alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-19-00140-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

RODOLFO A. ESCAMILLA, Appellant,

v.

SHELLY HOGAN ESCAMILLA, Appellee.

On appeal from the County Court 

of Live Oak County, Texas.

ORDER TO FILE APPELLATE BRIEF

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Hinojosa

Order Per Curiam

On December 12, 2019, this Court ordered this case abated and directed 

appellants to file, on or before January 21, 2020, either (1) a motion to reinstate the 

appeal, accompanied by appellant’s brief in this matter, or (2) a motion to dismiss the 

appeal pursuant to settlement. Since, appellant failed to take any further action to notify 
2

the Court regarding the status of this appeal. 

The Court hereby ORDERS appellant to file, within ten days of the date of this 

order, an advisory regarding the status of this cause and, if applicable, a motion to 

reinstate, dismiss, and/or sever. The failure to respond to this Court’s directive may 

result in the dismissal of the appeal in its entirety for want of prosecution. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 42.3(b),(c). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

6th day of April, 2020.
No. 10-11225.

#### Edward James Tinsley, Petitioner v. Harold W. Clarke, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

565 U.S. 1034, 132 S. Ct. 574,

181 L. Ed. 2d 421,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8287.

November 14, 2011.

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

Same case below, 407 Fed. Appx. 711.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-60736

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

OSCAR ALFREDO BURGON-URREA, also known as Oscar Alfredo BurgosUrrea, also known as Oscar Alfredo Burgos Ureea, also known as Oscar Alfredo 

Burgos, also known as Oscar Alfrdo Burgos, also known as Oscar Alfredo,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:18-CR-9-1

Before HAYNES, DUNCAN, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Oscar Alfredo Burgon-Urrea has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Burgon-Urrea has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 1, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-60736 Document: 00515183957 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/01/2019
No. 18-60736

2

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 18-60736 Document: 00515183957 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/01/2019
No. 11-6100.

#### Zdravko Kotzev, Petitioner v. Charles L. Ryan, Director, Arizona Department of Corrections, et al.

565 U.S. 954, 132 S. Ct. 427,

181 L. Ed. 2d 278,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7379.

October 11, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 146 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 40712]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20415]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6132-9]


Proposed Settlement Under Section 122(h) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act: Woodward Metal 
Processing Site

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of proposed administrative settlement and opportunity 
for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is 
proposing to enter into an administrative settlement to resolve certain 
claims under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 
Liability Act of 1980, as amended (CERCLA). Notification is being 
published to inform the public of the proposed settlement and of the 
opportunity to comment. This settlement is intended to resolve 19 
parties' liability for certain response costs incurred by EPA at the 
Woodward Metal Processing Superfund Site in Jersey City, New Jersey.

DATES: Comments must be provided on or before August 31, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Regional Counsel, 290 
Broadway--17th Floor, New York, NY 10007, and should refer to: In the 
Matter of the Woodward Metal Processing Superfund Site: Woodward Metal 
Processing Administrative Settlement, under section 122 (h) of CERCLA, 
U.S. EPA Index No. II-CERCLA-98-0110.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Office of Regional Counsel, 290 Broadway--17th Floor, New York, NY 
10007; Attention: Virginia A. Curry, Esq. (212) 637-3134, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80e3f5f2f2f9aef6e9f2e7e9eee9e1c0e5f0e1aeede1e9ecaee5f0e1aee7eff6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7013050202095e06190217191e1911301500115e1d11191c5e1500115e171f06">[email protected]</span></a>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 122(i)(1) of 
CERCLA, notification is hereby given of a proposed administrative 
settlement concerning the Woodward Metal Processing Superfund Site 
located in Jersey City, New Jersey. Section 122(h) of CERCLA provides 
EPA with authority to settle certain claims for costs incurred by the 
United States when the settlement is in the public interest and has 
received the approval of the Attorney General. Parties will pay a total 
of $1,795,051 to reimburse EPA for response costs incurred at the 
Woodward Metal Processing Superfund Site.

    Dated: July 20, 1998.
Jeanne M. Fox,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-20415 Filed 7-29-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 143 (Monday, July 27, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 40074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19938]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[MN51-01-7276b; FRL-6128-7]


Approval and Promulgation of State Plans for Designated 
Facilities and Pollutants; Minnesota; Control of Landfill Gas Emissions 
From Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
proposes to approve the Minnesota State Plan submittal for implementing 
the Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) Landfill Emission Guidelines. The 
State's plan submittal was made pursuant to requirements found in the 
Clean Air Act (Act). The State's plan was submitted to EPA on March 4, 
1997 in accordance with the requirements for adoption and submittal of 
State plans for designated facilities in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. It 
establishes performance standards for existing MSW landfills and 
provides for the implementation and enforcement of those standards. The 
EPA finds that Minnesota's Plan for existing MSW landfills adequately 
addresses all of the Federal requirements applicable to such plans. In 
the final rules of this Federal Register, the EPA is approving this 
action as a direct final without prior proposal because EPA views this 
as a noncontroversial action and anticipates no adverse comments. If no 
adverse comments are received in response to that direct final rule, no 
further activity is contemplated in relation to this proposed rule. If 
EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn 
and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent 
final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a 
second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in 
commenting on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received by August 26, 
1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), EPA, 
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Aburano, (312) 353-6960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the Direct 
Final document which is located in the Rules section of this Federal 
Register. Copies of the request and the EPA's analysis are available 
for inspection at the following address: (Please telephone Douglas 
Aburano at (312) 353-6960 before visiting the Region 5 office.) EPA, 
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: July 10, 1998.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 98-19938 Filed 7-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
No. 11-346.

#### American Central City, Inc., Petitioner v. Joint Antelope Valley Authority, et al.

565 U.S. 979, 132 S. Ct. 525,

181 L. Ed. 2d 351,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7912.

October 31, 2011.

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

Same case below, 281 Neb. 742, 807 N.W.2d 170.
Solicitation:

Shipment Request Number:

Contractor:

Contractor Point of Contact:

Strategic Materials

Contract Number:

Item/Pile:

Depot:

Quantity:

Unit Price:

Shipping Method:

Carrier Name:

Point of Contact:

Date Shipment Desired:

Ship To:

Minimum Load:

Outloader:

Sampler:

Remarks:

Electronically Submitted 

by Account:

Telephone Number:

Commodity:

Total Dollar Value:

Telephone Number:

Telephone Number:

Telephone Number:

Date Submitted:

Shipping Instructions (OCT 13) [SAMPLE ONLY, NOT FOR SUBMISSION]
After the COVID-19 pandemic started, we saw a concerning drop in routine adolescent vaccinations. Provider orders for 

adolescent vaccines through the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program also decreased by approximately 25% for HPV, 

Men-ACWY, and Tdap year 2020 (October 2019-September 2020) as compared to the same time the previous year. 

SIGNS OF IMPROVEMENT 

Adolescent vaccine orders through the 

Vaccines for Children (VFC) program and 

administration have steadily rebounded. 

Tdap and MenACWY VFC orders now 

exceed pre-pandemic levels. 

IMPROVEMENT NEEDED 

Vaccination coverage has remained high 

and stable overall among children 13-17 

years of age, with with coverage of more 

than 9 in 10 teenagers for recommended 

Tdap and Meningococcal vaccines 

nationally. Coverage for HPV also 

increased slightly with nearly 1 in 8 teens 

receiving a ÿrst dose of this vaccine. 

LEARN 

MORE: 

Routine Immunizations on Schedule for Everyone | 2022 Data Review 

www.cdc.gov/vaccines/imz-managers/coverage/teenvaxview/index.html

www.cdc.gov/vaccines/partners/routine-immunizations-lets-rise.html

IMMEDIATE ACTION NEEDED 

We must act now to catch up teens who delayed or missed 

getting routine vaccinations during the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Getting routine immunizations back on track is a goal that we can achieve by working 

together to reduce barriers, increase access, and strengthen vaccine conÿdence. 

Adolescent vaccination coverage for MenACWY and Tdap 

fell 4-5% among teens that became eligible for these 

vaccines during the pandemic. HPV vaccine orders through 

the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program have remained 

around 10% lower than pre-pandemic levels. 

4 - 5% 4 - 5% 

point drop point drop 

What do CDC data 

tell us about the 

COVID-19 pandemic’s 

effects on Routine 

Adolescent Vaccination?
RELIABILITY INCORPORATED
Exhibit 23
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-60696) pertaining to the Reliability Incorporated Employee Stock Savings Plan and Trust and in the related Prospectus of our report dated January 24, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Reliability Incorporated included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



|                              | BY/s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP
|----------------------------- | ----------------------
|                              |                       
|                              |                       
|                              |                       
|Houston, Texas
March 10, 2003 |                       
|                              |                       



32
(1) Adjusting Price $23.13 CWT

(2) Base Price $22.86 CWT

(3) Change from Base Price per CWT $0.27

(4) Price change per gallon $0.0232

(Line (3) divide by 11.63 gallons/cwt)

(5) Price change per half gallon $0.0116

Price change per quart $0.0058

Price change per pint $0.0029

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.0022

Price change per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.0018

Price change per half pint $0.0015

(6) Price adjustment per gallon $0.02

Price adjustment per half gallon $0.01

Price adjustment per quart $0.01

Price adjustment per pint $0.00

Price change per 12-oz pg. $0.00

Price adjustment per 1/3 qt. (10-oz) $0.00

Price adjustment per half pint $0.00

NOTE: Numbers in brackets are negative or decreases, all others are positive or increases.

Monthly EPA Calculation for Class I Milk (Clause 52.216-9032 Alt. I)

Based on California Dept. of Food and Agriculture Announcement of Minimum Prices

 Effective Date: February 2, 2014
DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY 

DEFENSE SUPPPLY CENTER RICHMOND 

DLA AVIATION

6090 STRATHMORE RD

RICHMOND, VA 23237

MIL-HDBK-57 FASTENER IDENTIFICATION SYMBOL CONFIRMATION

Complete this form and email to the https://www.dla.mil/What-DLA-Offers/Consumable-Hardware/logoreg/, along with 

a separate PDF file containing artwork of your fastener head marking. 

(Company name as it will appear in the listing) _________________________________________________ 

(Department, Division, etc., if it is to appear in the listing)

Corporate/Mailing Address Plant Location (if different)

Our Company is a fastener manufacturer YES ( ) NO ( ) 

NOTE: MIL-HDBK-57 requires the sources listed to have an inherent capability to manufacture fasteners out of raw material.

Telephone: FAX Number:

Contact Name: CAGE Code:

Title: DUNS Number:

Email: Website URL:

1. Fastener head marking artwork that is submitted electronically shall be provided in a PDF file. A resolution of 100 dpi

(dots per inch) minimum shall be used for artwork that is scanned. Provide only one marking per file submitted. Include the

company name and plant location in this file, along with a written description of the fastener head marking. (For example

“the script upper case letter A”, or “the number 3 enclosed by a circle.”)

2. If your company has plants in various locations, please provide DLA AVIATION VEB with the symbol(s)

used for each location, as well as the CAGE Code, point of contact, and phone number for each point of contact.

3. All information must be supplied in the English language.

4. Submit this form and artwork to aviationlogo@dla.mil.

NOTE: We encourage you to duplicate this form and forward it to your various plants, as necessary. 

SUBMITTED BY: __________________________________________

TITLE: ____________________________________________________

DATE: (mm/dd/yyyy): ________________________________________

PLEASE SUBMIT LOGO (HEAD MARKING) ON A SEPARATE SHEET.

DLA Troop Support Form 207
# ncasi

**NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR AIR AND STREAM IMPROVEMENT, INC. P.O. Box 13318, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709**  **- 3318**  **Phone (919) 941 -**  **6400 | Fax (919) 941**  **- 6401**  **Vipin K. Varma, PhD (**  **3 52) 331**  **- 17**  **45 | (904) 891 -**  **5021**

**vvarma@ncasi.org** 

### Feb ruary 15, 2012

TO: Robin Dunkins, Sector Policies and Programs Division, OAQPS FROM: Vipin Varma and John Pinkerton Dear Ms Robin Dunkins, In the December 27, 2011 Federal Register Residual Risk and Technology Review proposal for the Pulp and Paper industry, EPA requested comments on whether to remove or modify excess emissions allowances for Low Volume High Concentration, High Volume Low Concentration, and steam strippers (see FR 76 p. 81346). Specifically, EPA has requested information on the following: 1. Circumstances for excess emissions and whether they qualify as Start

- up, Shutdown and Malfunction (SSM) events (and if not, why not) 2. General categorization of excess emissions events (and caus es) 3. Differentiating between routine excess emissions events and SSM events 4. Frequency and duration of occurrences and, if available, quantities of emissions 5. Compilation of prevalent monitoring procedures and work practices, and 6. Whether excess emission periods are needed for technology or operational reasons The assembly of this kind of information, in the form of substantive comments reflecting industry

- wide practices, is a complex endeavor and cannot be accomplished by Feb ruary 27
– the end of the comment period. NCASI is currently designing a targeted survey, working with AF&PA and the industry, that attempts to address EPA’s questions and information needs. NCASI has a strong track record of conducting surveys around co mplex technical and regulatory issues and providing thorough reviews of the same. This survey will attempt to provide relevant information on categories of “routine” releases that are operational or process driven and not SSM events, their frequency, dura tion, and other related information. Comprehensive industry responses and subsequent assimilation of all data is time consuming , especially considering other ongoing projects and research. Therefore, we request that EPA extend the timeline for commen ts pertaining to excess emission allowances by four months until June 27th. This extension will enable a more comprehensive and deliberate data collection process and more substantive and responsive comments.The idea of undertaking such a survey has been broached with member companies and they are willing to respond

to this survey later this spring. I have copied some of our member companies on this e

- mail with whom we will be working to acquire this additional information. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Best Regards Vipin Vipin K. Varma, PhD NCASI Inc. (352) 331 1745 x 260 (904) 891 5021 vvarma@ncasi.org
EX 4.4



 Exhibit 4.4 
 China Finance Online Co. Limited’s 2010 Annual General Meeting 
 as a
publicly traded company 
 was held in Beijing at 10:00 am (Beijing time) on June 30, 2010 

Meeting address: 9th Floor of Tower C, Corporate Square, No. 35 Financial Street, Xicheng District, Beijing, 100033, China 

At this annual general meeting of shareholders (the “Meeting”) of China Finance Online Co. Limited (the “Company”), five proposals
were submitted. 
 The results of this Meeting are as follows: 
  

	1.	Mr. Kheng Nam Lee and Mr. Fansheng Guo were re-elected as directors of the Company. 

 2. The shareholders approved the re-appointment of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu CPA Ltd. as independent auditors of the Company for a term ending on the date of the next annual general meeting of shareholders
to be held in 2011 and authorized the board of directors to determine their remuneration. 
 3. The shareholders approved the audited
consolidated financial statements of the Company for the fiscal year ended on or as of December 31, 2009 together with the Reports of the Directors and the Auditors thereon as required by Hong Kong law. 

4. The shareholders authorized the board of directors during the next year to issue ordinary shares or preference shares upon such terms and conditions
as the board of directors, in its discretion, shall determine. 
 5. The shareholders approved the increase in the number of ordinary shares
available for issuance under the 2004 Stock Incentive Plan by 3,000,000 ordinary shares annually until December 31, 2014.
No. 11-5573.

#### Donald Garfield Galloway, Petitioner v. West Virginia.

565 U.S. 914, 132 S. Ct. 330,

181 L. Ed. 2d 205,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 5805.

October 3, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied.
EXHIBIT 99.1
                                                                    ------------

                              FAB INDUSTRIES, INC.


                            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 Annaul Report of Fab Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the period ending November 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Samson Bitensky,
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/  Samson Bitensky
---------------------------
Samson Bitensky
Chief Executive Officer
February 28, 2003
No. 11-6398.

#### Darrell J. Harper, Petitioner v. United States.

565 U.S. 989, 132 S. Ct. 524,

181 L. Ed. 2d 368,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 7723.

October 31, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.
May 27, 2015

MEETING ON 1,4-DIOXANE PROBLEM FORMULATION AND INITIAL ASSESSMENT

EPA OCSPP/OPPT RISK ASSESSMENT DIVISION

PURPOSE: Meeting of industry representatives with EPA to discuss the 1,4-Dioxane Problem 

Formulation and Initial Assessment. 

ATTENDEES:

EPA/OCSPP/OPPT/RAD

Tala Henry

Stanley Barone

Yvette Selby-Mohamadu

Susan Laessig

Scott Prothero

Charles Bevington

INDUSTRY ATTENDING IN PERSON

Christina Franz, ACC

Sarah Brozena, ACC

Paul DeLeo, American Cleaning Institute (ACI)

Steve Bennett, Consumer Specialty Products Association (CSPA)

Stephen Wieroniey and Javaneh Nekoomaram, American Coatings Association (ACA)

Kerry Kelly, Waste Management

Mark Collatz, Adhesive and Sealant Council (ASC)

INDUSTRY ATTENDING ON PHONE

Shaun Clancy, Evonik

Julie Froehlicher, Proctor & Gamble

Connie Deford, Dow Chemical

Jeff Brown, BASF

Sangeeta Khattar, BASF

Iain Davies, Personal Care Products Council (PCPC)