alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued July 22, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-20-00862-CV

———————————

ELLIOTT AINTABI, Appellant

V.

STEVEN WU, WESTWOOD COMMERCIAL PROPERTY 

MANAGEMENT, LLC, SSS VILLAGE AT WEST OAKS, LLC, AI HOA 

INVESTMENTS, INC., AI HOA WU, SUSAN WU, Appellees

On Appeal from the 190th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2019-52759

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant and appellees have filed a joint motion to dismiss the appeal. No 

opinion has issued.
2

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss this appeal. TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1; 43.2(f). Any other pending motions are dismissing as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Hightower, and Rivas-Molloy.
Darien BUFORD, Appellant, v. Lowell COLLINS, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4428

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 19, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Bureau of Labor Statistics

**Series Id: Series title:**  **Labor force status: Type of data:**  **Age: Years:**  **Year Qtr1**  **Qtr2 Qtr3**  **Qtr4 Annual**  **2011** 3852 Not in labor force Number in thousands 45 to 49 years 2011 to 2011 

### Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey **Original Data Value**LNU05024936Q **Not Seasonally Adjusted** (Unadj) Not in Labor Force, 45-49 yrs.

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics Generated on: May 16, 2011 (02:09:23 PM)
Summary of Non-Employee Director Compensation Agreements



 Exhibit 10.64 
 MoneyGram International, Inc. 
 Non-Employee Director Compensation
Arrangements 
 Revised as of September 28, 2011 
 The following compensation program is available to non-employee directors of MoneyGram International, Inc. 
 Retainers and Fees for Non-Employee Directors (effective as of January 1, 2012) 
 An
annual Board membership retainer of $90,000 shall be paid to each non-employee director. The retainer shall be made in arrears in four equal installments on the first business day following
March 31, June 30, September 30, December 31 (each a “Payable Date”). 
 The Chair of the Audit
committee shall receive an additional $15,000 in cash per year of Chairmanship; payment will be made in arrears in four equal installments on each Payable Date. 
 The Chair of the Human Resources and Nominating committee shall receive an additional $7,500 in cash per year of Chairmanship; payment will be made in arrears in four equal installments on each Payable
Date. 
 Non-employee directors are also reimbursed for their expenses for each Board or committee meeting attended. To the extent that any
taxable reimbursements are provided, they shall be made or provided in accordance with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code and the Treasury Regulations thereunder. 
 Equity Awards for Non-Employee Directors (effective as of the 2012 annual meeting) 
 Under
the MoneyGram International, Inc. 2005 Omnibus Incentive Plan, as amended, each non-employee director, at the annual meeting in May, shall receive a restricted stock unit (“RSU”) covering shares of common stock the fair market value of
which shall be equal to $90,000, as determined by the per share closing price of the common stock on the New York Stock Exchange, as reported in the consolidated transaction reporting system, on the date of award of the RSU. RSUs awarded under this
program shall be payable in shares. 
 Each RSU shall vest in full, if at all, upon the first anniversary of the date of award of such RSU. If a
director voluntarily resigns such director’s Board membership prior to the completion of the one year vesting period, then such director’s RSU shall be forfeited in whole. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a director’s RSUs then
outstanding (i.e. granted and not previously forfeited) will vest immediately and in full upon (i) a change in control (as defined in the standard Restricted Stock Unit Award Agreement approved for use under the MoneyGram International, Inc.
2005 Omnibus Incentive Plan) so long as the director remains on the Board through the date immediately prior to the change in control; or (ii) the director ceases Board membership due to death or disability. 

Proration of Retainer and Equity Awards 

With respect to Directors who join the Board during a year, the Board may prorate such Director’s retainer and/or equity award as it deems
appropriate. 
 Amendment or Termination 
 The Board may amend, alter, suspend, discontinue or terminate this program at any time.
Control Option Annual Emission Rate (lb/MMBTu)Percent

Reduction (%) Annual Emissions (tons) Emission

Reduction (tons) Baseline 0.171 NA 5347 NA SNCR+SOFA 0.150 25.0% 4011 1336 SCR+SOFA 0.050 70.7% 1567 3780

Notes: (1) Baseline emissions are from CAMD, 2010.

Colstrip 4 NOx Emissions Summary
Steven T. HUMPHREY, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-2167

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 27, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
ForestKirst , -, _.,_,^,^ 

Kirst Aviation 

P.O.Box 73621 

Fairbanks Alaska 99707 

(907)687-5011 

walksin@hotmaiI.com 

June 6,2010 

U.S Dept. of Transportation 

Docket Management System 

1200New Jersey Ave. SE 

West Building Ground Floor,Room W12-140 

Washington DC 20590 

Exemption request from 14 CFR 91.147 

Dear sir; 

I am requesting an exemption to the requirement for separate drug testing programs for 

operations imder cfr 14 parts 91.147 and 135. I am requesting this exemption as I am 

applying for operating authority under the provisions of both 91.147 and 135. My POT for 

the 91.147 operation (Chris Famell) at the Fairbanks FSDO has requested I apply for the 

exemption. 

This exemption would reduce the workload at my local FSDO as my drug testing 

program would be registered with the FAA Drug Abatement Division (AAM-810) 800 

Independence Ave. SW Room 806 Washington. DC 20591. 

Providing my company with economic relief from administering 2 drug testing programs 

in a single pilot sole proprietor operation would not adversely affect public safety as all 

safety-sensitive personnel are in a random drug testing program, which will be registered 

with Washington under 14 cfr 135 rules. My drug testing program is with: 

Fairbanks Toxicolt^ 

1008 16Ave. #100 

Fairbanks Alaska 99701 

(907) 456-4825
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: FAA-2013 - 0368 Directorate Identifier: 2012 - NM - 058 -AD

777 -24 - 0075 IN 02 --- 9/17/09 777 -24 - 0075 IN 01 --- 2/19/04 777 -24 - 0075, R3 --- 8/26/10 777 -24 - 0075, R2 --- 10/5/06 777 -24 - 0075, R1 --- 12/11/03 777 -24 - 0075 --- 8/21/03 777 -23 - 0175, R1 --- 7/17/03 777 -23 - 0175 --- 7/11/02 777 -24 - 0074, R3 --- 2/20/12 777 -24 - 0074, R2 --- 5/20/10 777 -24 - 0074, R1 --- 10/5/06 777 -24 - 0074 --- 6/27/02 777 -24 - 0087, R1 --- 12/18/03 777 -24 - 0087 --- 7/24/03 777 -28A0039 --- 6/13/08 777 -28A0039, R1 --- 1/8/09

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket



### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURI NG THE HOURS OF:**  9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
RE:FelmanTestProtocolsAmyM.Lincolnto:ConradChin07/13/201206:57PMChuckFrench,CohnBoswell,JasonDewees,JKonrady,MikeCc:Toney,“RichardLunn”,RobinSegall,r.powell,SteffanJohnson,RaymondMerrillThankyouforraisingthese,Conrad.Weforwardedyourquestionstoourstacktestingcontractor,PaulChinuntdet.HewillbejoiningMonday’smeetingbyphonetotalkthroughtheprotocolsindetail,andanswerthesequestions.Yourfirstandlastquestionsarefairlystraightforward,soletmetrytoaddressthose:(1)you’recorrectthatMethod0010isredundantthere;theplanistouseCARB429forPAH5;and(2)you’realsocorrectthatMethod5Disthebettermethodformeasuringvelocity;thelowflowmeasurementinthebaghousewasacarryoverfromanearlierproposalbeforethetestingexpandedexponentiallytoitscurrentscope.From:ConradChin[mailto:Chin.Conrad@epamail.epa.gov]Sent:Friday,July13,20128:02AMTo:AmyM.LincolnCc:ChuckFrench;CohnBoswell;JasonDewees;JKonrady@fpiwv.com;MikeToney;RichardLunn;RobinSegall;r.powell@optimaacq.com;SteffanJohnson;RaymondMerrillSubject:RE:FelmanTestProtocolsGoodmorningAmyBelowaresomeofthepreliminarycommentsonthetwotestprotocolsFelmansubmitted:•InthebidfortheJulytest,thetesterproposestestingofPAHwithMethod0010andCARBMethod429.ThereisnoneedforMethod0010andCARBMethod429shouldbeusedalone.•Inthebidforthe1Q2013testatFelman,thetesterproposestestingofdioxins/furans/PCB/PAHusingacombinationofMethod0010,Method23,andCARBMethod429withexplanationastohowthesemethodswithbecombined.First,againthereisnoneedforMethod0010.Second,thoughweareawarethatthishasbeendonepreviously,thereiscurrentlynowrittenmethodformeasurementthesefourclassesofcompoundssimultaneously,sowewillneedtoseemoredetailsonthesamplingandanalysisprocedurethatwillbefollowed.•Thetesterproposestouseanelectroniclowflowmanometertomeasurethevelocityinindividualbaghousecompartments.TheMethod5Dtechniqueislikelythemoreappropriateflowratemeasurementinthissituation.Itavoidsthequestionsraisedabout“howdoesoneconductapropertraverseofthebaghouseabovethebagsinallcompartments”questionsbyprovidinganaccuratelymeasuredsystemflowrateupfront.WecanovertheseagainnextMonday,asourtestexpertsareplanningtoparticipateinthemeeting.Haveagoodweekend!ConradChinMailCodeD243-02MetalsandMineralsGroupSectorPoliciesandProgramsDivisionOfficeofAirQualityPlanningandStandardsU.S.EnvironmentalProtectionAgency919-541-1512(voice)
Christopher UHLAND, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0410

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

APRIL 12, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 223 (Thursday, November 19, 1998)]
[Corrections]
[Page 64320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X98-71119]



[[Page 64320]]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 40592; File No. SR-NASD-98-77]


Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate 
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by National Association of 
Securities Dealers, Inc. Relating to Central Registration Depository 
Fees

Correction

    In notice document 98-28849, beginning on page 57718, in the issue 
of Wednesday, October 28, 1998, make the following correction:
    On page 57721, in the second column, above the FR Doc. line, the 
signature was omitted and should read as follows:
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 annual report of BGR Corporation (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the year ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bradford Miller,
certify to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of
          the Company.

/s/ Bradford Miller
---------------------------
Bradford Miller, President
October 26, 2004
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains editorial corrections of previously

published Presidential, Rule, Proposed Rule,

and Notice documents. These corrections are

prepared by the Office of the Federal

Register. Agency prepared corrections are

issued as signed documents and appear in

the appropriate document categories

elsewhere in the issue.

Corrections Federal Register

59029

Vol. 62, No. 211

Friday, October 31, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AZ917–AZA29960]

Notice of Proposed Decision of

Exchange of Lands in Maricopa and

Pima Counties, Arizona

Correction

In notice document 97–28512,

appearing on page 55826, in the issue of

Tuesday, October 28, 1997, make the

following correction:

On page 55826, in the second column,

under the first Gila and Salt River

Meridian, Arizona entry, in the fifth

line, ‘‘Sec. 4, SW1⁄4SW1⁄4, SW1⁄4SE1⁄4,’’

should read ‘‘Sec. 4, SW1⁄4,

SW1⁄4SW1⁄4SE1⁄4,’’.

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 135

[Docket No.. 28743; Amendment No. 135-

70]

RIN 2120-AG22

Commercial Passenger-Carrying

Operations in Single-Engine Aircraft

Under Instrument Flight Rules

Correction

In rule document 97–20641,

beginning on page 42364, in the issue of

Wednesday, August 6, 1997, make the

following correction:

PART 135—[CORRECTED]

On page 42373, in the third column,

in SFAR No. 81, in the first paragraph,

in the sixth line, ‘‘month’’ should read

‘‘months’’.

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms

27 CFR Part 9

[Notice No. 856]

RIN 1512-AA07

Establishment of the San Francisco

Bay Viticultural Area and the

Realignment of the Boundary of the

Central Coast Viticultural Area (97-242)

Correction

In proposed rule document 97–27692,

beginning on page 54399, in the issue of

Monday, October 20, 1997, make the

following correction:

On page 54399, under the heading

DATES:, in the second line, ‘‘January

20, 1997.’’ should read ‘‘January 20,

1998.’’

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-2424
JONATHAN H. GAILLARD, Petitioner, versusRYAN-WALSH STEVEDORING, INCORPORATED; DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondents.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the Benefits Review Board. (95-1199) Submitted: November 6, 1997 Decided: November 18, 1997 Before WIDENER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan H. Gaillard, Petitioner Pro Se. William Chad Stelly, MCQUAIG & SOLOMON, Metairie, Louisiana, for Respondent. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* The Board issued no opinion in this case, but affirmed the ALJ's decision automatically under the provisions of the Omnibus Consolidated Recessions and Appropriations Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-134, § 101(d), 110 Stat. 1321-218 (1996), by failing to act on the appeal within one year. 2 PER CURIAM: Jonathan Gaillard petitions for review of the Benefits Review Board ("Board") decision summarily affirming by operation of law * the administrative law judge's ("ALJ") denial of his application for benefits under the Longshore and Harbor Workers' CompensationAct ("LHWCA"), 33 U.S.C. §§ 901-950 (1994). Our review of the record discloses that the Board's decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the ALJ. Gaillard v. Ryan-Walsh Stevedoring, Inc. , No. 93-LHCA-3425 (A.L.J. Feb. 28, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS INCLUDED IN 10-Q, BALANCE SHEET, AND INCOME STATEMENT AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                           7,078
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,653
<ALLOWANCES>                                        34
<INVENTORY>                                      7,223
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                19,627
<PP&E>                                           5,166
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,518
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  24,303
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,845
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            60
<OTHER-SE>                                      22,378
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    24,303
<SALES>                                          4,942
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 4,942
<CGS>                                            2,400
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,625
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     25
<INCOME-TAX>                                        10
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 15
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        15
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00


</TABLE>
/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 8, 2015

No. 04-14-00880-CV

Stacy Joanna MAURICIO,

Appellant

v.

Rueben MAURICIO,

Appellee

From the 438th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-06556

Honorable John D. Gabriel, Jr., Judge Presiding

ORDER

The reporter’s record was due on December 22, 2014. On January 5, 2015, the court reporter 

responsible for preparing the reporter’s record in this appeal filed a notification of late record, stating that 

the appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay the fee for preparing the reporter’s record.

We, therefore, ORDER appellant to provide written proof to this court within ten days of the date 

of this order that either (1) the reporter’s fee has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the 

reporter’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee. If appellant fails to 

respond within the time provided, appellant’s brief will be due within thirty days from the date the clerk’s 

record is filed, and the court will only consider those issues or points raised in appellant’s brief that do not 

require a reporter’s record for a decision. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c).

___________________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on 

this 8th day of January, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Articles 

#           THEMIS VIS and IR observations of a high-altitude Martian dust devil      

      January 1, 2005    

The Mars Odyssey Thermal Emission Imaging System (THEMIS) imaged a Martian dust devil in both visible and thermal-infrared wavelengths on January 30, 2004. We believe this is the first documented infrared observation of an extraterrestrial dust devil, and the highest to be directly observed at more than 16 kilometers above the equatorial geoid of Mars. This dust devil measured over 700 meters in height and 375 meters across, and the strongest infrared signature was given by atmospheric dust absorption in the 9-micron range (THEMIS IR band 5). In addition to having formed in the extremely low-pressure environment of about 1 millibar, this dust devil is of particular interest because it was observed at 16:06 local time. This is an unusually late time of day to find dust devils on Mars, during a period when rapid surface cooling typically reduces the boundary-layer turbulence necessary to form these convective vortices. Understanding the mechanisms for dust-devil formation under such extreme circumstances will help to constrain theories of atmospheric dynamics, and of dust lifting and transport mechanisms on Mars.

## Citation Information

## Related Content

                  -              Connect           

#### Timothy Neal Titus, Ph.D.

##### Research Space Scientist

Astrogeology Science Center

ttitus@usgs.gov

928-556-7201

## Related Content

#### Timothy Neal Titus, Ph.D.

##### Research Space Scientist

Astrogeology Science Center

ttitus@usgs.gov

928-556-7201

### Contact

####               Astrogeology Science Center          

2255 N. Gemini DriveFlagstaff, AZ86001United States

928-556-7000

928-556-7014

### Explore Search

                  - Mars

View All **
David BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2033

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[July 11, 2018]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Nancy Jack, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Matthew Steven Ocksrider, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Appellant was placed on probation for possession of PVP, a controlled substance commonly known as flakka. The trial court revoked appellant's probation after finding that he had willfully violated three conditions: a drug treatment condition and two payment conditions. Only the drug treatment violation was proven at the hearing, while the two payment conditions were not discussed at all. Appellant raises arguments on appeal regarding all three conditions. We find his argument as to the drug treatment violation without merit and affirm.

However, we remand because the trial court's revocation order improperly refers to the unproven payment condition violations. Because the trial court's revocation of probation is supported by evidence of one violation-the violation of the drug treatment condition-and it is "clear that the trial court would have revoked based solely on" that violation, we affirm. *See* *Haygood v. State* , 687 So.2d 318, 319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). However, the revocation order should reflect only the violations actually proven, so we remand for the trial court to strike reference to the unproven violations of the payment conditions. *See* *Matos v. State* , 956 So.2d 1240, 1240 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007).

*Affirmed and remanded with instructions.*

Damoorgian, Levine and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - science_science(12)
              - products_data(4)
              - products_maps(2)
              - products_publications(82)
              - products_web_tools(3)
              - multimedia_image(12)
              - multimedia_image-141771(7)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(2)
              - multimedia_image-141776(2)
              - multimedia_video(30)
              - multimedia_video-149194(28)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - multimedia_video-149197(1)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - (-)news_news-149249(1)
              - news_news-149250(1)
              - news_other_news(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)
              - other_basic-42(1)

## By Location

              - arizona(1)
              - (-)california(1)
              - colorado(1)

## By Year

Technical Announcement        September 2, 2015        What Happened to Early Mars’ Atmosphere? New Study Eliminates One Theory