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

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Canyonlands National Park

Filters

              - science_science(2)
              - products_data(15)
              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(46)
              - multimedia_image(37)
              - multimedia_image-141771(36)
              - multimedia_image-204460(1)
              - multimedia_slideshow(2)
              - documents_file(1)
              - documents_file-149220(1)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - news_other_news(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(2)
              - (-)other_basic-42(7)

## By Location

## By Year

General        April 21, 2020        Canyonlands National Park

General        April 21, 2020        Geology of Canyonlands National Park

General        April 20, 2020        Ecology of Canyonlands National Park

General        December 6, 2018        Geology of Canyonlands National Park - Photo Tour

General        April 20, 2020        Geology of Canyonlands

General        December 6, 2018        Geology of Capitol Reef National Park

General        December 6, 2018        Ecology of Capitol Reef National Park
Marguerite Salinas a/k/a 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

May 16, 2014

No. 04-14-00104-CV

Richard ABRAMS,

Appellant

v.

Marguerite SALINAS a/k/a Marguerit Y. Salinas f/k/a Marguerite Abrams and Ashely Abrams 

a/k/a Ashley N. Abrams,

Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1987-CI-16750

Honorable Janet P. Littlejohn, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was originally due April 10, 2014; however, the court granted appellant 

an extension of time until May 12. On that date appellant filed a motion seeking an additional 

extension of time to file the brief. 

We grant the motion and order appellant’s brief due June 9, 2014 (sixty days after the 

original deadline). Appellant is advised that no further extensions of time will be granted

absent a motion that (1) demonstrates extraordinary circumstances justifying further delay, (2) 

advises the court of the efforts counsel has expended in preparing the brief, and (3) provides the 

court reasonable assurance that the brief will be completed and filed by the requested extended 

deadline. 

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 16th day of May, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
STATE EX REL. Pharaoh BRAZELL v. STATE of Louisiana

NO. 2017-KH-0831

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

September 28, 2018

Denied.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
      (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in
the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
  (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.
  By:
    
    /s/ LEE E. BECKELMANName:
    
    Lee E. BeckelmanTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
A99A2082.

#### WOODFORD v. THE STATE.

(525 SE2d 408)

Eldridge, Judge.

A Bibb County jury found Milton Woodford guilty of rape and incest for sexual acts he committed against his stepdaughter. On review, we affirm his convictions.

In a single, narrowly drawn enumeration of error, Woodford challenges the sufficiency of the evidence introduced against him. In so doing, Woodford does not contend that the State’s evidence failed to show the essential elements of the offenses for which he was charged. Instead, Woodford claims that the State’s evidence was insufficient because: (a) at trial, Woodford’s stepdaughter (the victim) recanted her outcry statements wherein she previously described in detail the acts Woodford perpetrated against her; and (b) DNA paternity tests — which in this case showed Woodford as the father of the victim’s baby with 99.95% certainty — are “not an exact science.”

Evidence of the victim’s outcry statements regarding Woodford’s *876sexual acts against her established the essential elements of rape and incest. OCGA §§ 16-6-1 (a); 16-6-22 (a) (1); see also *Brady v. State,*233 Ga. App. 287 (1) (503 SE2d 906) (1998). “Prior inconsistent statements concerning the sexual activity in which [the victim] and [the defendant] were engaged were substantive evidence of [the defendant’s] guilt.” Id. at 287. See also *Gibbons v. State,*248 Ga. 858, 863-864 (286 SE2d 717) (1982). The DNA paternity test corroborated the victim’s outcry statements as to Woodford’s sexual acts against her. This evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to have found Woodford guilty beyond a reasonable doubt as charged. *Jackson v. Virginia,*443 U. S. 307 (99 SC 2781, 61 LE2d 560) (1979).

Decided November 17, 1999.

*Nicholas E. White,*for appellant.

*Charles H. Weston, District Attorney, Graham A. Thorpe, Myra Y. Christian, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.

The fact that at trial the victim disavowed her prior outcry statements and the fact that DNA testing has a margin of error went to the weight and credibility that the jury wished to assign to the State’s otherwise sufficient evidence. “On appeal of a criminal conviction this Court does not weigh the evidence or determine the credibility of witnesses, but determines the sufficiency of the evidence.” (Citation and punctuation omitted.) *Horne v. State,*231 Ga. App. 864, 865 (1) (501 SE2d 47) (1998). Accordingly, Woodford’s claim of error is without merit.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Blackburn, P. J., and Barnes, J., concur.*
Doctor J.S. HAIL, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida and Department of Corrections, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-3425

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

September 26, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
Shawn Detra SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-2437

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

October 4, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Australia

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_science(12)
              - products_data(16)
              - products_maps(2)
              - products_publications(349)
              - (-)products_web_tools(1)
              - multimedia_audio(16)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(14)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(2)
              - multimedia_before_after(4)
              - multimedia_image(115)
              - multimedia_image-141770(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(92)
              - multimedia_image-141775(1)
              - multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_image-204460(20)
              - multimedia_video(47)
              - multimedia_video-149194(27)
              - multimedia_video-149195(16)
              - multimedia_video-149198(2)
              - documents_file(5)
              - documents_file-149220(2)
              - documents_file-149224(3)
              - news_news-149246(1)
              - news_news-149248(3)
              - news_news-149249(3)
              - news_news-149250(2)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - news_other_news(8)
              - other_basic-42(3)

## By Location

## By Year

Data Visualization        October 13, 2022        Seismotectonics of the Eastern Margin of the Australia Plate
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CO NSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

REFRIGERATED BOTTLED OR CANNED BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINES

U.S. Department of Energy

Room IE-245 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 Thursday, June 26, 2008



## Purpose

The Department of Energy (DOE) will presen t its methodology for the Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) analysis and ex ample results. The Department also will explain its plans for the remaining analysis—the analysis to support th e Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)—and will seek input from stakeholders on its planned methodologies, assumptions, and data sources.



## Agenda

9:00-9:05 am Welcome

9:05-9:15 am Opening Remarks, Introductions and Agenda Review Doug Brookman

9:15-9:30 am Rulemaking Overview

Charles Llenza Overview of the analyses in th e rulemaking, the tools DOE uses to generate results for each an alysis, and the issues on which DOE would like input du ring today’s meeting.

9:30-10:00 am Comments from Participants
Doug Brookman Open forum for participants to make a brief summary statement and/or identify their key issues regarding the ANOPR analyses, methods, and data.

10:00-11:15 am Engineering Analysis

Aris Marantan and Matt Millard Summary presentation and discus sion regarding the approach used and factors considered for the market and technology assessment, screening analysis, and engineering analysis, and a

characterization of the results.

11:15-11:30 am Break2 11:30 am-12:45 pm Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

Sriram Somasundaram and Mike Scott Summary presentation and discus sion regarding the approach used and factors considered for the markups to determine equipment price analysis, energy use characteriza tion, life-cycle cost and payback period analyses , and a characterization of the

results.

12:45-1:45 pm Break for Lunch (on your own)

1:45-3:00 pm National Impact Analysis

Sriram Somasundaram and Mike Scott Summary presentation and discus sion regarding the approach

used and factors considered fo r the national energy savings, net present value, and shipments analysis, and a characterization of

the results.

3:00-3:30 pm Discussion of Other Issues
Doug Brookman Open forum to discuss any re maining questions or issues identified by participants.

3:30-3:45 pm Break

3:45-4:30 pm NOPR Analyses
Aris Marantan, Sriram Somasundaram and Mike Scott Summary presentation and discus sion regarding the planned revisions to the ANOPR analyses, and the planned approach and factors that will be considered for the manufacturer, utility, employment, and regulatory impact analyses, and the

environmental assessment.

4:30-5:00 pm Next Steps and Closing Remarks

Charles Llenza Participants will discuss outstanding issues and concluding

remarks.

5:00 pm Adjourn
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO



SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the
Report of DynaResource, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his
knowledge:

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 operation of the Company.

|/s/ K.W. (“K.D.”)
        Diepholz
        K.W. (“K.D.”) Diepholz
        Chairman of the Board of Directors
        Dated: May 20, 2019
        /s/ K.W. (“K.D.”) Diepholz
        K.W. (“K.D.”) Diepholz
        Chief Executive Officer
        Dated: May 20, 2019
        /s/ K.W. (“K.D.”) Diepholz
        K.W. (“K.D.”) Diepholz;
        Chief Financial Officer
        Dated: May 20, 2019
        /s/ K.W. (“K.D.”) Diepholz
        K.W. (“K.D.”) Diepholz;
        Principal Accounting Officer
        Dated: May 20, 2019
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         

This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the
extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
Exhibit
32.1
   CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT 0F 2002
   In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Medical International Technology, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Karim Menassa, President and Principal Executive Ofiicer 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 result of operations of the
      Company.
   /s/
Karim Menassa
 Karim
Menassa,
 President
and Principal Executive Officer
   August
13, 2008
Larryel Lanier WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-396

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed September 12, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**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 quarterly report of Tabatha I, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for
the quarter ended December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, J. Leonard Ivins, Principal
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 to
the best of my knowledge:
 
 (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/ J.
Leonard Ivins ________________
 J.
Leonard Ivins,
 Principal
Executive Officer and
 Principal
Financial and Accounting Officer
 May 31,
2005
 
 
 A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Tabatha I, Inc. and will be retained by Tabatha I, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Demetrius Laredo WALKER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-5144

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed May 23, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 10.1**

 

April 13, 2006

 

**VIA HAND DELIVERY**

 

Mr. Gene Hodges

CEO and President, Websense Inc.

 

Dear Gene,

 

This letter agreement between you and Websense, Inc. (the “Company”)confirms an amendment to the terms of your employment agreement dated January 9,2006, between you and the Company (the “Employment Agreement”). You acknowledgeand agree:

 

1.                                       Uponyour execution of this amendment to your Employment Agreement, which waspreviously approved by the Company’s Board of Directors, your non-qualified stockoptions to purchase an aggregate of 1,200,000 shares of the Company’s commonstock (which were adjusted to give effect to the Company’s two for one stocksplit in the form of a stock dividend that was effective as of March 17,2006 (the “Stock Split”)) granted on January 9, 2006 (the “OriginalOptions”) pursuant to your Employment Agreement as inducement grants outside ofthe Company’s 2000 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), shall be cancelled and non-qualifiedoptions to purchase an aggregate of 1,200,000 shares shall be re-granted underthe Plan (the “Regranted Options”) on the same date as the cancellation. The optionterm, exercise price, vesting schedule and vesting commencement date ofthe Regranted Options shall be the same as the option term, exercise price,vesting schedule and vesting commencement date of the Original Options (asadjusted for the Stock Split, as applicable).

 

2.                                       Youhave agreed to this amendment at the request of the Company, and you are not,by virtue of this amendment, receiving any benefit in excess of the OriginalOptions.

 

If this amendment of the Employment Agreement is acceptable to you,please sign below and return one original to me.

 

Sincerely,

 

 

John B. Carrington

Chairman of the Board

 

**AGREED:**

 
| Date:  |   April 13, 2006 |   |        |   |
|--------|---------------------------------|--------|-------------|--------|
|   |                            |   | Gene Hodges |

 

----
Ronald Millard IRBY v. Tony MANCUSO, Sheriff of Calcasieu Parish, et al.

NO. 2016-CI-2074

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 29, 2018

Not considered. See La.S.Ct.R. IX, § 6.

HUGHES, J., would grant.

GENOVESE, J., recused.
**Exhibit 10.500**

 

ASSIGNMENT ANDASSUMPTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT

 

For good andvaluable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is herebyacknowledged, the undersigned, INLAND REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS, INC., anIllinois corporation, (“Assignor”) hereby assigns to INLAND WESTERN MARKHAMCORP., a New Brunswick corporation, (“Assignee”) all of its right, title andinterest as a party to that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement (the “PurchaseAgreement”) by and between INLAND REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS, INC., or itsDesignees, (collectively, “Purchaser”), and 1001674 ONTARIO, INC. and 1001675ONTARIO, INC. (collectively, “Seller”), dated January 25, 2005 for purchase andsale of certain real property commonly known as 101 McNabb Street, Markham,Ontario, Canada (the “Property”).

 

By executionhereof by Assignee, Assignee for itself and its successors and assigns herebyaccepts the assignment and assumes all of the obligations of Assignor under thePurchase Agreement.

 

This Assignment iseffective as of the 25th**dayof January, 2005.

 
|   | **ASSIGNOR**: | INLAND REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS, INC., an Illinois  corporation |
|--------|---------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |          |                                                            |
|   |          |                                                            |
|   |          | By:                                                             | /s/ G. Joseph Cosenza |
|   |          |                                                            | G. Joseph Cosenza |
|   |          | Its:                                                            | President |
|   |          |                                                            |
|   | **ASSIGNEE**: | INLAND WESTERN MARKHAM CORP., a New Brunswick corporation       |
|   |          |                                                            |
|   |          |                                                            |
|   |          | By:                                                             | /s/ [ILLEGIBLE] |
|   |          |                                                            |   |
|   |          | Its:                                                            | asst. Secretary |
|        |               |                                                                 |  |  |

 

----
STATE of Louisiana v. Alcide HYPOLITE

No. 2017-KP-1393

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 8, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF LAFAYETTE**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show he was denied access to the courts by an arbitrary and unjustified enforcement of the uniform rules governing the filing of applications in the court of appeal, and thus shows no error.

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 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.

*1278The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
N.G., a juvenile, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D18-0171

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Opinion filed July 25, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.