alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 17

- 00364

- CR

THOMAS CLARK
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 347th District Court of Nueces County , Texas Trial Cause No. CR10001771

- H

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause o n appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED . The Court
orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. We further order this decision certified below for observance.
July 26, 2018
-82 -80 -78 -76 -74 -72 -70

38 40 42 44



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



### ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 500 1000 1500 500 18 12 06 00 06/16 

### NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

## Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 16 Jun 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.77 N 77.11 WMeters AGL
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5611]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP96-690-000]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Meeting and Site Visit

March 3, 1997.
    On March 12, 1997, the Office of Pipeline Regulation (OPR) staff 
will conduct a meeting with the applicants, concerned Federal and state 
agencies, and all interested parties to discuss Northern's proposed 
Mississippi River Crossing. The meeting will begin at 9:30 a.m. at the 
Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge-Visitor Center in Classroom B 
located at 3815 E. 80th Street, Bloomington, Minnesota. The phone 
number is (612) 854-5900.
    OPR staff will also conduct a site visit of the proposed route for 
the Mississippi River Crossing in Washington and Dakota Counties, 
Minnesota with Northern Natural Gas Company.
    All parties may attend. Those planning to attend must provide their 
own transportation.
    For additional information, contact Paul McKee at (202) 208-1088.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-5611 Filed 3-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# C_2023112EN.01001302.xml

| 27.3.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/13

---

Appeal brought on 6 August 2022 by Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior, SL against the order of the General Court (First Chamber) delivered on 9 June 2022 in Case T-493/21, Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior v Commission

(Case C-527/22 P)

(2023/C 112/17)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior SL (represented by: D. Luff, avocat, and R. Sciaudone, avvocato)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission

By order of 14 February 2023, the Court of Justice (Eighth Chamber) held that the appeal was dismissed as manifestly unfounded and that Equinoccio-Compañía de Comercio Exterior SL should bear its own costs.

---
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, R. Scot Sellers, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Archstone-Smith Operating Trust (the“registrant”).  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theyears covered by annual report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the years presented in thisreport;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(f) and 15d-f(f)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in whichthis report is being prepared;  b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and thepreparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generallyaccepted accounting principles;  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial 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 hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board oftrustees (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls.       By: /s/ R. Scot Sellers         R. Scot Sellers
U.S. Department ofTransportation, Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, RoomW12

-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

Petition for exemption/rulemaking
I am the airport board chairman for DuPont

-LapeerAirport (D95) owned by May field Township, Lapeer County, Michigan

. I am requesting to operate an unmanned aircraft system (UAS) DJI Phantom 3 Advanced N95QC for the research and developmentfor wildlife management on airports and aerial inspection of airport property and structures

. This would include having a handheld comm radio to monitor ground and air movement of aircraft so the UAS would be recalled to limit any conflict with aircraft. The UAS would be limited to only 50’agl above the tallest airport structure or less than 400’agl

. I would also like to conduct training of persons individually or belonging to both private and or public organizations that have interest in the use and application of a UAS

. The purpose ofthis training is for safe operation of a UAS and to enhance the safety of the national airspace system (NAS) as well as for the protection of persons and property. This training would include aerial inspection of residential and/or commercial structures under contract with the owners or local government authority, aerial photography and/or video for public and/or private use including real estate, architecture, land surveying, engineering and other related professionalactivities, aerial video/photography or providing live video feed to assist with search and rescue operations in cases of an emergency or natural disasterwhen the local authorities or government have requested it

. Frank W Thorman B.S. in Education Private Pilot 3384512 Repairman Experimental Aircraft Builder 3011848 Thor Products LLC 2022 Haines Rd Lapeer, MI, 48446
No. 11-681.

No. 11-1154.

#### Harris et al. *v.*Quinn, Governor of Illinois, et al. Retractable Technologies, Inc., et al. *v.*Becton, Dickinson & Co.

C. A. 7th Cir.; and

C. A. Fed. Cir. The Solicitor General is invited to file briefs in these cases expressing the views of the United States.
(logo) BERKADIA®

 

Annual Statement as to Compliance

For the Year EndedDecember 31, 2021 (the “Reporting Period”)

 

*DeutscheMortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation,  *

*Series2015-DC1*

 

Pursuantto Section 10.11 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement governing thereferenced transaction (the “Servicing Agreement”), I hereby attest that:

 

        i.           Areview of the activities and performance of Berkadia as Subservicer during the(“reporting period”) has been made under my supervision.

 

      ii.           To thebest of my knowledge, based on such review, Berkadia as Subservicer hasfulfilled, in all material respects, its obligations under this SubservicingAgreement throughout the Reporting Period and no default by the Subservicerunder the Subservicing Agreement has occurred and is continuing.

 

BerkadiaCommercial Mortgage LLC, 

 

/s/Mark E. McCool

 

MarkE. McCool

President

February10, 2022
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 8847 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 8847

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 440 Arapahoe Street in Thermopolis, Wyoming, as the ``Robert L. 
                          Brown Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 3, 2020

  Ms. Cheney introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 440 Arapahoe Street in Thermopolis, Wyoming, as the ``Robert L. 
                          Brown Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. ROBERT L. BROWN POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 440 Arapahoe Street in Thermopolis, Wyoming, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Robert L. Brown Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Robert L. 
Brown Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit
      23.1**


















CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM







We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-3 (File No. 333-132497) and Form S-8 (File Nos. 333-411113-99, 333-84426,
      333-103761, 33-125199, 333-139931) of Puget Energy, Inc. and on Form S-3 (File
      No. 333-132497-01) of Puget Sound Energy, Inc. of our reports dated March 1,
      2007 relating to the consolidated financial statements, financial statement
      schedule, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
      financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
      reporting of Puget Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound Energy, Inc., which appear
      in
      this combined Form 10-K.











/s/
      PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


PricewaterhouseCoopers
      LLP


Seattle,
      Washington


March
      1,
      2007
## NO. 12

- 1 2

- 00 421

- C R

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: §

ROBERT JAMES FOX

, § ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

RELATOR §

MEMORANDUM OPINION PER CURIAM In this original proceeding, Relator Robert James Fox seeks a writ of habeas corpus alleging that he is illegally confined and restrained in the Cherokee County jail by the Honorable Dwight Phifer, Judge of the 2nd Judicial District Court, Cherokee County, Texas. He contends that he has been held for 1,420 days in retaliation for exercising his “First Amendment right to redress of grievance.” He further asserts that he is being confined pursuant to a “preposterous felony charge” of tampering with a govern mental record. The original jurisdiction of this court to issue a writ of habeas corpus is limited to those cases in which a person’s liberty is restrained because the person has violated an order, judgment, or decree entered in a civil case. See T EX

. G O V ’ T C ODE A NN

. § 22.221(d) (Vernon 2004). Consequently, this court does not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal

matters. Dodson v. State , 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1999, no pet.); Ex parte Hawkins , 885 S.W.2d 586, 588 (Te x. App.

— El Paso 1994, no pet.). Relator’s complaint in this proceeding arises out of a felony criminal charge, which is a criminal matter. Therefore, we lack jurisdiction to address the merits of Relator’s petition. Accordingly, we dismiss
Relator’s ha beas petition for want of jurisdiction

. Opinion delivered December 20 , 20 1 2

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J. ( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

DECEMBER 20 , 201 2

NO. 12

- 1 2

- 00 421

- C R

ROBERT JAMES FOX , Relator

v. HON. DWIGHT L. PHIFER
, Respondent



### O RIGINAL 

### P ROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed by ROBERT JAMES FOX , who is the relator in Cause No. 1 7387 , pending on the docket
of the 2 nd Judicial District Court of Cherokee County, Texas. Said petition for writ of habeas

corpus having been filed herein on December 12, 201 2 , and the same having been duly considered, because it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction in this proceeding, and that the petition for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed, it is therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of hab eas corpus be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction

.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 45 (Friday, March 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 10623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-5608]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------


DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Submission to OMB for Review; Comment Request

February 28, 1997.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-1505.
    Form Number: IRS Form 8820.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Orphan Drug Credit.
    Description: Filers use this form to elect to claim the orphan drug 
credit, which is 50% of the qualified clinical testing expenses paid or 
incurred with respect to low or unprofitable drugs for rare diseases 
and conditions, as designated under section 526 of the Federal Food, 
Drug, and Cosmetic Act.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 20.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent/Recordkeeper:
      Recordkeeping--5 hours, 44 minutes.
      Learning about the law or the form--1 hour, 17 minutes.
      Preparing and sending the form to the IRS--1 hour, 26 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden: 169 hours.

    OMB Number: 1545-1508.
    Form Number: IRS Form 8851.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Summary of Medical Savings Accounts.
    Description: This form will be used by the IRS to determine whether 
numerical limits set forth in section 220(j)(1) have been exceeded.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit.
    Estimated Number of Respondents/Recordkeepers: 200,000.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent/Recordkeeper:
      Recordkeeping--3 hours, 51 minutes.
      Learning about the law or the form--6 minutes.
      Preparing, copying, and sending the form to the IRS--10 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: Annually, Other (additional report for 
1997).
    Estimated Total Reporting/Recordkeeping Burden: 1,540,000 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-5608 Filed 3-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Wolverine Exploration Inc.: Exhibit 10.1 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






DEBT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS AGREEMENT, made and dated for reference the * day
of *, *. 

BETWEEN: 

WOLVERINE EXPLORATION INC., a
company duly incorporated pursuant to the laws of the State of Nevada and having
an office at 4055 McLean Road, Quesnel, BC, V2J 6V5. 

(hereinafter called the
“Company”) 

OF THE FIRST PART 

AND: 

*. 

(hereinafter called the
“Creditor”) 

OF THE SECOND PART 

WHEREAS: 

A.                                       The Company is indebted to the Creditor in the amount of USD
$* as of the date hereof (the Debt”); and 

B.                                       The Creditor has agreed to accept common shares in the
capital stock of the Company in lieu of payment of the debt.

NOW THEREFORE THIS AGREEMENT WITNESSES that in
consideration of the premises and of the covenants, conditions and provisos
herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the parties hereto
agree as follows: 

1.                                       The Creditor hereby agrees to accept, subject to paragraph 2
hereof, * fully paid and non-assessable common shares in the capital of the
Company (the “Shares”) in lieu of payment of the Debt by the Company at a deemed
issuance price of USD $0.01 per Share. 

2.                                       The Creditor acknowledges that the issuance of the Shares as
contemplated by paragraph 1 of this Agreement is subject to compliance with
applicable securities laws. Further, the Creditor acknowledges that the
certificates representing the Shares will contain a restrictive legend
inhibiting the ability of the Creditor to trade such shares until the expiry of
a six month hold period.




- 2 -

3.                                       This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding
upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors and assigns. 

4.                                       This Agreement shall be governed, construed and enforced
according to the laws of the Province of British Columbia and is subject to the
exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Province of British Columbia. 

5.                                       The parties agree to execute such further documents and
assurances as may be required to effect the intent hereof. 

6.                                       The Creditor agrees to abide by the provisions of applicable
securities laws in the disposition of any Shares of the Company acquired
pursuant to this Agreement. 

7.                                       The Creditor and the Company may execute this Agreement in
two or more counterparts, each of which is deemed to be an original and all of
which constitute one agreement, effective as of the date first above written.


WOLVERINE EXPLORATION INC. 

 

Lee
Costerd                                  

 

*
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO

. 09

- 1 7

- 00 459

- C V



### ____________________
AMANDA JANE REYNOLDS , Appellant

V.

STEPHEN DUANE WELLMAN AKA JACK DAVID WELLMAN , Appellee

________________________________________ _______________ ______________

On A ppeal from the County Court at Law No. 3

Montgomery County, Texas Trial Cause No

. 17

- 05

- 05353

- CV

________________________________________ ________________ _____________ ORDER
Appellant , Amanda Jane Reynolds, fi led a motion on February 16, 2018,
challenging the trial court’ s order sustaining the court reporter s ’ contest s to
Reynolds’ s Statement of Inability to Afford Payment of Court Costs. See Tex. R.
Civ. P. 145(g)(1). A clerk’s record and a reporter’s record of the proceedings on the
claim of indigence have been filed with the Court of Appeal s

. See Tex. R. Civ. P.
145(g)(3).

Th e court repo rter certified that Reynolds demonstrated her ability to pay for

the record by paying for the reporter’s record before the date she claimed she was2

indigent. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 145(f)(1). Reynolds asked the trial court to confirm her
indigent status without a hearing because the contests were filed more than ten days
after Reynolds filed her statement of inability to pay costs

. The trial court denied
Reynolds’s request to deny the contest s without a hearing. 1 See Tex. R. Civ. P.
145(f)(5). Reynolds failed to appear at the hearing to prove her inability to pay costs.

See id. Finding that Reynolds failed to appear and prove that she is unable to pay
costs, the trial court sustained the challenge and ordered Reynolds to pay costs. See

Tex. R. C iv. P. 145(f)(6).
Having reviewed the motion and the record on the claim of indigence , we conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion by sustaining the contest s

. See

Basaldua v. Hadden
, 298 S.W.3d 238, 241 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2009, no pet. )
(noting that trial court’ s order sustaining contest is reviewed under abuse of
discretion standard)

. Accordingly, we deny Reynolds’ s motion. See Tex. R. Civ. P.
145(g)(4).

O RDER ENTERED March 21 , 2018

.
PER CURIAM

B efore Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.

1 Reynolds did not ask to appear by telephone. See Vodicka v. Tobolo w sky
, No. 05

- 17

- 00961

- CV, 2017 WL 5150992, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Nov. 7, 2017, no pet.) (mem. op.) (“ The burden rests squarely on the declarant to request access to the court through an alternative means such as by telephone and to demonstrate why a trial court s hould authorize it. ”).
No. 11-10141.

#### Lyons *v.*Belle Glades Correctional Institution et al.

Sup. Ct. Fla. Certiorari denied.
#### Durr Drug Co. v. C. D. Davis.

154 So. 147..

Opinion Filed April 16, 1934.

*552
      *James N. Daniel,*for Appellant;

*Clyde E. Mayhall,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

— Bill of complaint was filed by judgment creditor seeking to have a mortgage on a stock of merchandise declared void as a lien on such stock of merchandise after foreclosure of the mortgage and sale of the stock of merchandise under foreclosure decree.

Bill of complaint dismissed. No error.

Affirmed.

Davis, C. J., and Whitfield, Terrell and Buford, J. J., concur.