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

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           Protected areas as social-ecological systems: perspectives from resilience and social-ecological systems theory      

      October 17, 2017    

Conservation biology and applied ecology increasingly recognize that natural resource management is both an outcome and a driver of social, economic, and ecological dynamics. Protected areas offer a fundamental approach to conserving ecosystems, but they are also social-ecological systems whose ecological management and sustainability are heavily influenced by people. This editorial, and the papers in the invited feature that it introduces, discuss three emerging themes in social-ecological systems approaches to understanding protected areas: (1) the resilience and sustainability of protected areas, including analyses of their internal dynamics, their effectiveness, and the resilience of the landscapes within which they occur; (2) the relevance of spatial context and scale for protected areas, including such factors as geographic connectivity, context, exchanges between protected areas and their surrounding landscapes, and scale dependency in the provision of ecosystem services; and (3) efforts to reframe what protected areas are and how they both define and are defined by the relationships of people and nature. These emerging themes have the potential to transform management and policy approaches for protected areas and have important implications for conservation, in both theory and practice.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

## Related Content

### Contact

####               Cooperative Research Units Program          

12201 Sunrise Valley DrReston, VA20192United States

(703) 648 - 4260

(703) 648 - 4269
NO. 04-14-00715-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT SAN ANTONIO

TK HANKS LP AND PALOMA CAPITAL, LLC,

Appellants,

v.

ENERFIN FIELD SERVICES LLC,

Appellee.

APPELLEE’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO

ABATE APPEAL PENDING SETTLEMENT

Enerfin Field Services LLC, the appellee, moves to abate this appeal

temporarily to permit the parties time to document their settlement properly. Enerfin

shows:

The parties have reached an agreement settling this matter, but need time

to document their agreement.

TK Hanks LP and Paloma Capital, LLC, filed their appellants’ brief on

December 30, 2014. Enerfin’s brief is due January 30, 2015. The parties have now

reached an agreement to settle this matter. The parties need time to prepare appropriate

documents setting out their agreement. The parties wish to avoid the unnecessary effort

and expense associated with further briefing while maintaining the status quo until that ACCEPTED

04-14-00715-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

1/9/2015 3:34:05 PM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERKo c c u r s

. T h e p a r t i e s a n t i c i p a t e j o i n t l y f i l i n g p a p e r s s e e k i n g f

i n a l d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h i s c a s e

o n c e t h e s e t t l e m e n t h a s b e e n c o n s u m m a t e d

.

C O N C L U S I O N

T h e c o u r t s h o u l d a b a t e t h i s a p p e a l b e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s h a v e r e a c h e d a n

a g r e e m e n t r e s o l v i n g t h e i r d i s p u t e a n d n e e d t i m e t o p r e p a r e a p p r o p r i a t e d o c u m e n t s r e l a t e d

t o t h a t a g r e e m e n t

.

R e s p e c t f u l l y s u b m i t t e d

,

/ s / R o y L

. B a r n e s

R O Y L

. B A R N E S

S t a t e B a r N o

. 0 1 7 7 2 5 0 0

T U C K E R

, B A R N E S

, G A R C I A &

D E L A G A R Z A

, P

. C

.

7 1 2 M a i n S t

. , S u i t e 1 6 0 0

H o u s t o n

, T e x a s 7 7 0 0 2

( 7 1 3 ) 2 2 8

- 7 4 2 5

( 7 1 3 ) 2 2 8

- 7 3 2 9 ( T e l e c o p y )

2C E R T I F I C A T E O F C O N F E R E N C E

I c e r t i f y t h a t I c o n f

e r r e d w i t h J u d i t h B l a k e w a y

, E s q

. , a t t o r n e y f o r t h e

a p p e l l a n t s

, c o n c e r n i n g t h e f o r e g o i n g m o t i o n a n d t h a t s h e s t a t e d t h e a p p e l l a n t s a r e

u n o p p o s e d t o t h e r e l i e f s o u g h t

.

/ s / R o y L

. B a r n e s

R O Y L

. B A R N E S

C E R T I F I C A T E O F S E R V I C E

P u r s u a n t t o E

- F i l i n g S t a n d i n g O r d e r

, I c e r t i f y t h a t o n J a n u a r y 9

, 2 0 1 5

, I

e l e c t r o n i c a l l y f

i l e d t h e f o r e g o i n g w i t h t h e C l e r k o f C o u r t u s i n g t h e E f i l e

. T X C o u r t s

. g o v

e l e c t r o n i c f

i l i n g s y s t e m w h i c h w i l l s e n d n o t i f i c a t i o n o f s u c h f

i l i n g :

J u d i t h R

. B l a k e w a y

, E s q

.

2 3 0 1 8 0 2 N

. C a r a n c h u a

, S u i t e 1 3 5 0

C o r p u s C h r i s t i

, T X 7 8 4 0 1

( A t t o r n e y f

o r A p p e l l a n t s )

o n t h i s 9 t h d a y o f J a n u a r y

, 2 0 1 5

.

/ s / R o y L

. B a r n e s

R O Y L

. B A R N E S

3
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4765 

To provide first responders with planning, training, and equipment capabilities 

for crude oil-by-rail and ethanol-by-rail derailment and incident response, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 16, 2016 

Ms. HERRERA BEUTLER introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology 

A BILL 

To provide first responders with planning, training, and 

equipment capabilities for crude oil-by-rail and ethanolby-rail derailment and incident response, and for other 

purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fire Department Prop5 er Response and Equipment Prioritization Act’’. 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4765 IH

1 SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR FIREFIGHTERS FOR CRUDE OIL-BY2 RAIL AND ETHANOL-BY-RAIL DERAILMENT 

3 AND INCIDENT RESPONSE. 

4 Section 33(c) of the Federal Fire Prevention and 

5 Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 2229(c)) is amended by 

6 adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(4) PRIORITY.—The Administrator of FEMA 

8 shall, in carrying out this section, give high priority 

9 consideration to grants providing for planning, train10 ing, and equipment to firefighters for crude oil-by11 rail and ethanol-by-rail derailment and incident re12 sponse.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.2
 
 
 CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
 
 We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-137162) of
CardioGenics Holdings Inc. of our report dated July 29, 2009 relating to the consolidated balance sheet of CardioGenics
Holdings Inc. [formerly CardioGenics Inc., (a development stage company)], as of October 31, 2008 and the related
consolidated statements of operations,  changes in equity (deficit) and cash flows for the year then ended, which
appears in this Annual Report on Form 10-K Amendment No. 2. Our report contains an explanatory paragraph regarding the
Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.
  
 
 (Signed) “BDO Canada LLP”
  Chartered Accountants, Licensed Public Accountants
  Toronto, Ontario
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7138** 

ARTHUR RODGERS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. BOBBY SHEARIN, Warden , Defendant

- Appellee
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Mar yland , at Baltimore

. Catherine C. Blake , District Judge. ( 1:09

- cv - 01962

- CCB )

Submitted : February 9 , 2012 Decided: February 13, 2012

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

. Arthur Rodger s, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah Whynne Finnegan Rice, Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Arthur Rodgers, a M aryland inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motions for injunctive and other relief and the appointment of counsel . We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded thirty days after the entry of the district court’s order to note an appeal, Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(A), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5), or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). “[T]he timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement.” Bowles v. Russell , 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). The district court’s order denying injunctive relief was entered on the docket on June 8, 2011 . The notice of appe al was filed on August 21, 2011
. * Because Rodgers failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. W e deny as moot the pending motion to consolidate this case with appeal number
11

- 7359, which has been dismissed. We dispense with oral

* For the purpose of this ap peal, we assume that the date indicated in the certificate of service is the date the notice of appeal was delivered to prison officials for mailing to the court. Fed. R. App. P. 4(c); Houston v. Lack , 487 U.S. 266 (1988).3 argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
## COURT OF APPEALS

SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO

MANDATE

THE STATE OF TEXAS

To the 324th District Court of Tarrant County, Greeting:

BEFORE our Court of Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, on May 21,

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Clyde L. Heckert v. Julia Teresa Heckert

Case Number: 07-15-00131-CV Trial Court Number: 324-552712-14

was determined and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated May 21, 2015, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that this appeal be dismissed.

It is further ordered that appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended for which

let execution issue.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of said Court of

Appeals for the Seventh District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things to have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Honorable Justices of our said Court, with the seal thereof

annexed, at the City of Amarillo on August 11, 2015

.



# Vivian Long

VIVIAN LONG, CLERK
# L_2004222EN.01001001.xml

| 23.6.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 222/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 222/10

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1146/2004

of 22 June 2004

fixing the definitive rate of refund and the percentage of system B export licences to be issued in the fruit and vegetables sector (tomatoes, oranges and apples)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 of 28 October 1996 on the common organisation of the market in fruit and vegetables (1),

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 1961/2001 of 8 October 2001 on detailed rules for implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 2200/96 as regards export refunds on fruit and vegetables (2), and in particular Article 6(7) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 766/2004 (3) fixed the indicative quantities for the issue of B system export licences. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 766/2004 (3) fixed the indicative quantities for the issue of B system export licences.

| (2) | The definitive rate of refund for tomatoes, oranges and apples covered by licences applied for under system B between 7 May and 3 June 2004 should be fixed at the indicative rate, and the percentage of licences to be issued for the quantities applied for should be laid down, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

The definitive rate of refund for tomatoes, oranges and apples covered by licences applied for under system B between 7 May and 3 June 2004 should be fixed at the indicative rate, and the percentage of licences to be issued for the quantities applied for should be laid down,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For applications for system B export licences submitted pursuant to Article 1 of Regulation (EC) No 766/2004 between 7 May and 3 June 2004, the percentages of licences to be issued and the rates of refund applicable are fixed in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 23 June 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 June 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ

Agriculture Director-General

---

(1)  
  OJ L 297, 21.11.1996, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 47/2003 (OJ L 7, 11.1.2003, p. 1).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 268, 9.10.2001, p. 8. Regulation as amended by Regulation (EC) No 1176/2002 (OJ L 170, 29.6.2002, p. 69).

2

(3)  
  OJ L 120, 24.4.2004, p. 26.

3

---

ANNEX

Percentages for the issuing of licences and rates of refund applicable to system B licences applied for between 7 May and 3 June 2004 (tomatoes, oranges and apples)

| Product | Rate of refund
  (EUR/t net) | Percentages of licences to be issued for the quantities applied for |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Tomatoes | 30 | 100  % |
| Oranges | 24 | 100  % |
| Apples | 27 | 100  % |

Product

Rate of refund

(EUR/t net)

Percentages of licences to be issued for the quantities applied for

Tomatoes

30

100  %

Oranges

24

100  %

Apples

27

100  %

---
Case 20-12738-RAM Doc 26 Filed 04/30/20 Page 1 of 3
Case 20-12738-RAM Doc 26 Filed 04/30/20 Page 2 of 3
Case 20-12738-RAM Doc 26 Filed 04/30/20 Page 3 of 3
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 32.1

                  SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION OF B. GRANT HUNTER

                        CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Diversified Thermal
Solutions, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31,
2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, B. Grant Hunter, 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/ B. Grant Hunter
                                               -----------------------
                                               B. Grant Hunter
                                               Chief Executive Officer
                                               August 23, 2004
Case 19-25801-LMI Doc 2 Filed 11/22/19 Page 1 of 3
Case 19-25801-LMI Doc 2 Filed 11/22/19 Page 2 of 3
Case 19-25801-LMI Doc 2 Filed 11/22/19 Page 3 of 3
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SEMANTHA SANTANGELO,

Appellant,

v.

ATLAS SERVICES, INC. and STEVEN H. GROSSMAN,

Appellees.

No. 4D20-186

[February 18, 2021]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Cymonie S. Rowe, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2015-CA009058-XXXX-MB.

Lyman S. Bradford IV of The Law Office of Lyman S. Bradford IV, P.A., 

West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Aldo Beltrano, Nina Smith and Adam M. Jacobson of Beltrano & 

Associates, Jupiter, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CIKLIN, CONNER and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTEREDPUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

TheBoard of Directors

DigimarcCorporation:

 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (Nos. 333-31114, 333-42042, 333-65256, 333-82660, 333-105097, 333-115074) on Form S-8 and Registration Statement No. 333-108670 on Form S-3 of Digimarc Corporation of our reports dated May 27, 2005, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Digimarc Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2004, management’s assessment of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2004, which reports appear in the December 31, 2004 annual report on Form 10-K/A of Digimarc Corporation.

 

**Our report dated May 27, 2005, on management’s assessmentof the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2004, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2004, expresses our opinion that Digimarc Corporation did not maintaineffective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31,2004 because of the effect of material weaknesses on the achievement ofobjectives of the control criteria and contains an explanatory paragraph thatindentifies material weaknesses on internal control over financial reporting asnoted in our report.**

 

As indicated in Note 2 to the consolidatedFinancial Statements, Digimarc Corporation has restated its consolidatedFinancial Statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2003.

 

 
| ***/s/ KPMG LLP***     | *** *** |
|------------------------|--------------|
| *** ***           |
| ***Portland, Oregon*** |
| June 1, 2005           |

 

----
Phillip TOY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-1352

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 24, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

In re Case No. Chapter 13

DISCLOSURE OF COMPENSATION OF ATTORNEY FOR DEBTOR

B2030 (Form 2030) (12/15)

Yuvisel Santana

1.

For legal services, I have agreed to accept......................................................................................................... Prior to the filing of this statement I have received............................................................................................. Balance Due..............................................................................................................................................................$4,000.00

$3,000.00

$1,000.00

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 329(a) and Fed. Bankr. P. 2016(b), I certify that I am the attorney for the above named debtor(s) and

that compensation paid to me within one year before the filing of the petition in bankruptcy, or agreed to be paid to me, for

services rendered or to be rendered on behalf of the debtor(s) in contemplation of or in connection with the bankruptcy case

is as follows:

2. The source of the compensation paid to me was: Debtor Other (specify)

3. The source of compensation to be paid to me is: Debtor Other (specify)

4. I have not agreed to share the above-disclosed compensation with any other person unless they are members and

associates of my law firm.

I have agreed to share the above-disclosed compensation with another person or persons who are not members or

associates of my law firm. A copy of the agreement, together with a list of the names of the people sharing in the

compensation, is attached.

5. In return for the above-disclosed fee, I have agreed to render legal service for all aspects of the bankruptcy case, including:

a. Analysis of the debtor's financial situation, and rendering advice to the debtor in determining whether to file a petition in

bankruptcy;

b. Preparation and filing of any petition, schedules, statements of affairs and plan which may be required;

c. Representation of the debtor at the meeting of creditors and confirmation hearing, and any adjourned hearings thereof;

Case 19-23497-PGH Doc 4 Filed 10/08/19 Page 1 of 2
B2030 (Form 2030) (12/15)

6. By agreement with the debtor(s), the above-disclosed fee does not include the following services:

CERTIFICATION

Date

10/08/2019 /s/ Luis A Torrens, ESQ

Luis A Torrens, ESQ

/s/ Yuvisel Santana Yuvisel Santana

Bar No. 29756

Torrens Law Firm, PLLC

8045 NW 155 Street

Miami Lakes, FL 33016

Phone: (305) 364-4848 / Fax: (305) 356-7167

I certify that the foregoing is a complete statement of any agreement or arrangement for payment to me for

representation of the debtor(s) in this bankruptcy proceeding.

Case 19-23497-PGH Doc 4 Filed 10/08/19 Page 2 of 2
From: <Alicea.Jezebele@epamail.epa.gov> To: steam_record <steam_record@erg.com> Date: 8/16/2010 10:44 AM Subject: Fw: Request for ICR Extension

----- Forwarded by Jezebele Alicea/ DC/USEPA/US on 08/16/2010 10:43 AM

-----
From: "McCabe, Patrick J" <Patrick.McCabe@duke-energy.com>

To: Jezebele Alicea/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Ronald Jordan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, "Wylie, Robert R" <Rober t.Wylie@duke-energy.com>, "Craig, Nathan D" <Nathan.Craig@duke-energy.com>

Date: 08/16/2010 09:50 AM

Subject: Request for ICR Extension

Ms. Jezebele Alicea-Virella,

Duke Energy is requesting a 30-day extension for submittal of the Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines Information Collection Request (ICR) for the facilities listed below. Duke Energy has experienced significant staff turnover during the process of preparing the ICR. We would like the additional time to complete data collection and allow for a thorough review to ensure accuracy and completeness.

Facilities Reques ting Extension:

|----------------------------------------+----------------------------------------| |G. G. Allen |Fayette Energy Facility | |----------------------------------------+----------------------------------------| |Walter C. Beckjord |R. Gallagher | |----------------------------------------+----------------------------------------| |Belews Creek |Gibson | |----------------------------------------+----------------------------------------| |Buck |W. S. Lee | |----------------------------------------+----------------------------------------| |Cayuga |Marshall | |----------------------------------------+----------------------------------------| |Cliffside |Miami Fort | |----------------------------------------+----------------------------------------| |Dan River |Riverbend | |----------------------------------------+----------------------------------------| |East Bend |Wabash River ||----------------------------------------+----------------------------------------| |Edwardsport |W. H. Zimmer | |----------------------------------------+----------------------------------------|

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thanks for your assistance, Pat

Patrick J. McCabe, PE EHS - Water Management Group Duke Energy Phone: (704) 382-7161 Cell: (704) 996-6238 Mail Code: EC13K