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

Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler

BILL OF COSTS

Court of Appeals No. 12-14-00228-CV

Trial Court No. 2010-1235-B

Robert Darrell Tolar

Vs.

Darbie D. Tolar, Seagrid Ann Howe and Tia Jo Vanschoyck

DOCUMENTS FILED AMOUNT FEE PAID BY

Clerk's record

Indigent

Filing

Supreme Court chapter 51 fee

Required Texas.gov efiling fee

$189.00

$25.00

$100.00

$50.00

$20.00

STEPHEN R. PATTERSON

Lisa Lane Liston

Lisa Lane Liston

Lisa Lane Liston

Lisa Lane Liston

TOTAL: $384.00

I, Cathy S. Lusk, Clerk of the Court of Appeals, Twelfth Court of Appeals District at Tyler,

Texas, certify that the above copy of the Bill of Costs is true and correct. GIVEN UNDER MY

HAND AND SEAL OF SAID COURT, at Tyler, this 31st day of July 2015, A.D.

CATHY LUSK, CLERK

By:_____________________________

Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION


OF


CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER


AND


CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO


SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Jacov
Vaisman, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
Advanced Medical Institute Inc. for the three and six month periods ended
December 31, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in all material respects and that
information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Advanced Medical Institute
Inc.




I, Dilip
Shrestha, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to three and
six month periods Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Report
for the three and six month periods ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report") fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 in all material respects and that information contained in such Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of Advanced Medical Institute Inc.




Date:
March 3, 2010




By:
                      /s/ Jacov
      VaismanJacov
      VaismanChief
      Executive OfficerBy:
                      /s/ 
      Dilip ShresthaDilip
      ShresthaChief
      Financial Officer
* 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

March 27, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-10762

Summary Calendar

PAUL THOMAS GERIK,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:04-CV-2-C

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

Before KING, WIENER, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Paul Thomas Gerik, Texas prisoner #905560, appeals the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 application

challenging the Board of Pardons and Paroles’s denial of his

release on mandatory supervision. The respondent has moved to

dismiss Gerik’s appeal as moot and to supplement the record on

appeal.
No. 04-10762

-2-

During the pendency of this appeal, Gerik was reclassified

as being eligible for release on mandatory supervision and later

released on mandatory supervision. As Gerik has received all of

the relief he was seeking in his § 2254 application, his appeal

is moot. See McRae v. Hogan, 576 F.2d 615, 616-17 (5th Cir.

1978). Accordingly, the motion to supplement the record is

granted, the motion to dismiss is granted, and this appeal is

dismissed as moot.

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD GRANTED; MOTION TO DISMISS

GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT.
<PAGE>

              [LETTERHEAD OF PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS APPEARS HERE]


                                                                      EXHIBIT 16



Change in Certifying Accountant of TXU Europe Limited

     On August 6, 1999, based upon the recommendation of its Audit Committee,
the Board of Directors of TXU Europe Limited voted to appoint Deloitte & Touche
as the principal accountants for TXU Europe Limited and its subsidiaries for the
year ended December 31, 1999.  TXU Europe Limited chose not to continue the
engagement of PricewaterhouseCoopers, its former principal accountants.  The
decision by TXU Europe Limited to change principal accountants was made in order
to align the principal accountants of TXU Europe Limited with those of TXU Corp.
Deloitte & Touche LLP have been the principal accountants for TXU Corp and its
predecessors since 1945.

     No report of PricewaterhouseCoopers on TXU Europe Limited's financial
statements, including the period from formation, February 5, 1998, through
December 31, 1998, contained any adverse opinion or disclaimer of opinion, nor
was any report qualified in any manner.

     During the period from formation through December 31, 1998 and the period
from January 1, 1999 to August 6, 1999, there were no disagreements with
PricewaterhouseCoopers on any matter of accounting principles or practices,
financial statement disclosure or auditing scope or procedure.  During this
period, there were no "reportable events" as that term is defined in Item
304(a)(1)(v) of Regulation S-K of the Securities Act.

     TXU Europe Limited requested and received from PricewaterhouseCoopers a
letter dated August 9, 1999 addressed to the SEC stating that it agreed with the
above statements for the period from formation through December 31, 1998 and the
period from January 1, 1999 to August 6, 1999.

     On August 6, 1999, TXU Europe Limited engaged Deloitte & Touche as its
principal accountants to audit the financial statements for the year ending
December 31, 1999.  TXU Europe Limited has not consulted Deloitte & Touche
regarding any of the matters or events listed in Item 304(a)(2)(i) and (ii) of
Regulation S-K of the Securities Act.  TXU Corp had routine discussions with
Deloitte & Touche LLP concerning the application of accounting principles and
other matters primarily relating to the application of purchase accounting
principles to the consolidated financial statements of TXU Corp.  TXU Corp and
Deloitte & Touche LLP do not believe that these discussions constitute
consultations within the context of Item 304(a)(2) of Regulation S-K.

                                                                             (2)
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

NATHANIEL RORY STEELE,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 07-74463

Agency No. A023-557-240

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted December 19, 2011** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.

Nathaniel Rory Steele, a native and citizen of South Africa, petitions pro se

for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his

appeal from an immigration judge’s removal order. Our jurisdiction is governed

by 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review de novo questions of law, Hamazaspyan v.

FILED

DEC 30 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 07-74463

Holder, 590 F.3d 744, 747 (9th Cir. 2009). We deny in part and dismiss in part the

petition for review. 

The agency properly found Steele ineligible for cancellation of removal

based upon his 1994 conviction for an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C.

§ 1101(a)(43)(B). See 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(a)(3); Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 967,

976 (9th Cir. 2008) (conviction for possession of marijuana for sale is categorically

an “aggravated felony” under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B)); see also Becker v.

Gonzales, 473 F.3d 1000, 1002-04 (9th Cir. 2007) (upholding retroactive

application of the expanded “aggravated felony” definition under Illegal

Immigration and Immigrant Responsibility Act, Pub. L. No. 104-208, § 321, 110

Stat. 3009 (1996)).

The agency also properly found that Steele could not apply for both

cancellation of removal and a waiver under former section 212(c). See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1229b(c)(6); Becker, 473 F.3d at 1003.

We lack jurisdiction to review Steele’s contentions that his conviction for

violating Cal. Penal Code § 475 is not a crime involving moral turpitude under

8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I), and, alternatively, that it qualifies for the petty

offense exception under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(II), because Steele failed to
3 07-74463

exhaust these contentions before the agency. See Tall v. Mukasey, 517 F.3d 1115,

1120 (9th Cir. 2008).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED in part; DISMISSED in part.
| (1)   | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of United American Corporation for                the                quarter ended June 30, 2005 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the                quarter ended June 30, 2005, fairly presents in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of United American                Corporation. |
|-----------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (3)   |   |
|-----------------|--------|

|   By: | /s/Benoit                  Laliberte                                                                     |   |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|  Name:     |  Benoit                Laliberté                                                               |
|  Title:    |  Principal                Executive Officer,Principal                Financial Officer and Director |
|  Date:     |  September                22, 2005                                                                  |
EXHIBIT (10.27)(ii)

 

DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT EFFECTIVE AS OF FEBRUARY 22, 2012

TO NON PLAN INDUCEMENT AWARD RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT

 

Pursuant to action by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Ecolab Inc. effective as of February 22, 2012, the Non Plan Inducement Award Restricted Stock Award Agreement effective as of March 7, 2008 (the “Agreement”) between Nalco Holding Company, a Delaware corporation, and J. Erik Fyrwald (“Fyrwald”) was amended with respect to Exhibit A to the Agreement by accelerating the vesting date for the remaining 50% of the restricted shares subject to the Agreement (amounting to 67,959 shares of Ecolab Inc. Common Stock) from March 6, 2012 to February 22, 2012.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Rosemary A. Crane, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Epocrates, Inc.;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)           Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)*          **[Reserved]*

 

(c)           Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(d)           Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)           All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)           Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: May 12, 2011

 
|   | /s/   ROSEMARY A. CRANE         |
|--------|---------------------------------|
|   | Rosemary   A. Crane             |
|   | *Chief Executive Officer*       |
|   | *(Principal Executive Officer)* |

 

----
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Long‐term plant community trajectories suggest divergent responses of native and non‐native perennials and annuals to vegetation removal and seeding treatments      

      March 12, 2019    

Land managers frequently apply vegetation removal and seeding treatments to restore ecosystem function following woody plant encroachment, invasive species spread, and wildfire. However, the long‐term outcome of these treatments is unclear due to a lack of widespread monitoring. We quantified how vegetation removal (via wildfire or management) with or without seeding and environmental conditions related to plant community composition change over time in 491 sites across the intermountain western United States. Most community metrics took over 10 years to reach baseline conditions posttreatment, with the slowest recovery observed for native perennial cover. Total cover was initially higher in sites with seeding after vegetation removal than sites with vegetation removal alone, but increased faster in sites with vegetation removal only. Seeding after vegetation removal was associated with rapidly increasing non‐native perennial cover and decreasing non‐native annual cover. Native perennial cover increased in vegetation removal sites irrespective of seeding and was suppressed by increasing non‐native perennial cover. Seeding was associated with higher non‐native richness across the monitoring period as well as initially higher, then declining, total and native species richness. Several cover and richness recovery metrics were positively associated with mean annual precipitation and negatively associated with mean annual temperature, whereas relationships with weather extremes depended on the lag time and season. Our results suggest that key plant groups, such as native perennials and non‐native annuals, respond to restoration treatments at divergent timescales and with different sensitivities to climate and weather variation.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Seth Munson, Ph.D.

##### Research Ecologist

Southwest Biological Science Center

smunson@usgs.gov

928-556-7301

#### John B Bradford, Ph.D.

##### Research Ecologist, Northwest CASC

Climate Adaptation Science Centers

jbradford@usgs.gov

928-380-4671

## Related Content

#### Seth Munson, Ph.D.

##### Research Ecologist

Southwest Biological Science Center

smunson@usgs.gov

928-556-7301

#### John B Bradford, Ph.D.

##### Research Ecologist, Northwest CASC

Climate Adaptation Science Centers

jbradford@usgs.gov

928-380-4671

### Study Area

### Contact

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

2255 N. Gemini DriveFlagstaff, AZ86001United States

928-556-7094

928-556-7092

### Explore Search

                  - United States
                  - Utah

View All **
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Mari Nadine Saturday v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 6

- 0 0 887

- C R

Appellant Mari Nadine Saturday has moved for rehearing of this Court’s opinion of May

31, 2018. The State of Texas is ORDERED to file a response to Appellant’s motion for rehearing

no later than July 23, 2018.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: July 3, 2018
NEW DAY MIAMI, LLC, Appellant, v. BEACH DEVELOPERS, LLC, et al., Appellees.

No. 3D17-1071

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed April 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit
      32




**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 Quarterly Report of Sitestar Corporation, (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Frank Erhartic,
      Jr., Chief Executive Officer and President of the Company, and Daniel Judd,
      Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, certify, pursuant to
      18
      U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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/ Frank
              Erhartic, Jr.
            
            
            /s/ Daniel
              JuddFrank
              Erhartic, Jr.
            
            
            Daniel
              JuddChief
                Executive Officer and President
              November 14, 2008
            
            
            Chief Financial Officer
              November 14,
                2008
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 1 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 2 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 3 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 4 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 5 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 6 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 7 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 8 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 9 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 10 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 11 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 12 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 13 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 14 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 15 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 16 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 17 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 18 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 19 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 20 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 21 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 22 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 23 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 24 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 25 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 26 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 27 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 28 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 29 of 30
Case 19-17544-RBR Doc 37 Filed 07/19/19 Page 30 of 30
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Integration of social and ecological sciences for natural resource decision making: Challenges and opportunities      

      February 9, 2019    

The last 25 years have witnessed growing recognition that natural resource management decisions depend as much on understanding humans and their social interactions as on understanding the interactions between non-human organisms and their environment. Decision science provides a framework for integrating ecological and social factors into a decision, but challenges to integration remain. The decision-analytic framework elicits values and preferences to help articulate objectives, and then evaluates the outcomes of alternative management actions to achieve these objectives. Integrating social science into these steps can be hindered by failing to include social scientists as more than stakeholder-process facilitators, assuming that specific decision-analytic skills are commonplace for social scientists, misperceptions of social data as inherently qualitative, timescale mismatches for iterating through decision analysis and collecting relevant social data, difficulties in predicting human behavior, and failures of institutions to recognize the importance of this integration. We engage these challenges, and suggest solutions to them, helping move forward the integration of social and biological/ecological knowledge and considerations in decision-making.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Angela Fuller, PhD

##### Research Wildlife Biologist

Cooperative Research Units

afuller@usgs.gov

607-255-2841

## Related Content

#### Angela Fuller, PhD

##### Research Wildlife Biologist

Cooperative Research Units

afuller@usgs.gov

607-255-2841

### Contact

####               Cooperative Research Units Program          

12201 Sunrise Valley DrReston, VA20192United States

(703) 648 - 4260

(703) 648 - 4269