$13.14

	03/03/2015

	3 years


	 
	Full

	2,100

	02/16/2012 

	$16.68

	02/16/2016

	3 years


	 
	Full

	2,100

	03/03/2013

	$15.01

	03/03/2017

	3 years


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Timothy Scanlan

	Full

	1,500 

	03/03/2010 

	$10.52

	03/03/2014

	3 years


	 
	Full

	1,500 

	03/03/2011 

	$13.14

	03/03/2015

	3 years


	 
	Full

	1,500 

	02/16/2012 

	$16.68

	02/16/2016

	3 years


	 
	Full

	1,500

	03/03/2013

	$15.01

	03/03/2017

	3 years


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Steven Hockenberry

	Full

	590

	02/16/2012

	$16.68

	02/16/2016

	3 years


	 
	Full

	590

	03/03/2013

	$15.01

	03/03/2017

	3 years
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RALPH HOWARD BLAKELY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

GREGORY JONES, in his individual 

capacity; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-35647 

D.C. No. 3:18-cv-05021-RBL-TLF 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Ronald B. Leighton, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 27, 2018**

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

Washington state prisoner Ralph Howard Blakely appeals pro se from the 

district court’s order denying his motion for a preliminary injunction in his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging constitutional claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion. Jackson v. City & 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 3 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-35647 

County of San Francisco, 746 F.3d 953, 958 (9th Cir. 2014). We affirm in part and 

dismiss in part. 

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Blakely’s motions

seeking the return of his legal documents because Blakely failed to establish that 

such relief is warranted. See id. (plaintiff seeking preliminary injunction must 

establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm 

in the absence of preliminary relief, the balance of equities tips in his favor, and an 

injunction is in the public interest). 

We lack jurisdiction over the district court’s discovery ruling and order 

denying Blakely’s motions for appointment of counsel. See Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. 

Nat’l Marine Fisheries Serv., 886 F.3d 803, 825 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Orders relating 

to discovery . . . are orders that regulate the conduct of litigation and are not 

appealable under § 1292(a)(1).”); Kuster v. Block, 773 F.2d 1048, 1049 (9th 

Cir. 1985) (order denying appointment of counsel is not a final appealable order).

In sum, we affirm the district court as to the denial of a preliminary 

injunction and dismiss this appeal as to all other issues raised in the opening brief.

AFFIRMED in part, DISMISSED in part.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

December 15, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
129340 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 129340 COA: 251043 Saginaw CC: 02-021253-FC STEPHEN XAVIE COCHRANE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, th e application for leave to appeal the Ju ly 12, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY , J., would reverse and rema nd this case to the circuit court for a new trial.

s1208 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 15, 2005

Clerk
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus KAREEM TOMLIN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-92-238-V) Submitted: September 16, 2004 Decided: September 23, 2004 Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kareem Tomlin, Appellant Pro Se. Robert James Conrad, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kareem Tomlin seeks to appeal his 1993 conviction and sentence. In criminal cases, the defendant must file his notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). Tomlin filed his notice of appeal many years after the expiration of the appeal period. Because Tomlin failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
Briefs Stricken and Order filed November 19, 2020 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-01082-CR

____________

TAMMI BLEIMEYER, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 178th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1458861

ORDER

Appellant’s brief and the State’s brief each contains sensitive data in that each 

discloses the names of multiple people (the complainant and witnesses) who were 

minors at the time the offense was committed. Tex. R. App. P. 9.10(a)(3). Sensitive 

data must be redacted from any filing. Tex. R. App. P. 9.10(b). Because the sensitive 

data is not redacted, the briefs are STRICKEN. Appellant and the State are ordered 

to file briefs that comply with Tex. R. App. P. 9.10 by November 30, 2020.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Wise, and Zimmerer.