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

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           The landing of the NEAR-Shoemaker spacecraft on asteroid 433 Eros      

      January 1, 2001    

The NEAR-Shoemaker spacecraft was designed to provide a comprehensive characterization of the S-type asteroid 433 Eros (refs 1-3), an irregularly shaped body with approximate dimensions of 34 ?? 13 ?? 13 km. Following the completion of its year-long investigation, the mission was terminated with a controlled descent to its surface, in order to provide extremely high resolution images. Here we report the results of the descent on 12 February 2001, during which 70 images were obtained. The landing area is marked by a paucity of small craters and an abundance of 'ejecta blocks'. The properties and distribution of ejecta blocks are discussed in a companion paper. The last sequence of images reveals a transition from the blocky surface to a smooth area, which we interpret as a 'pond'. Properties of the 'ponds' are discussed in a second companion paper. The closest image, from an altitude of 129 m, shows the interior of a 100-m-diameter crater at 1-cm resolution.

## Citation Information
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-40992 Summary Calendar

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION Plaintiff v. STEVE MORRISS Defendant - Appellee v. TARECO PROPERTIES, INC, Garnishor Movant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:00-MC-24
Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Tareco Properties, Inc. petitioned the district court toorder Steve Morriss to turn over assets and properties for the satisfaction of an earlier judgment. Tareco now appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for turnover with respect to some of these properties and assets. Tareco also appeals the district United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 11, 2008 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk

### 2

c ourt’s denial of a preliminary injunction to “prevent Steve Morriss from transferring such property or selling it and dissipating the proceeds.” We affirm. Tareco motioned for turnover under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 31.002, commonly referred toas the Texas Turnover Statute. This statute isa procedural mechanism by whichjudgment creditorscan reach assets ofajudgment debtor that are otherwise difficult to attach or levy on by ordinary legal process. See Maiz v. Virani , 311 F.3d 334, 342 (5th Cir. 2002); Beaumont Bank v. Buller, 806 S.W.2d 223, 224 (Tex. 1991). We review a district court’s turnover judgment for abuse of discretion. Bolloré S.A. v. Import Warehouse, Inc., 448 F.3d 317, 321 (5th Cir. 2006). A court abuses its discretion when it acts “in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner

. . . without reference to any guiding rules and principles.” I d. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Based on the available evidence, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Tareco’s motion for turnover. Due in part to our conclusion that the district court properly denied Tareco’s turnover motion, we also hold that the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to issue the injunction. See Piggly Wiggly Clarksville, Inc. v. Mrs. Baird’s Bakeries, 177 F.3d 380, 382 (5th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he abuse of discretion standard is utilized in our review of the district court's refusal to issue an injunction.”). AFFIRMED
ex1017form8k022212.htm


PROMISSORY NOTE








	
Pocatello, Idaho

	
Amount: $15,000

















FOR VALUE RECEIVED, TETRIDYN SOLUTIONS, INC., an Idaho corporation of 1651 Alvin Ricken Drive, Pocatello, ID  83201 (“Maker”), promises to pay to the order of DAVID AND ANTOINETTE HEMPSTEAD of Idaho Falls, Idaho (“Payee”) the principal sum of $15,000.00, with interest accruing thereon as described below.








	
  

	
1.

	
The loan will have 0% interest if repaid within sixty (60) days of receipt of funds by the Maker.  If the loan is not repaid within sixty (60) days of receipt of funds by the Maker, the Maker will be charged 10% to compensate the Payee for fees associated with securing the loan funds.













	
  

	
2.

	
If the loan is repaid within one year of receipt of funds by the Maker, no annual interest rate will be charged.  If the loan is not repaid within one year of receipt of funds, the annual interest rate will be 6% starting at the one-year anniversary date of the loan.













	
  

	
3.

	
The Payee is authorized to convert part or all of the loan balance and accrued interest to common stock of the Maker at fair market value at any time.













	
  

	
4.

	
The loan’s due date for full repayment is December 31, 2014.












This Promissory Note shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Idaho.







In the event this Note is placed with an attorney for collection or enforcement of any of its terms or provisions, whether or not suit is filed, the undersigned promises to pay, in addition to costs provided by statute or rule a reasonable attorney’s fee.







Payment of this Note is unsecured.







DATED this 22nd day of February, 2012.







TETRIDYN SOLUTIONS, INC.







By: /s/ David W. Hempstead


David W. Hempstead, President












By: /s/ Antoinette Knapp


Antoinette Knapp, Secretary
August 25, 2016

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

TYRIQUE AMOR EVANS, Appellant

NO. 14-16-00002-CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

________________________________

This cause was heard on the transcript of the record of the court below. 

Having considered the record, this Court holds that there was no error in the 

judgment. The Court orders the judgment AFFIRMED.

We further order appellant pay all costs expended in the appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 80 (Tuesday, April 28, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19132]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-9767]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

30 CFR Part 57


Safety and Health Standards--Underground Metal and Nonmetal Mines



CFR Correction

    In Title 30 of the Code of Federal Regulations, parts 1 to 199, 
revised as of July 1, 2008, on page 358, in Sec.  57.5060, remove 
paragraph (c)(3)(i) and redesignate paragraphs (c)(3)(ii), (c)(3)(iii), 
and (c)(3)(iv) as (c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(ii), and (c)(3)(iii) respectively.
[FR Doc. E9-9767 Filed 4-27-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 1, 2010 

Order 

 

December 1, 2010 

139505 (126)(131) 

TARA KATHERINE HAMED, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 SC: 139505 

v COA: 278017 

Wayne CC: 03-327525-NZ 

WAYNE COUNTY and WAYNE COUNTY 

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, 

Defendants-Appellants, 

and 

SERGEANT KENNETH DAWWISH, 

CORPORAL NETTI JACKSON, SHERIFF 

WARREN C. EVANS, and DEPUTY 

REGINALD JOHNSON, 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion by plaintiff-appellee for extension of 

time for filing her brief is considered and, it appearing the brief was filed November 1, 

2010, the time for filing is extended to that date. The motion by the Michigan Municipal 

League and others for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in this case is considered and it 

is granted.
# United States Court of Appeals **For the Eighth Circuit**

___________________________ No. 12-3175

___________________________ Wesley Eugene Brooks lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Tom Roy; David Crist; Terry Carlson; Nanette Larson; Bruce Reisner; Douglas Panser; James Schaffer; Jane Does 1-10; John Does 1-10 lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________ Submitted: November 19, 2013 Filed: February 26, 2014 [Unpublished]

____________ Before RILEY, Chief Judge, MELLOY and KELLY, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM. Wesley Brooks brought suit in the Districtof Minnesota, alleging that the New Dimensions chemical-dependency treatment program at the Minnesota Correctional Facility in Faribault, Minnesota, substan tially burdened his ability to exercise his religious beliefs in violation of the Firs t Amendment. In addition, Brooks alleged violations of the following laws: 42 U.S.C . § 1983; Section 3 of the Religious LandUse and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1; the American Indian Religious Freedom Ac t, 42 U.S.C. § 1996; and article I, section 16 of the Minnesota Constitution. Brooks requested a preliminary injunction to reinstate him to the New Dimensions program pending resolution of his lawsuit. The district court denied his request, and Brooks appealed to this court. While that appeal was pending, on January, 14, 2014, the district court dismissed Brooks's underlying case with pr ejudice, finding that Brooks had failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies. Brooks v. Roy , No. 12-CV-316, 2014 WL 127024, at *4–6 (D. Minn. Jan. 14, 2014) . Because the underlying suit has been dismissed, this court can no longer gr ant Brooks the relief he seeks. See Burns v. City of Apple Valley , 30 F. App'x 670, 670 (8th Cir. 2002) (unpublished) ("[A]n interlocutory appeal from the denial of preliminary injunctive relief becomes moot once final judgment is entered."); see also Activision TV, Inc. v. Pinnacle Bancorp, Inc. , No. 8:13-CV-215, 2013 WL 5963142, at *2 (D. Neb. Nov. 7, 2013) ("[A]n appeal from an order regarding an injunc tion does not stay other proceedings before the district court and does not prevent the district court from deciding the litigation on its merits[.]" (internal citation omitted)). Th e appeal is now moot. We therefore grant appellees' motion to dismiss. We note that Brooks has filed an appeal of the district court's judgment dismissing his case. In th e event that judgment is reversed, Brooks will be free to renew his motion for a preliminary injunction.

______________________________

-2-
KPMGLLP205 - 5th Avenue SWTelephone  (403) 691-8000Suite 3100, Bow Valley Square 2Telefax       (403) 691-8008Calgary AB  T2P 4B9Internet       www.kpmg.ca








Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








The Board of Directors of Pengrowth Energy Corporation








We consent to the use of our reports, each dated February 24, 2016, with respect to the financial statements and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in this annual report on Form 40-F.





We also consent to the incorporation by reference of such reports in the Registration Statements on Form F-3D (No. 333-180888) and Form F-10 (No. 333-204089) of Pengrowth Energy Corporation.














Chartered Professional Accountants


February 24, 2016


Calgary, Canada

































































KPMG LLP is a Canadian limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG


network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International Cooperative


(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity.


KPMG Canada provides services to KPMG LLP.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                         APR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                           MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                   2,323,087
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                            1,072,578
<ALLOWANCES>                                78,214
<INVENTORY>                                431,714
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         6,252,924
<PP&E>                                   1,460,259
<DEPRECIATION>                             270,188
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          37,778,444
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    7,039,930
<BONDS>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    17,630
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                179,502
<OTHER-SE>                              30,541,382
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            37,778,444
<SALES>                                  8,864,461
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        10,934,198
<CGS>                                    8,153,179
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            8,293,133
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (11,067,646)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    (11,067,646)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                           (11,067,646)
<EPS-BASIC>                                 (.70)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (.70)


</TABLE>
Case 19-20216-AJC Doc 84 Filed 02/27/20 Page 1 of 5
Case 19-20216-AJC Doc 84 Filed 02/27/20 Page 2 of 5
Case 19-20216-AJC Doc 84 Filed 02/27/20 Page 3 of 5
Case 19-20216-AJC Doc 84 Filed 02/27/20 Page 4 of 5
Case 19-20216-AJC Doc 84 Filed 02/27/20 Page 5 of 5
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. No. 01-14-00876-CR

RANDY GRIFFIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 208th District Court of Harris County. (Tr. Ct. No. 1442001).

The cause heard today by the Court is an appeal from the judgment signed by the 

court below on September 23, 2014. After inspecting the record of the court below, it is 

the opinion of this Court that it has no jurisdiction over the appeal. It is therefore 

CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED, and ORDERED that the appeal be dismissed.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered December 3, 2015.

Per curiam opinion delivered by panel consisting of Justices Jennings, Keyes, and Bland.
### The HONORAB LE WILLIAM R. WILSON, JR., United States District 1 

### Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. ____________________ Nos. 95-3596/95-3722

_____________________ James Edward Wright, Jr., * * Appellant/Cross-Appellee, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Calion Lumber Company, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee/Cross-Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: July 8, 1996 Filed: July 9, 1996

___________ Before BEAM, LOKEN, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM.
James Edward Wright, Jr., an African-American, sued his forme r employer, Calion Lumber Company, alleging that Calion discriminated agains t him on the basis of his race by subjecting him to adverse employmen t con ditions after learning that Wright was married to a Caucasian woman
. Following a three-day trial, an eight-member jury delivered a verdict in favor o f Calion, and the district court entered judgment dismissing th e 1 case. Wright appeals, and we affirm.
Wri ght's first argument--that his appointed attorney rendere d inadequate representa tion--does not entitle him to relief in this appeal. See Glick v. Henderson , 855 F.2d 536, 541 (8th Cir. 1988)(litigant in civil pr oceeding has no constitutional or statutory right to

appointment and effective assistance of attorney).
Wright next argues that only one of the jurors was a member of a minority group. Significantly, Wright does not argue that the jury venire panel was compiled in an unconstitutional or illegal manner, or that Calio n exercised peremptory challenges to strike jurors from the panel on th e basis of their race. Cf. Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., Inc. , 50 0 U.S. 614, 616, 628-31 (1991); Floyd v. Garrison , 996 F.2d 947, 949 (8t h Cir. 1993). This claim also fails.
Finally, Wright complains that all o f the witnesses testified he was the victim of discrimination, the witnesses for Calion were biased, and th e jury ignored testimony that his supervisor used the word "nigger" on the job site. However, this is not a sufficient basis for overturning a n adverse jury verdict.
Accordingly, we affirm. We also dismiss Calion's cross-appeal at its request.
A true copy.

Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED February 13, 2006 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-41293 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LUIS ALFONSO ANARIBA-RAMIREZ, also known as Luis Alonzo Anariba-Ramirez, also known as Oscar Rolando Zavala-Guzman, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5:03-CR-1685-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, DeMOSS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Luis Alfonso Anariba-Ramirez appeals from his guilty-plea conviction and sentence for being found in the United States after having been previously removed. He was sentenced to 50 months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. Anariba-Ramirez asserts that his sentence is invalid in light of United States v. Booker , 543 U.S. 220 (2005). Because the district court sentenced Anariba-Ramirez under a mandatory guidelines regime, it committed a Fanfan error. See UnitedNo. 04-41293 -2- States v. Walters , 418 F.3d 461, 463-64 (5th Cir. 2005). Because the Government concedes that Anariba-Ramirez preserved his Fanfan claim, this court reviews for harmless error. Id. ; United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 520 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). Under this standard of review, the Government bears the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the district court would not have sentenced Anariba-Ramirez differently under an advisory guidelines sentencing regime. Walters , 418 F.3d at 464. The record contains no indication that the district court would have imposed the same sentence absent the error. TheGovernment thus cannot meet its burden. Accordingly, AnaribaRamirez’s sentence is vacated and the case is remanded for resentencing. Anariba-Ramirez’s constitutional challenge is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998). Although Anariba-Ramirez contends that Almendarez-Torres was incorrectly decided and that a majority of the Supreme Court would overrule Almendarez-Torres in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466 (2000), we have repeatedly rejected such arguments on the basis that Almendarez-Torres remains binding. See United States v. Garza-Lopez , 410 F.3d 268, 276 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 126 S. Ct. 298 (2005). Anariba-Ramirez properly concedes that his argument is foreclosed in light of AlmendarezTorres and circuit precedent, but he raises it here to preserve it for further review.No. 04-41293 -3- CONVICTION AFFIRMED; SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3188 

To increase the authorized number of Weapons of Mass Destruction Civil 

Support Teams. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 16, 2012 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To increase the authorized number of Weapons of Mass 

Destruction Civil Support Teams. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN AUTHORIZED NUMBER OF WEAP4 ONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION CIVIL SUPPORT 

5 TEAMS. 

6 Section 1403(a) of the Bob Stump National Defense 

7 Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003 (Public Law 107– 

8 314; 116 Stat. 2676; 10 U.S.C. 12310 note) is amended— 

9 (1) in paragraph (1), by striking ‘‘23’’ and in10 serting ‘‘a minimum of 25’’; and 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 3188 IS

1 (2) by striking ‘‘55 teams’’ each place it ap2 pears and inserting ‘‘57 teams’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

STATEMENT OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF
KNOLOGY, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§ 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer of Knology, Inc. (the
Company) that, to his knowledge, this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (this Report), fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                        |  |  |  |                                     
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ------------------------------------
|Dated: November 6, 2009 |  |  |  | /s/ Rodger L. Johnson               
|                        |  |  |  | Rodger L. Johnson                   
|                        |  |  |  | Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Case 19-17088-JKO Doc 41 Filed 10/07/19 Page 1 of 3
Case 19-17088-JKO Doc 41 Filed 10/07/19 Page 2 of 3
Case 19-17088-JKO Doc 41 Filed 10/07/19 Page 3 of 3