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

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Atmospheres

Filters

              - (-)science_faqs(4)
              - science_science(189)
              - products_data(130)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2007)
              - products_software(7)
              - products_web_tools(8)
              - multimedia_audio(82)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(78)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(4)
              - multimedia_before_after(5)
              - multimedia_image(196)
              - multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141770(4)
              - multimedia_image-141771(145)
              - multimedia_image-141772(4)
              - multimedia_image-141774(2)
              - multimedia_image-141775(22)
              - multimedia_image-141776(16)
              - multimedia_image-204460(2)
              - multimedia_slideshow(2)
              - multimedia_video(229)
              - multimedia_video-149194(87)
              - multimedia_video-149195(54)
              - multimedia_video-149196(16)
              - multimedia_video-149197(15)
              - multimedia_video-149198(13)
              - multimedia_video-149225(2)
              - documents_file(10)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149214(4)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - documents_file-149222(1)
              - news_news-149245(2)
              - news_news-149246(2)
              - news_news-149248(5)
              - news_news-149249(2)
              - news_news-149250(7)
              - news_newsletters(2)
              - news_other_news(36)
              - connect_staff_profiles(23)
              - other_basic-37(3)
              - other_basic-42(16)

## By Location

              - florida(1)

## By Year

Animated GIF        May 1, 2022        Idealized animation of tsunamis in the Kingdom of Tonga looking north-northeast

Animated GIF        May 1, 2022        Idealized animation of tsunamis in the Kingdom of Tonga

faq        July 7, 2017        How does carbon get into the atmosphere?

faq        April 12, 2019        Does Landsat Level-1 data processing include atmospheric correction?

faq        April 15, 2022        Why does my Landsat Collection 2  Surface Temperature product have missing data?

faq        June 29, 2017        How does acid precipitation affect marble and limestone buildings?

Animated GIF        October 16, 2020        Wave animation

Animated GIF        February 24, 2023        Drainage Density
Robert Phillipe BIANCHI, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-2598

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[June 21, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Stacey A. YEATTS, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Douglas Brian MANN, Sr., Appellee/Cross-Appellant.

Case No. 2D17-2472

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 13, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Jeffrey Allen COLE, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-1184

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed July 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

TERRI FREEMAN; EARL FREEMAN, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

 v. 

ETHICON, INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON, 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 22-56037 

D.C. No. 

2:20-cv-10661-CBM-SK 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted November 13, 2023

Pasadena, California

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiffs Terri and Earl Freeman (“the Freemans”) appeal from a judgment 

entered after a jury verdict in favor of Ethicon and Johnson & Johnson 

(collectively “Ethicon”). The Freemans claim that the jury instructions erroneously 

conflated the risks of the Prolift+M device with those posed by other Ethicon 

devices not at issue in the case. Because it is unlikely that the outcome would have 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

FILED

NOV 17 2023

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

differed under the Freemans’ proposed instructions, we affirm.

Erroneous instructions do not justify overturning a jury verdict if it is “more 

probable than not that the jury would have reached the same verdict had it been 

properly instructed.” See Dunlap v. Liberty Nat. Prods., Inc., 878 F.3d 794, 798 

(9th Cir. 2017) (citation and quotations omitted). Here, any hypothetical error in 

the district court’s instructions was harmless. The court’s final instructions were 

almost identical to the language the Freemans suggested in their initial motion for 

issue preclusion and again in the joint pretrial conference order, merely changing 

the scope from “Defendants’ polypropylene mesh products (and specifically the 

Prolift+M)” to “Defendants’ polypropylene mesh products (including the 

Prolift+M).” Although Ethicon took advantage of the final instructions in its 

closing argument, it could have made the same arguments under the Freemans’ 

proposal. Given the similarity of both formulations—“and specifically” and 

“including”— it is unlikely that the jury would have seen much daylight between 

them.

The Freemans appear to have noticed that potential vagueness, which is why 

their final proposed instructions referred solely to “Defendants’ Prolift+M.” 

However, the district court’s rejection of that proposal did not preclude the

Freemans from arguing that Ethicon’s other products carry some of the enumerated

risks, but that only the Prolift+M features all of them. Indeed, the Freemans 
3

elicited significant testimony emphasizing the differences between the Prolift+M 

and the TVT-O, another Ethicon product, and their closing argument underscored 

those differences. Especially given the opaque nature of a general verdict after a 

long trial, it does not appear “more probable than not” that the outcome would 

have differed under a slightly different instruction.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.1





Form of Transaction Bonus Amendment


Aleris Corporation
25825 Science Park Drive, Suite 400
Cleveland, Ohio 44122-7392




PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL
_____________, 2017
RE:    Transaction Bonus - Extension of Time Period
Dear ___________,
As you know, the Company provided you with an opportunity to receive a Transaction Bonus conditioned on the occurrence of the closing of a Qualified Sale in a Letter Agreement, dated _____________(the “Letter Agreement”).
This letter hereby amends and extends the Qualified Sale’s time period to ________________.  No additional action is required by you.
Capitalized terms used herein without definition have the meaning assigned to such term in the Letter Agreement.  All other terms and conditions in the Letter Agreement remain in effect.
Thank you in advance for your continued contribution to the success of the Company and the sale process.
Sincerely,
ALERIS CORPORATION


______________________________
By:  Sean M. Stack
Title:  Chairman & CEO
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: X97-31202]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Wednesday, December 17, 1997.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Floor Conference 
Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Enforcement Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FRDoc.97-31688Filed11-28-97;11:42am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
UAS Make & ModelMax. Gross Wgt.(inc. battery &propellers) MTOWDiagonalDimensionDiagonalWheelbase Overall DimensionMax.OperatingRange*Max.Ceiling/AltitudeMax.SpeedMax.AscentSpeedMax.DescentSpeedMax.Flight/HoveringTimeDJI Phantom 3 Professional1280 g 1280 g 590 mm 350 mm Unknown 5000 m 400 ft (6000 m) 16 m/s 5 m/s3 m/s 23 minsDJI Phantom 3 Standard1216 g 1216 g 590 mm Unknown Unknown 1000 m 400 ft (6000 m) 16 m/s 5 m/s 3 m/s 25 minsDJI Phantom 3 Advanced1280 g 1280 g 590 mm 350 mm Unknown 5000 m 400 ft (6000 m) 16 m/s 5 m/s3 m/s 23 minsDJI Matrice 1002431 g 3400 g 650 mm 650 mm Unknown 5000 m 400 ft 22 m/s 5 m/s 4 m/s 40 minsDJI Inspire 12935 g 3400 g 559 to 581 mm Unknown 438x451x301 mm 5000 m 400 ft (4500 m) 22 m/s 5 m/s 4 m/s 18 minsDJI Spreading Wings S1000+4400 g 11000 g Unknown 1045 mm Unknown 2000 m 400 ft 16 m/s 6 m/s 6 m/s 15 minsDJI Spreading Wings S9003300 g 8200 g Unknown 900 mm Unknown Unk. 400 ft 16 m/s 6 m/s 6 m/s 18 minsDJI AGRAS MG‐18800 g 24000 g Unknown 1520 mm 1471x1471x482 mm Unk. 400 ft 22 m/s Unk.Unk. 24 mins3DR Solo1500 g 2000 g 460 mm Unknown 260x260 mm 800 m 400 ft (100 m) 25.5 m/s 5m/s 2.5 m/s 25 minsYuneec Typhoon H1850 g Unk. 410 mm Unknown 309x270x255 mm 91 m 400 ft (400 m) 10 m/s 5m/s 3 m/s 22 mins* RAUCH inc. will be operating each UAS at or below 400', although the maximum allowable ceiling/altitude is greater than themaximum permissable limit of 400' granted to usNote: All UAS aircraft above have a maximum gross weight of less than 25 kg (55 lbs)Attachment: Main Operating & Performance Specifications of Additional UAS AircraftRAUCH inc. Petition to Amend Exemption 14014; Docket Number FAA‐2015‐4309
EXHIBIT 31.2

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Stephen L. Cobb, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Trans-Century
Resources, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly
report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers 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
subsidiary, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) 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

c) 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 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 officers 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 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:  August 18, 2003

/s/ Stephen L. Cobb
-------------------
Stephen L. Cobb
Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7718
EUGENE A. STAUCH, III, Petitioner - Appellant, and
JEFFREY D. THOMAS; RICHARD E. BLACKBURN; SAMUEL L. MCGARITY; CARL FRAZIER GOOD; MARCUS CROOM; MICHAEL DOUGLAS MOORE; LARRY LADURBACK; STACEY GRIMSLEY; HAROLD LONNIE ROBERSON; MARK WILES; DAVID WALLS; WILLIAM RAYNOR; VERNON LEE KINKLE; WAYNE SHELLEY FLEMING; WALTER FORD; KEVIN MIDDLETON; ROGER WALKER; LUCIUS DRAFTS; JOHN C. GRIFFIN; EDWARD G. FIELDS; LEONARD WILSON; TROY ABNEY; KENNETH OTT; WILLIAM KELLY, Petitioners, versus GERALDINE MIRO, Warden, Allendale Correctional Institution; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; MICHAEL MOORE, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-96-3663-0-22)2 Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 20, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eugene A. Stauch, III, Appellant Pro Se. William Ansel Collins, Jr., SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district co urt's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to deny his motions for default judgment and for sanctions. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the order is not appealable. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (1994), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (1994); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order here appealed is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. We deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal as interlocutory. 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.

DISMISSED
295 COLLINS, LLC, et al., Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. PSB COLLINS, LLC, etc., Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-0482

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

APRIL 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report of The Jackson Rivers
Company, a Florida corporation, (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year
ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mechael Kanovsky, Ph.D., President of the
Company, certify the following pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

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/ Jeffrey W. Flannery
-----------------------
Jeffrey W. Flannery
Chief Executive Officer
May 26, 2006
Francis Robert UREVICH, DOC #656743, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2583

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 31, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
STATE IN the INTEREST OF H.J.B.

NO. 2018-CJ-1143

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

August 31, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
GLORIA'S RANCH, L.L.C. v. TAUREN EXPLORATION, INC., Cubic Energy, Inc., Wells Fargo Energy Capital, Inc., and EXCO USA Asset, Inc.

No. 2017-C-1519 No. 2017-C-1518 No. 2017-C-1522

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 7, 2018

**ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, SECOND CIRCUIT, PARISH OF CADDO**

Rehearing granted in part; denied in part. The rehearing application of Gloria's *393Ranch is denied. Tauren's rehearing application is granted for the limited purpose of remanding the matter for the trial court to consider the effect the reversal of Wells Fargo's liability has on the award, particularly as it relates to the virile share accounted for in the EXCO settlement. In all other respects, the motion for rehearing is denied.

Retired Judge Hillary Crain assigned as Justice ad hoc, sitting for Crichton, J., recused.

GENOVESE, Justice, would grant a limited rehearing.

For the reasons assigned in my prior dissent, I would grant Gloria's Ranch's application for rehearing with respect to the issue of this Court's interpretation of La. Mineral Code art. 140's provision for discretionary damages for non-payment of royalties. I join in the majority's grant of Tauren Exploration's application for rehearing for the limited purpose of remanding the matter for the trial court to consider the effect the reversal of Well's Fargo's liability has on the award, particularly as it relates to the virile share accounted for in the EXCO settlement. I also join in the majority's denial of the remainder of the applications for rehearing.
Victor RODRIGUEZ, Appellant/Petitioner, v. MARK YACHT CLUB ON BRICKELL BAY, INC., Appellee/Respondent,

CASE NO.: 3D17-2338

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

APRIL 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.

Granted and remanded.
**Exhibit 13**.**1**

 

**Certification****Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)**

 

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of Banco de Chile (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’s knowledge, that:

 

The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the “Form 20-F”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: April 28,   2016 | By:    | /s/ Arturo Tagle Q.           |
|-----------------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                        | Name:  | **Arturo   Tagle Q**.         |
|                        | Title: | **Chief   Executive Officer** |
|                        |   |                          |
| Date: April 28,   2016 | By:    | /s/ Rolando Arias             |
|                        | Name:  | **Rolando   Arias**           |
|                        | Title: | **Chief   Financial Officer** |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Banco de Chile and will be retained by Banco de Chile and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Daniel C. MULDOWNEY, DOC# S40339, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-608

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed March 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
May 29, 2015

Mr. Michael Marsiano

Total Home Enhancements LLC 216 Overridge Ct Purceville, VA 20132

Dear Mr. Marsiano:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your April 29, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1343), but we are unable to pr ocess your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
STATE of Louisiana v. Logan Nestor MILLS

No. 2017-KP-0912

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

August 31, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF WASHINGTON**

PER CURIAM:

*1068Denied. Relator fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). Relator's remaining claims are repetitive and/or unsupported. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2 ; La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Relator has now fully litigated his application for post-conviction relief in state court. Similar to federal habeas relief, *see*28 U.S.C. § 2244, Louisiana post-conviction procedure envisions the filing of a second or successive application only under the narrow circumstances provided in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4 and within the limitations period as set out in La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8. Notably, the legislature in 2013 La. Acts 251 amended that article to make the procedural bars against successive filings mandatory. Relator's claims have now been fully litigated in accord with La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6, and this denial is final. Hereafter, unless he can show that one of the narrow exceptions authorizing the filing of a successive application applies, relator has exhausted his right to state collateral review. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

April 8, 2005

Mr. Bruce K. Thomas

Law Office of Bruce K. Thomas

6060 N. Central Expwy., Suite 560

Dallas, TX 75206

Mr. Richard J. Clarkson

595 Orleans Street, Suite 500

Beaumont, TX 77701-3214

RE:Case Number:  04-0493

Court of Appeals Number:  09-04-00028-CV

Trial Court Number:  F-181,705

Style:IN THE INTEREST OF K.A.F., A CHILD

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Andrew Weber, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 04-0493Page 1**
p. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1828 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 212 ) ll-K-(I)-2 5 Docket Number: 

# A-83-2 7

Printed 11/12/200811:12:55 AM Sheet 212 of 325P. 2

n-K-(I)-2 5

DISCUSSIO N

O F COAL CLEANIN G I

N EEA' s INDUSTRIA L BOILE R ANALYSIS . EEA , Inc . Apri l 6 , 1979 . THI S INFORMATION

CA N B E FOUND I

N DOCKE T A-79-02 , ITE

M II-K-(I)-2 5