alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Commodity 2008 Pounds Applied 2009 Pounds Applied 2010 Pounds Applied
2008 2008 COMMODITY FUMIGATION 3 1 PUBLIC HEALTH PEST CONTROL 68 70 20 STRUCTURAL PEST CONTROL 28 139 107 Grand Total 96 212 128

Empty cells indicate no available usage. 

### Prallethrin (128722) Cal. DPR Usage Data
Publicly available data from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CADPR) was used to produce the following table outlining the pounds of Prallethrin used in California over the three most recent years available (2008 - 2010).

Date Prepared: January 17, 2012 Cal DPR Data: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm
ELEMENT PICTURES, L.L.C. v. LIFT (LOUISIANA INSTITUTE OF FILM TECHNOLOGY), L.L.C.

NO. 2018-CC-0724

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 14, 2018

Denied.
*

John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignment. Tex. Gov’t

Code Ann. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2003). 

NO. 07-03-0196-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

JUNE 20, 2003

______________________________

BETTY ANN NEWBY,

Appellant

v.

BRIAN SHINALL d/b/a REAL ESTATE CONCEPTS and

THE CITY OF BORGER, 

Appellees

_________________________________

FROM THE 181st JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 90,696-B; HON. JOHN B. BOARD, PRESIDING

_______________________________

DISMISSAL

_________________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ. and BOYD, S.J.*

Before the court is an appeal initiated by Betty Ann Newby (Newby) from an order

consolidating Cause No. 90,696-B, pending in the 181st Judicial District, Potter County,

with Cause No. 35,167, pending in the 84th Judicial District, Hutchinson County. Via letter
1We note that Newby stated, in her notice of appeal, that she was also appealing the trial court’s

“decision . . . to dismiss the Hearing on plaintiff’s temporary restraining order . . . .” Though the record

illustrates that the trial court convened a hearing to determine whether it should issue a temporary injunction,

the request for such an injunction was neither granted nor denied. This is so because not all parties had

received notice of the proceeding, and Newby herself informed the court of this. Thus, §51.014(a)(4) of the

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (permitting an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or

refusing to grant a temporary injunction) is not implicated. Nor does any other part of §51.014 allow one to

appeal a trial court’s decision to postpone a hearing on one’s application for a temporary injunction when the

trial court has neither granted or refused the application.

2

dated June 2, 2003, we directed Newby to explain to the court, by June 12, 2003, why we

had jurisdiction over the appeal. To date, the court has received no reply from her. We

dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

It is clear that the order consolidating the two proceedings is interlocutory. Simply

put, it did and does not dispose of all the parties to and claims asserted in the causes that

were consolidated. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 205 (Tex. 2001)

(stating that an order or judgment is final when it disposes of all parties and claims).

Furthermore, the record before us does not illustrate that an order, decree, or judgment

has been executed that does so. 

Next, our jurisdiction over an appeal from an interlocutory order exists only insofar

as it is specifically authorized by statute. Rio Grande Valley Gas Co. v. City of Pharr, 962

S.W.2d 631, 637 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1997, pet. dism’d w.o.j.). However, we have

been cited to and found no statute which permits one to appeal an interlocutory order

consolidating two cases into one.1 Thus, we have no jurisdiction over this interlocutory

appeal and dismiss it for want of jurisdiction.

Per Curiam
3
## ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III No. CR

- 13

- 443

JOE JONES APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE Opinion Delivered January 15, 2014 APPEAL FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [CR

- 2008

- 258]
HON ORABLE RALPH WILSON, JR., JUDGE
AFFI RMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED
RHONDA K. WOOD, Judge

This is a no

- merit appeal from a probation revocation. Joe Jones pleaded guilty to fleeing, a Class “D” felony, and was sentenced to sixty months’ probation. The State filed a petition to revoke Jo nes’s probation alleging that, among other violations, he had failed to pay his fines, costs, and fees as directed. The circuit court revoked his probation and sentenced him to seventy

- two months’ suspended imposition of sentence. In compliance with Rule 4

- 3(k) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, Jones’s attorney brings a no

- merit appeal and a motion asking to be relieved as counsel. The motion to withdraw is accompanied by a brief, including both a discussion of all matters in the record that might arguably support an appeal and a statement2 as to why counsel considers the points to be incapable of supporting a meritorious appeal. Jones has not exercised his right to file pro se points for reversal. The State needs to show only one violation of probation in order to sustain a
revocation. Phillips v. State , 101 Ark. App. 190, 272 S.W.3d 123 (2008). Here, t he Crittenden County Sheriff’s Office Collector, Amy Peyton, testified that her office had not received any payments from Jones . This was sufficient for the court to find that Jones violated his probation by failing to pay all fines, costs, and probation fees. From our review of the record and the brief presented to us, we find that counsel has complied with the requirements of Ru le 4

- 3(k)(1) and hold that there is no merit to this appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted and the revocation is affirmed. Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.
H ARRISON and G RUBER , JJ., agree. C. Brian Williams , for appellant. No response.
|   | 1.     | The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 (the “Form 10-K”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|   | 2.     | Information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material aspects, The financial condition and results of operations of the Company.                                                                                       |

| Dated: March 28, 2011 |   | /s/ Thomas C. McGraw   |
|-----------------------|--------|-----------------------------|
|                  |   | Thomas C. McGraw            |
|                  |   | Chief Executive Officer     |
|                  |   |                        |
| Dated: March 28, 2011 |   | /s/ David A. Curtis         |
|                  |   | David A. Curtis             |
|                  |   | Senior Vice President       |
|                  |   | and Chief Financial Officer |

----
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T R A J V E E RM U T T I , a . k. a . R a j pa l S i ngh, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 12- 70711 A ge nc yN o. A 097- 744- 673 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d M ar c h 12, 2013 ** B efo re: P R E G E R S O N , R E IN H A R D T , an dW . F L E T C H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. R aj veerM utt i , a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f I nd i a, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of the B oard of I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng hi s m ot i on t o r e c ons i de r . O ur j ur i s di c t i on i s gove rne d by8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w f orabus e of

di s c r e t i on the 

# FI LED MA R 20 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 70711 2 B I A ’s d e n ia l o f

am o tio n to r e c o n s id e r . Ca n o -Me r i da v . I NS , 311 F . 3d 960, 964 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 2 ) . We d i s m i s s i n p artan dd e n yi n p artth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. W e l a c k j ur i s di c t i on t o r e vi e w anyc ha l l e nge t o the B I A ’ s O c t obe r4, 2011, o r d e rd e n y in g M u tti’s m o tio n to r e o p e n b e c au s e M u tti’s p e titio n is n o t tim e lya s to th a t d e c is io n . See M

a v . A s h c r o

ft , 36 1 F . 3d55 3, 55 7 n . 6 (9th C i r. 20 04 ). T he B IA di d n otabuse i t s di sc re t i on i n d enyi ng M utt i ’ s m ot i on t o rec on si der be c aus e he f

a i l e d t o s how anye rr orof f a c torl aw i n the B I A ’ s de ni a l of hi s m ot i on to r e o p e n . See 8 C .F .R . § 1 0 0 3 .2 ( b ) ( 1 ) ; see a l so T ou f i gh iv. Mukasey , 538 F . 3d 9 8 8 , 9 9 6 - 9 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . W e r e je c t M u tti’s c o n te n tio n s th a t th e B I A f a ile dto f u llyc o n s id e rh is ar g u m e n ts an de v id e n c e o rto a d e qu a te lye x p la in its d e c is io n . See N aj m ab ad iv. H

older , 59 7 F . 3d98 3, 99 0-91 (9th C i r. 20 10 ). P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D IS M IS S E D i n p art; D E N IE D i n p art.
R.J. NOWAK ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant, v. D.R. HORTON, INC., Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-110

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 15, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**RULE 13a-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Pacific Vegas Global Strategies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kwan Sin Yee, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) and 18 U.S.C. § 1350, 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/ KWAN SIN YEE        |
|----------------|-------------------------|
|           | Kwan Sin Yee            |
|           | Chief Financial Officer |
| March 30, 2012 |                    |

 

----
David WRIGHT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3768

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed July 31, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
Brianna C. MENDOZA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2761

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed August 24, 2018.

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Megan Olson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jeffrey H. Siegal, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

BLACK, Judge.

*413Brianna Mendoza seeks correction of the order finding her in violation of her probation. She does not challenge the finding that she violated probation or the resulting sentence, and we affirm both without comment. But because the revocation order should reflect the oral pronouncement, we remand for the trial court to strike the revocation order and enter a corrected revocation order reflecting two condition 5 violations and conforming to the oral pronouncement in all other respects. *See**Reed v. State*, 127 So.3d 817, 819 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013).

Affirmed; remanded with instructions.

LaROSE, C.J. and SALARIO, J., concur.
J.G., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-465

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed July 25, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_education(5)
              - science_faqs(5)
              - science_science(341)
              - products_data(70)
              - products_maps(16)
              - products_publications(2978)
              - products_software(4)
              - products_web_tools(7)
              - multimedia_audio(53)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(47)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(6)
              - multimedia_before_after(3)
              - multimedia_image(130)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141769(1)
              - multimedia_image-141770(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(106)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_image-141774(3)
              - multimedia_image-141775(10)
              - multimedia_image-141776(7)
              - multimedia_slideshow(3)
              - multimedia_video(146)
              - multimedia_video-149194(74)
              - multimedia_video-149195(32)
              - multimedia_video-149196(5)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - multimedia_video-149198(6)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149225(6)
              - documents_file(2)
              - documents_file-149206(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - news_news-149245(21)
              - news_news-149246(4)
              - news_news-149248(27)
              - news_news-149249(4)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - news_newsletters(3)
              - news_other_news(31)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(8)

## By Location

              - california(1)
              - north carolina(1)
              - oregon(1)

## By Year

Podcasts        July 31, 2008        Tribal Canoe Journey for Troubled Sea: Part I

Podcasts        March 13, 2012        Climate Connections: Questions from Glacier National Park, MT (Ep 4)

Podcasts        March 14, 2012        Advancing ARMI: In Search for Chytrid Fungus

Podcasts        April 20, 2011        Climate Connections: Visiting Students in North Carolina (Episode 1)

Podcasts        August 18, 2008        Tribal Canoe Journey for Troubled Sea: Part 2

Podcasts        August 16, 2011        A Study in Stream Ecology

Historical        March 8, 2018        Location of maximum land subsidence in U.S. Levels at 1925 and 1977.
# C_2020096EN.01000101.xml

| 24.3.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 96/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 96/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9715 — PCG/PCC/JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 96/01)

On 10 March 2020, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9715. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9715. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Trust Deed



 EXHIBIT 4. 140 
 Trust Deed 
  

	1.	I, Wei Hong Jun (my PRC identity number is 452701197505200510), whose address is No. 32, Hechi Street, Hechi Town, Hechi City, Guangxi Province , am the shareholder of 50% of
the equity in Beijing Yi Lian Tong He Information Technology Co., Ltd I hereby state that, I, the trustee of TOM EACHNET HOLDINGS (BVI) INC. (hereinafter the “Beneficiary”, the registered address is P.O. Box 173, Kingston Chambers, Road
Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands), hold the said equity for the Beneficiary or its successor. 

  

	2.	I will, upon the Beneficiary’s instruction, dispose the said equity and the voting right thereof, or elect or replace the Director or/and Executive Director in any case.


  

	3.	I irrevocably trust the Beneficiary or its successor, fully on my behalf, to complete and deliver all the documents regarding the equity transfer in any time or way considered
appropriate by the Beneficiary or its successor. 

  

	4.	The effectiveness, construction or performance of this Trust Deed shall be governed by the law of Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. 

 Signature: 
 Name: Wei Hong Jun 
 Date: Feb 1, 2007 
 The person executed hereunder witnessed Chang Chen to
execute this Trust Deed: 
 Signature: 
 Name: Zhou Mingzhe
# C_2020257EN.01000401.xml

| 5.8.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 257/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.8.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 257/4

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.9870 – Total Direct Energie/Kernaman)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 257/03)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | Total Direct Energie S.A. (‘Total Direct Energie’, France), a 100 % subsidiary of TOTAL S.A. (‘TOTAL’, France), |
| --- | --- |

—

Total Direct Energie S.A. (‘Total Direct Energie’, France), a 100 % subsidiary of TOTAL S.A. (‘TOTAL’, France),

| — | Kernaman SAS (‘Kernaman’, France) |
| --- | --- |

—

Kernaman SAS (‘Kernaman’, France)

Total Direct Energie acquires within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation control of the whole of Kernaman.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for undertaking TOTAL: TOTAL is active in all sectors of the oil and gas industry, as well as in the renewable energy, power generation sectors and carbon neutrality businesses, |
| --- | --- |

—

for undertaking TOTAL: TOTAL is active in all sectors of the oil and gas industry, as well as in the renewable energy, power generation sectors and carbon neutrality businesses,

| — | for undertaking Kernaman: Kernaman is active in the electricity sector and holds the following assets: (i) Emile Huchet 7 and Emile Huchet 8, two combined cycle gas turbine units, and (ii) an optimisation and dispatching centre known as Le Centre d’Optimisation, de Dispatching et d’Ajustement de la Production and related assets and liabilities. |
| --- | --- |

—

for undertaking Kernaman: Kernaman is active in the electricity sector and holds the following assets: (i) Emile Huchet 7 and Emile Huchet 8, two combined cycle gas turbine units, and (ii) an optimisation and dispatching centre known as Le Centre d’Optimisation, de Dispatching et d’Ajustement de la Production and related assets and liabilities.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.9870 – Total Direct Energie/Kernaman

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7845

DAVID A. CRABTREE, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. TRIMBUER, Jail Doctor; NURSE CUNNINGHAM, Head Nurse; M. MILLER, Nurse, Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00659-LO-TCB)

Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 22, 2009

Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David A. Crabtree, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: David A. Crabtree seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2006) complaint. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Crabtree seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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
WHOLESALE AUTO GROUP, INC. v. LOUISIANA MOTOR VEHICLE COMMISSION

NO. 2018-C-1017

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 8, 2018

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.