alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-16-00416- CV

In re Harlan Levien, Stephen L evien, K enneth Ives, and Parvin Johnson , Jr.

ORI GINAL P ROCEEDI NG F ROM B ASTROP CO UNTY

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

Relators Har lan L evien, Stephen L evien, Kenne th I ves, and Parvin J ohnson, J r., filed

a petition for writ of mandamus seeking revie w of the distric t court’s order s g ranting a motion to

continue a summary -judg ment hear ing and deny ing a joint motion f or protec tive order and motion

to quash depositi on notices, and they also filed a motion for emer g ency relief asking this Court t o

stay t h e underlying trial proce eding s, including discovery and previously schedule d depositions

of the Relators. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.1-.3, .10. I n a p re v i ous order

, we g rante d the motion for

emer g ency relief and st ay ed the underlying tr ial proce eding s pending further action by this Court.

See id. R. 52.10. I n addition, we requested that the real parties in interest, Kenneth L evien, Bar ry

L e v ie n , a n d Ph il li p L e v ie n , f

il e a r e s p o n s e to th e p e ti ti o n f o r w r it o f ma

n d a mu s

. H a v in g r e v ie w e d th e

p e ti ti o n , th e r e s p o n s e , a

n d th e r e c o r d

, w e d is s o lv e o u r s ta y a n d d e n y th e p e ti ti o n f

o r w r it o f ma

n d a mu s

.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice

Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and F ield

Filed: Aug ust 26, 2016
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           Land-surface subsidence in the Houston-Galveston region, Texas      

      January 1, 1974    

View Document

The pumping of large amounts of ground water in the Houston-Galveston region, Texas, has resulted in water-level declines of as much as 200 feet (61 metres) in wells completed in the Chicot aquifer and as much as 325 feet (99 metres) in wells completed in the Evangeline aquifer during 1943-73. The maximum annual rates of decline for 1943-73 were 6.7 feet (2.0 metres) in the Chicot aquifer and 10.8 feet (3.3 metres) in the Evangeline aquifer. During 1964-73, the maximum rates were 10 feet (3.0 metres) in the Chicot and 17.8 feet (5.4 metres) in the Evangeline. The declines in artesian pressures have resulted in pronounced regional subsidence of the land surface.

The center of subsidence is at Pasadena, where as much as 7.5 feet (2.3 metres) of subsidence occurred between 1943 and 1973. More than 1.0 foot (0.3 metre) of subsidence occurred at Pasadena between 1906 and 1943. The maximum amount of subsidence during 1964-73 was about 3.5 feet (1.1 metres).

In the southern part of Harris County, about 55 percent of the subsidence is a result of compaction in the Chicot aquifer. The area in which subsidence is 1 foot (0.3 metre) or more has increased from about 350 square miles (906 square kilometres) in 1954 to about 2,500 square miles (6,475 square kilometres) in 1973.

Estimates of subsidence are based on the amount of water-level decline, the thickness of the clay, and the compressibility of the clay. At Seabrook, it is estimated that for each 1 foot (0.3 metre) of average water-level decline, 1 foot (0.3 metre) of clay would compact 0.000031 foot (0.00094 centimetre). At Seabrook, for 1 foot (0.3 metre) of water-level decline, 0.0248 foot (0.756 centimetre) of subsidence would occur.

Planned use of surface water instead of ground water will probably result in some recovery of artesian pressures. If pressure recovery occurs the rate of subsidence should decrease substantially in the more critical areas.

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Contact

#### Oklahoma-Texas Water Science Center – Austin, TX Office

1505 Ferguson LaneAustin, TX78754United States

(512) 927-3500

(512) 927-3590 

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - texas

View All **
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Long-term hydrologic and biogeochemical responses of a soft water seepage lake in north central Wisconsin      

      January 1, 1995    

Hydrologic and chemical budgets were determined for the period October 1980 through September 1988 for Vandercook Lake, a 43-ha soft water seepage lake located in predominantly sandy outwash in northern Wisconsin. The 1951–1980 mean annual precipitation for the lake, based on nearby National Weather Service (NWS) stations, was 825 mm; volume-weighted pH of bulk atmospheric deposition during the 8-year study averaged 4.7. From October 1980 through September 1983, annual precipitation was 108% of the 30-year NWS average, annual recharge was 144% of the 8-year study period average, and annual groundwater inflow to the lake ranged from 5 to 9% of the total inflow. From October 1986 through September 1988, annual precipitation was 90% of the NWS average, annual recharge was 30% of the study period average, and the lake received no groundwater inflow. During the study, the lake changed from a system whose buffering mechanism was significantly influenced by mineral weathering in inflowing groundwater to one dominated by in-lake sulfate reduction. The functional differences exhibited by this lake during the 8 years of study demonstrate the tenuousness with which conclusions based on shorter-term studies of similar systems must be considered.

## Citation Information

### Study Area

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - Vandercook Lake
                  - wisconsin

View All **
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

In re:

CASE NO. 19-21400-RAM

JUAN M CABRERA HERNANDEZ

Debtor

______________________________/

AGREED ORDER ON OBJECTION TO EXEMPTIONS (ECF #43) 

THIS CASE came on to be heard on the Trustee's Objection to Exemptions (#43), and the

Court being advised that the parties agreed to the entry of the following order, and based on the

record, it is ORDERED as follows:

1. The Objection to Exemptions (ECF #43) is sustained in part and denied in part

2. Any funds recovered by the Debtor to repair or replace the structure of the homestead

is exempt.

3. Any funds recovered by the Debtor that is not earmarked to repair or replace the

structure of the homestead is not exempt.

4. The Debtor shall provide the Chapter 13 Trustee with a breakdown of the necessary

Robert A. Mark, Judge

United States Bankruptcy Court

_____________________________________________________________________________

ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on January 12, 2021.

Case 19-21400-RAM Doc 45 Filed 01/12/21 Page 1 of 2
repairs and file a motion to approve any settlement or to disclose any award in the State Court

case. 

* * * 

Submitted by

NANCY K. NEIDICH, ESQUIRE

STANDING CHAPTER 13 TRUSTEE

P.O. BOX 279806

MIRAMAR, FL 33027

(954) 443-4402

Nancy K Neidich, Esq, Chapter 13 Trustee, is directed to serve a conformed copy of this Order to Debtor's Attorney

immediately upon receipt and filed a certificate of service with the Clerk of the Court

Case 19-21400-RAM Doc 45 Filed 01/12/21 Page 2 of 2
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #11679 and #11680]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 1.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Washington (FEMA-1825-DR), dated 03/02/2009.

*Incident:*                         Severe Winter Storm and Record and Near Record Snow.                    

*Incident Period:*                         12/12/2008 through 01/05/2009.                    

*Effective Date:*                         04/16/2009.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         05/01/2009.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         12/02/2009.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration,                               ( print page 18753)                            409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Washington, dated 03/02/2009, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

*Primary Counties:*                     Whitman, Ferry.                

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-9430 Filed 4-23-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

In re:

LISA VARELA Case No.: 19-20889-MAM

Chapter 13

Debtor(s).

 / 

DEBTOR'S RESPONSE TO RULE 3002.1 NOTICE [ECF NO. 81] 

IN RELATION TO CLAIM NO. [CLAIM NO. 6]

TheDebtor(s),through the undersigned attorney, responds to U.S. Bank NationalAssociation

(“Secured Creditor”) Notice of Payment Change effective 3/1/24, as follows: 

G Debtor objects to Secured Creditor’s notice of payment change or notice of charge, fee or

expense, and requests a hearing on this matter. Documentation supporting the payment

change or charge, fee or expense was not attached to the notice. Accordingly, Debtor requests

documentation substantiating said payment change within 14 days of the date of this

response. 

G Debtor objects to Secured Creditor’s notice of payment change or notice of charge, fee or

expense, and requests a hearing on this matter. State reasons:

X Debtor does not object to Secured Creditor’s notice of payment change and will propose a

modified plan to provide for these fees and costs. 

G Debtor does not object to Secured Creditor’s notice of payment change. Due to the de

minimis amount of the payment change, charge, fee or expense, Debtor will not propose a

modified plan to provide for the payment of these de minimis fees and/or costs, and will

instead address such fees and/or costs outside of the bankruptcy case. Debtor acknowledges

that the chapter 13 trustee will not remit payment of the de minimis amount of the payment

change, charge, fee or expense, and the de minimis amount of the payment change, charge,

fee or expense is not subject to discharge unless paid in full by Debtor. 

G Debtor and Secured Creditor are filing a Joint Motion to Abate 3002.1 Notice and Reconcile

Annually, under Local Rule 3070-1(B)(7). 

DATED: February 21, 2024.

Law Offices of

NOWACK & OLSON, PLLC

Attorney for Debtor(s)

8551 Sunrise Blvd., Suite 208

Plantation, FL 33322

(954) 349-2265

/s/ Mitchell J. Nowack 

MITCHELL J. NOWACK, ESQ.

Florida Bar Number: 099661

LF-48 (12/01/20)

Case 19-20889-MAM Doc 82 Filed 02/21/24 Page 1 of 1
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           The Landscape Data Commons: A system for standardizing, accessing, and applying large environmental datasets for agroecosystem research and management      

      December 10, 2023    

Understanding where, when, and why agroecosystems are changing requires quality information about ecosystems that span land tenure, ecological processes, and spatial scales. Over the past two decades, land management agencies and research groups have adopted a suite of standardized methods for monitoring rangelands, which have been implemented at over 85,000 monitoring locations globally. However, the ability to use these data to understand agroecosystem dynamics and change across scales and across land ownership has been limited because, until now, these data have not been available in a harmonized, accessible format for analyses, modeling, and decision-support tools. We present the Landscape Data Commons, a cyberinfrastructure platform that harmonizes and aggregates standardized agroecosystem data, enables linkages to models, and facilitates analysis and interpretation of data within decision-support tools. The Landscape Data Commons provides a community platform for users to contribute data and develop next-generation tools to support agroecosystem management through the 21st century.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Mike Duniway, Ph.D.

##### Research Ecologist & Soil Scientist

Southwest Biological Science Center

mduniway@usgs.gov

928-556-7530

#### Anna C Knight

##### Ecologist

Southwest Biological Science Center

aknight@usgs.gov

## Related Content

#### Mike Duniway, Ph.D.

##### Research Ecologist & Soil Scientist

Southwest Biological Science Center

mduniway@usgs.gov

928-556-7530

#### Anna C Knight

##### Ecologist

Southwest Biological Science Center

aknight@usgs.gov

### Contact

####               Southwest Biological Science Center - Flagstaff, AZ, Headquarters          

2255 N. Gemini DriveFlagstaff, AZ86001United States

928-556-7094

928-556-7092
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration
 By Notice dated December 22, 2008, and published in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     on December 31, 2008 (73 FR 80432), Johnson Matthey Inc., Pharmaceutical Materials, 2003 Nolte Drive, West Deptford, New Jersey 08066-1742, made application by renewal to the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) to be registered as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed in schedule II: Drug
SchedulePhenylacetone (8501)
IIOpium, raw (9600)
IIPoppy Straw Concentrate (9670)
II
 The company plans to import the listed controlled substances as raw materials for use in the manufacture of bulk controlled substances for distribution to its customers. No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and 952(a), and determined that the registration of Johnson Matthey Inc., to import the basic classes of controlled substances is consistent with the public interest, and with United States obligations under international treaties, conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. DEA has investigated Johnson Matthey Inc. to ensure that the company's registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security systems, verification of the company's compliance with state and local laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 952(a) and 958(a), and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34, the above named company is granted registration as an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed. Dated: April 17, 2009. Joseph T. Rannazzisi, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug Enforcement Administration.


[FR Doc. E9-9794 Filed 4-28-09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 472-44 Filed 10/22/20 Page 1 of 1
exhibit10c31.htm


EXHIBIT 10c(31)












FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE


MANAGEMENT DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN


AS AMENDED AND RESTATED







WHEREAS, Progress Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) sponsors and maintains the Management Deferred Compensation Plan as amended and restated effective July 12, 2011 (the “MDCP”);







WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the MDCP to provide that participants be permitted to make investment elections on a daily basis;







NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the MDCP is hereby amended effective as of December 14, 2011 as follows:













	
1.  

	
Section 4.6(a) is amended to read as follows:












(a)                  A Participant may elect to reallocate the value of his Phantom Investment Subaccounts comprising his Deferral Account among other Phantom Investment Subaccounts and change the allocation of future Deferrals among Phantom Investment Subaccounts on a daily basis (or on such other basis as the Committee shall approve) pursuant to uniform rules and procedures adopted by the Committee.  Provided, however, that Participants may not reallocate the value of his Phantom Investment Subaccounts into Phantom Stock Units.












IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed this 20th day of December, 2011.












PROGRESS ENERGY, INC.

















By:
Filed 1/19/16 P. v. Johnson CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

ANDRE JOHNSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

F070338

(Super. Ct. No. CF98612873)

OPINION

THE COURT*

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Jonathan B. 

Conklin, Judge.

John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and 

Respondent.

-ooOoo-

 

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Detjen, J. and Pen᷈a, J.
2.

PROCEDURAL SUMMARY

On August 13, 2014, appellant filed a “Request for Petition for Romero Hearing 

(Penal Code Section 1385)” in the Fresno County Superior Court. Appellant did not 

identify the basis for the court’s jurisdiction.1 The court denied the request on August 19, 

2014, on the ground the court had no jurisdiction to consider dismissal of appellant’s 

prior strike conviction, noting that appellant’s Fresno County conviction and sentence 

were affirmed by this court on April 27, 2000. The instant appeal followed. Appellate 

counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) 

identifying no arguable issues and asking this court to independently review the entire 

record on appeal. 

On March 9, 2015, appellant filed a supplemental brief. Appellant states that his 

sentence in Los Angeles Superior Court case No. A471038 was to run consecutive to his 

sentence in Los Angeles Superior Court case No. A916597, but that his conviction in 

case No. A916597 was dismissed. Consequently, he was entitled to resentencing in case 

No. A471038. Appellant failed to identify the basis for this court’s jurisdiction to 

resentence appellant pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 

13 Cal.4th 497. 

After independent review of the record, we have concluded there are no 

reasonably arguable legal or factual issues. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.)

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. 

 

 

1 The record on appeal does not summarize the procedure, nor set forth the facts

relevant to appellant’s various convictions.
Exhibit 10.1

 

Description of Compensation Payable to Non-Employee Directors

 

Upon the recommendation of the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors (the “Board”) of MFA Financial, Inc. (the “Company”), on July 18, 2011, the Board approved the payment of the following compensation to each non-employee director of the Board in respect of his/her service on the Board effective as of May 24, 2011 (the date of the Company’s 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders):

 

·                  an annual fee of $75,000;

 

·                  a fee of $1,500 per meeting for attendance at any regular or special meeting of the Board and any meetings of the Audit Committee, Compensation Committee and Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee of the Board;

 

·                  an annual fee of $25,000 for the chair of the Audit Committee, $20,000 for the chair of the Compensation Committee and $10,000 for the chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee; and

 

·                  an annual grant of restricted shares of the Company’s common stock with a value of $75,000 to be awarded under the Company’s Amended and Restated 2010 Equity Compensation Plan (the “2010 Equity Compensation Plan”).

 

In addition to the compensation described above, as disclosed in the Company’s proxy statement, dated April 13, 2011, in respect of the Company’s 2011 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, the Company pays to its Lead Director an additional annual fee of $7,500 and awards to him/her an additional grant of 5,000 restricted shares of the Company’s common stock under the 2010 Equity Compensation Plan.

 

E-1
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 1**  **32 8** 

RALPH L. HAYES , P laintiff

- Appell ant ,

v. LYNCHBURG CITY SCHOOL BOARD, as constituted by Mary Ann H. Barker, Dr. Regina T. Dolan

- Sewell, Charlie White, Jenny Poore, J. Marie Walker, Thomas H. Webb, Albert Billingsly, Katie Snydor, and Treney Tweedy, Members of the School Board , Defendan t

- Appell ee .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia , at Lynchburg

. Norman K. Moon , Senior District Judge. ( 6 : 1 3

- c v - 00 0 08

- NKM

- RSB )

Submitted : September 25, 2014 Decided: September 29, 2014

Before WILKINSON and AGEE , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Ralph L. Hayes , Appellant Pro Se. Phillip Verne Anderson, John Chadwick Johnson, FRITH, ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC, Roanoke, Virginia , for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: In this Title VII action alleging racial discrimination, Ralph L. Hayes appeals the district court’s order granting Lynchburg City School Board’s motion for summary judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Hayes’ motion for the appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Hayes v. Lynchburg City Sch. Bd. , No. 6:13

- cv - 00008

- NKM

RSB (W.D. Va. Mar. 7, 2014). We deny as moot the School Board’s motion to quash. We dispense wi th oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED