alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 3, 2021

No. 04-21-00021-CV

Nancy ALANIS,

Appellant

v.

U.S BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as successor trustee to Bank of America, National 

Assocation, as successor by Merger to Lasalle Bank, M.A., as trustee for the MLMI Trust Series 

2006-He6, Nationstar Mortgage, LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper,

Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CI-01238

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On January 19, 2021, appellant filed her notice of appeal. On February 2, 2021, Ms. Amy 

Hinds, the court reporter responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in this appeal filed a 

notice with this court, stating appellant has failed (1) to request in writing that she prepare the 

reporter’s record and (2) to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the reporter’s 

record. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(b)(1) (explaining that the request to the court reporter must 

designate the exhibits and the portions of the proceedings to be included in the reporter’s 

record); id. 35.3(b) (court reporter is responsible for preparing and filing the reporter’s record if 

(1) notice of appeal has been filed, (2) appellant has requested the reporter’s record be prepared, 

and (3) appellant has paid the fee for preparation of the record, has made arrangements to pay the 

fee, or is entitled to appeal without paying the fee). 

Appellant is ORDERED to file written proof to this court no later than February 15, 

2021 that she has requested the official court reporter to prepare the reporter’s report in 

compliance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.6 and has filed a copy of the request with 

the trial court clerk. See TEX. R. APP. P. 34.6(b)(2). 

We further ORDER appellant to provide written proof to this court no later 

than February 15, 2021 that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have 

been made to pay the reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the 

reporter’s fee.
If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this court will only consider those 

issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not require a reporter’s record for a 

decision. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c).

_________________________________

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

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

court on this 3rd day of February, 2021.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
# Methods and Key Questions

# Efficacy of All Drugs

# Treatment Failures

# Azithromycin Resistance

# Gentamicin Resistance

# Ceftriaxone Resistance

# Cefixime Resistance

# Ciprofloxacin Resistance 

# EPT

# Mouthwash and Other Data 

# Efficacy of Alternative Drugs

# Abbreviations and Acronyms
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| 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/                J. Michael Wilson                |
|-----------------------------------------------------|
| J.                Michael Wilson                    |
| Chairman                and Chief Executive Officer |
| August                10, 2006                      |
No. 10-1473.

#### Christopher Jude Blauvelt, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 823, 132 S. Ct. 111,

181 L. Ed. 2d 37,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5285.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 638 F.3d 281.
Skip directly to site content Skip directly to search


Español  Other Languages


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC twenty four seven. Saving Lives, Protecting People
 Search

		Submit


Public Health Training


Section Navigation
			
			CDC Home








What’s New						Print
																Related Pages
										CDC Learning ConnectionTraining DevelopmentE-learning InstituteCDC Learning Connection Monthly Featured TrainingE-learning Institute Fellowship Alumni
Analyze
Example Postcourse and Follow-Up Evaluations [DOC – 95 KB]
Engaging Recorded WebinarsE-learning Institute Fellowship Accepting Applications
							
					
							Last Reviewed:  June 7, 2023						Source: 	Public Health Infrastructure Center
					Facebook
        Twitter
        LinkedIn
        Syndicate homePublic Health Training
Find Training
Develop Training
What’s New


About CDC
					Contact Us
					800-232-4636
 Facebook Twitter Instagram LinkedIn Youtube Pinterest Snapchat
 CONTACT CDC
				Contact Us
							Call 800-232-4636
							Email Us
			ABOUT CDC
				About CDC
							Jobs
							Funding
			POLICIES
				Accessibility
							External Links
							Privacy
							Policies
							No Fear Act
							FOIA
							OIG
							Nondiscrimination
							Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			CONNECT WITH US
				Facebook
								Twitter
								Instagram
								LinkedIn
							Youtube
								Pinterest
								Snapchat
								Email
			LANGUAGES
				Español
							繁體中文
							Tiếng Việt
							한국어
							Tagalog
							Русский
							العربية
							Kreyòl Ayisyen
							Français
							Polski
							Português
							Italiano
							Deutsch
							日本語
							فارسی
							English


U.S. Department of Health & Human Services
			Accessibility
			External Links
			Privacy
			Policies
			No Fear Act
			FOIA
			Nondiscrimination
			OIG
			Vulnerability Disclosure Policy
			USA.gov


Exit Notification / Disclaimer Policy Close
 Links with this icon  indicate that you are leaving the CDC website. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) cannot attest to the accuracy of a non-federal website.
				Linking to a non-federal website does not constitute an endorsement by CDC or any of its employees of the sponsors or the information and products presented on the website.
				You will be subject to the destination website's privacy policy when you follow the link.
				CDC is not responsible for Section 508 compliance (accessibility) on other federal or private website. Website Disclaimers
 Cancel Continue
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**987 CA 12-00576**  PRESENT: FAHEY, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, AND SCONIERS, JJ.

JOSHUA JOHNSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JORGE DEL VALLE, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

THE MATHEWS LAW FIRM, SYRACUSE (DANIEL F. MATHEWS, III, OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

SMITH, SOVIK, KENDRICK & SUGNET, P.C., SYRACUSE (ROBERT P. CAHALAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John C. Cherundolo, A.J.), entered November 3, 2011 in a personal injury action. The order granted the motion of defendant for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint.

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is denied and the complaint is reinstated.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking damages for injuries he sustained at work when defendant, plaintiff’s coemployee, allegedly threw a baseball that struck plaintiff’s face. Defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that workers’ compensation is plaintiff’s exclusive remedy, and Supreme Court granted the motion. We reverse. Workers’ compensation is the exclusive remedy of an employee injured “by the negligence or wrong of another in the same employ” (Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 [6]). “[T]he words ‘in the same employ’ as used in the Workers’ Compensation Law are not satisfied simply because both plaintiff and defendant have the same employer; a defendant, to have the protection of the exclusivity provision, must . . . have been acting within the scope of his [or her] employment and not have been engaged in a willful or intentional tort” ( Maines v Cronomer Val. Fire Dept. , 50 NY2d 535, 543). Even assuming, arguendo, that defendant met his initial burden on the motion, we conclude that plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact with respect thereto ( see generally Zuckerman v City of New York
, 49 NY2d 557, 562). Here, plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact “whether the actions of defendant were within the scope of his employment by submitting evidence that defendant’s conduct was neither common nor condoned” in their workplace ( Cloutier v Longo , 288 AD2d 942, 942; see Maines , 50 NY2d at 544-545; Shumway v Kelley , 60 AD3d 1457, 1459; cf. generally Lowe v Kinn , 199 AD2d 743, 744-745, lv**-2- 987 CA 12-00576** 

denied 83 NY2d 753).

Entered: September 28, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
No. 10-11239.

#### Richard Adolphus Forde, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 874, 132 S. Ct. 232,

181 L. Ed. 2d 130,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 6677.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 407 Fed. Appx. 740.
No. 09-8695.

#### Shannon P. Coryell, Petitioner v. California Department of Corrections, et al.

562 U.S. 1208, 131 S. Ct. 1065,

178 L. Ed. 2d 879,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 1064.

January 24, 2011.

Motion for leave to file a petition for rehearing denied.

Former decision, 559 U.S. 1015, 130 S. Ct. 1941, 176 L. Ed. 2d 379, 2010 U.S. LEXIS 2667.
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 LODGIAN, INC.By:
    /s/ Edward J. RohlingEDWARD J. ROHLINGChief Executive OfficerBy:
    /s/ James A. MacLennanJAMES A. MACLENNANExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer   46
# C_2013147EN.01002401.xml

| 25.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 147/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 147/24

---

Action brought on 15 March 2013 — Iralco v Council

(Case T-158/13)

2013/C 147/43

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Iranian Aluminum Co. (Iralco) (Tehran, Iran) (represented by: S. Millar and S. Ashley, Solicitors, and M. Lester, Barrister)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as the contested acts include the applicant; and, |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul Council Decision 2012/829/CFSP of 21 December 2012 amending Decision 2010/413/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Iran, and Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1264/2012 of 21 December 2012 implementing Regulation (EU) No 267/2012 concerning restrictive measures against Iran, in so far as the contested acts include the applicant; and,

| — | Order the Council to bear the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

Order the Council to bear the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for designating the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to give adequate or sufficient reasons for designating the applicant.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and to effective judicial review. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging that the Council has failed to safeguard the applicant’s rights of defence and to effective judicial review.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging that the Council erred manifestly in considering that any of the criteria for listing were fulfilled. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging that the Council erred manifestly in considering that any of the criteria for listing were fulfilled.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council’s decision to designate the applicant has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business and reputation. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging that the Council’s decision to designate the applicant has infringed, without justification or proportion, the applicant’s fundamental rights, including its right to protection of its property, business and reputation.

---
Certificate of Mutilation

1. Items Mutilated

Disposal Turn-In Document:

Part Numbers or NSNs:

Quantity:

Description:

2. Certification Statement

I certify that I am the U.S. person (U.S. Government employee or defense contractor 

personnel) that actually performed or witnessed the mutilation of the items listed in block 

1 of this certificate to the point of scrap in accordance with Volume 2 of DoD

Manual 4160.28.

Signature (Certifier): Date

Printed Name and Grade or Rank: 

Title and Activity: 

Phone and Facsimile Numbers: 

Mailing and E-mail Addresses: 

3. Verification Statement:

I verify that I am the U.S. Government employee (U.S. citizen) that verified the 

mutilation of the items listed in block 1 of this certificate by the person who signed the 

certification statement in block 2 of this certificate.

Signature (Verifier): Date

Printed Name and Grade or Rank: 

Title and Activity: 

Phone and Facsimile Numbers: 

Mailing and E-mail Addresses:
EXHIBIT 21
LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT   NAME OF ENTITY JURISDICTION OF ORGANIZATIONAfterthoughts Merchandising Corp. DelawareBMS Distributing Corp. DelawareCBI Distributing Corp. DelawareClaire’s Austria GmbH AustriaClaire’s Boutique’s, Inc. DelawareClaire’s Canada Corp. DelawareClaire’s France S.A.S. FranceClaire’s Germany GmbH GermanyClaire’s Holding GmbH SwitzerlandClaire’s International Europe SwitzerlandClaire’s Nippon, Ltd. JapanClaire’s Puerto Rico Corp. DelawareClaire’s Stores Canada Corp. CanadaClaire’s Switzerland GmbH SwitzerlandClaire’s Accessories UK, Ltd. United KingdomCSC Limited Partnership AlbertaCSI Luxembourg S.a.r.l. LuxembourgRSI International, Ltd. Hong KongClaire’s Accessories Spain, S.L. Spain
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 20, 2018

No. 04-18-00266-CV

TCOE, INC.,

Appellant

v.

SA QUAD VENTURES, LLC,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No. 3, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018CV00153

Honorable David J. Rodriguez, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The Appellant’s Motion to Extend Time to File Appellant’s Reply Brief is hereby 

GRANTED.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 20th day of November, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
CALPUFF Input Variables 






POSTUTIL Input Variables 
CALPOST Input Variables 


Appendix A 

UDiscussion of CALPUFF modeling options used for BART analyses

Various CALPUFF model options were specified in an EPA memo issued by Dennis Atkinson and 

Tyler Fox of the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; the memo was entitled “Dispersion 

Coefficients for Regulatory Air Quality Modeling in CALPUFF”, March 16, 2006. Of these various 

recommended settings, Southern Company, upon advice from ENSR, has used alternative 

settings for two specific options: CDIV and MPARTL. The values used by Southern Company 

and the reasons for these uses are provided below. 

UCDIVU: This parameter affects the divergence criterion for dw/dz across puffs used to initiate 

adjustment for horizontal convergence. The value specified in the IWAQM Phase 2 report (1998) 

is 0.01 (1/sec). Since the time that report was generated, this option in CALPUFF was changed 

by the model developer, Earth Tech, to 0.0 to improve the model performance in the year 2000. 

The use of the smaller value gives better protection against mass accumulation within 

convergence zones by compensating with increased sigma-z to account for vertical movement of 

the air. The model change actually requires two values for CDIV (values at partial and full 

adjustment), and the default value for each was accordingly changed to 0.0. This was confirmed 

by Joe Scire in an email to Bob Paine dated 12/22/06 (a copy can be provided upon request). 

The old default value of 0.01 continues to be erroneously recommended by EPA, however, 

because the 1998 IWAQM guidance was never corrected, and EPA memos such as the Atkinson 

and Fox memo referenced above have not made the correction either. Some states, such as 

Minnesota (see HUhttp://www.pca.state.mn.us/air/regionalhaze.htmlUH) as well as Montana and other 

western states are using the current CDIV default values of 0.0, 0.0 in their BART analyses. 

A number of CALPUFF input files provided on the TRC web site have 0.0, 0.0 as the selected 

CDIV values. Due to this reason and the updated default value specification for CDIV, Southern 

Company has elected to use the current default values of 0.0, 0.0. 

UMPARTLU: This parameter affects the manner in which puffs interact with the mixing lid. A value 

of 0 means that the ISCST3 modeling approach is used; while a value of 1 means that the 

AERMOD approach is used. In the March 16, 2006 Atkinson and Fox memo, other AERMODrelated options (some default, some not) that had been accepted before this time were removed 

from the approved list. The MPARTL option was apparently retained (possibly an EPA oversight) 

as set to 1 in the memo, even though it is an AERMOD feature. A CALPUFF input file provided 

on the official TRC web site for VISTAS BART modeling (as well as the approved general EPA 

version) has MPARTL set to 0, which would be consistent with the rest of the changes affecting 

AERMOD options, and which is the CALPUFF default. Consistent with the other changes 

removing AERMOD-related settings, Southern Company has opted to set MPARTL to zero, the 

CALPUFF default.
No. 11-5137.

#### Lee Robbins, Petitioner v. George Smith, Warden.

565 U.S. 891, 132 S. Ct. 273,

181 L. Ed. 2d 161,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5804.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 411 Fed. Appx. 37.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 24

                             DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549

                  RE:        Fabri-Centers of America, Inc.
                             Commission File No. 1-6695
                             1934 Act Filings on Form 10-K
                             For Fiscal Year Ended February 1, 1997

Gentlemen:

The above Company is the issuer of securities registered under Section 12 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Act"). Each of the persons signing his or
her name below confirms, as of the date appearing opposite his or her signature,
that Alan Rosskamm, Samuel R. Gaston, and each of them, are authorized on his or
her behalf to sign and to submit to the Securities and Exchange Commission such
filings on Form 10-K as are required by the Act. Each person so signing also
confirms the authority of Alan Rosskamm, Samuel R. Gaston, and each of them, to
do and perform on his or her behalf, any and all acts and things requisite or
necessary to assure compliance by the signing person with the Form 10-K filing
requirements. The authority confirmed herein shall remain in effect as to each
person signing his or her name below until such time as the Commission shall
receive from such person a written communication terminating or modifying the
authority.

                               Date                                     Date
                               ----                                     ----

/s/Alan Rosskamm                           /s/Samuel Krasney
----------------------------- ---------    --------------------------- ------
Alan Rosskamm                              Samuel Krasney

/s/Samuel R. Gaston                        /s/Scott Cowen
----------------------------- ---------    --------------------------- ------
Samuel R. Gaston                           Scott Cowen

/s/Robert R. Gerber                        /s/Frank Newman
----------------------------- ---------    --------------------------- ------
Robert R. Gerber                           Frank Newman

/s/Betty Rosskamm                          /s/Ira Gumberg
----------------------------- ---------    --------------------------- ------
Betty Rosskamm                             Ira Gumberg

/s/Alma Zimmerman                          /s/Gregg Searle
----------------------------- ---------    --------------------------- ------
Alma Zimmerman                             Gregg Searle



                                     Page 42
No. 11-5730.

#### Rubio Argelio Angel, Petitioner v. Virginia.

565 U.S. 920, 132 S. Ct. 344,

181 L. Ed. 2d 216,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7091.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Virginia denied.

Same case below, 281 Va. 248, 704 S.E.2d 386.
#### *State, Respondent, v. Brogan, Petitioner,*

No. 91790-6.

Petition for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals, No. 45894-2-II, April 28, 2015, 187 Wn. App. 1018. *Denied*September 30, 2015.
# im%-/£t ELECTRONIC RECORD COA# 01-14-00116-CR 

# OFFENSE: 22.01 (Assault) Benedict Chinonso Emesowum v. 

## STYLE: Thestateof Texas COUNTY: Harris COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: Co Crim Ct at Law No 10 

### DATE: 07/28/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 1849562



## IN THE COURTOF CRIMINALAPPEALS Benedict Chinonso Emesowum v. STYLE: The State ofTexas 

# PR0 5E. Petition FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS: 

# DATE: *//#?/*>&' JUDGE: 

## C&*. CCA#: 

# \OH%»IS CCADisposition: DATE: JUDGE: SIGNED: PUBLISH:
REHEARING IN CCA IS: 

### JUDGE: 

### PC:_ DNP:

MOTION FOR


### ELECTRONIC RECORD
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
  (1)
    
    The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended February 29, 2008, as filed
with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended; and(2)
    
    Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
 /S/ RICHARD L. TRAVIS, JR.
 The foregoing Certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350; it is not
being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation languages in such filing.