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

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earth

Filters

              - (-)multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(16)
              - american samoa(3)
              - arizona(19)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(15)
              - colorado(2)
              - (-)commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - connecticut(1)
              - florida(2)
              - georgia(2)
              - guam(1)
              - hawaii(180)
              - idaho(4)
              - kansas(1)
              - louisiana(1)
              - maine(2)
              - maryland(2)
              - minnesota(1)
              - missouri(2)
              - montana(4)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(3)
              - new york(2)
              - north carolina(1)
              - north dakota(1)
              - pennsylvania(2)
              - south carolina(3)
              - south dakota(112)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(1)
              - utah(3)
              - virginia(6)
              - washington(1)
              - west virginia(1)
              - wyoming(4)

## By Year

Photography        May 1, 2014        New submarine eruption in Northern Mariana Islands
May , 2015 

# Clerk RECEIVEDIN 

# CourtofCriminalAppeals COURTOFCRIWALAPPFA'.? P.O. Box 12308 

### Austin, Texas 78711 MAY 112015 RE: Motion For Extension of Time 

### Appeal no. 06-14-00112-CR AbelAcosta,Cleft
Dear Clerk, Enclosed, please find the Original Motion For Extension of Time. Please file and bring to the attention of this Court. Your assistance will be greatly appreciated in this matter. Respectfully, Rashad Lee #1932553 2101 FM 369 North Iowa Park, Texas 76367 

## FILEDIN 

## COURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALS MAY 112015 AbelAcosta, CierkCause No. RASHAD LEE § IN THE COURT Petitioner v. § OF THE STATE OF TEXAS § CRIMINAL APPEALS
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: •'.CCOMES NOW, Rashad Lee, Petitioner in the above style file this Motion 

### For Extension of Time to file his Petition For Discretionary Review (PDR) from the Court of Appeals SixthAppellate District of Texas affirming 

### his appeal inCause No. 06-14-00112-CR. The Petitioner's Appeal was affirmed on the date of April 9, 2015. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 48, the Petitioner has 

### the right to file a pro se Petition for Discretionary Review of the Appellate Court's decision. Petitioner is currently in an Education Class, in which utilizes his 

### time that:he should,be using to prepare his PDR Petitioner, therefore, requiring more time to be needed to adequately prepare the Petition. •'. The Petitioner requests this Court to Grant him an extension of time 

### for 60 days in which to properly prepare his petition.

PRAYER Petitioner pray this Honorable'Court will Grant him 60 days inwhich to prepare his PDR. Executed on this day of May, 2015.

1 of 2 Respectfully Submitted, Rashad Lee #1932553 2101 FM 369 North Iowa Park, Texas 76367CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Rashad Lee, do hereby certify that the Request For Extension of Time was mailed to: Clerk, Court of Criminal Appeals, P.O. Box .12308, Austin, Texas 78711, by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid on the -day of May, 2015.

Rashad Lee

2 of 2
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

September 23, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00251

- CV

Herbert Lawrence POLINARD , Jr., Appellant

v.

Jo Ann KARAMBIS , Margaret Comparin Karambis, Ronaldo Dunagan, Lynda C. Spence, and eXp Realty LLC, Appellees

From the 166th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Cou rt No. 2018

- CI

- 11887 Honorable Antonia Arteaga , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file his brief is GRANTED. The appellant’s brief is due on or before October 22, 2021.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

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

court on this 23rd day of September, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
# C_2020309EN.01000201.xml

| 18.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 309/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 309/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.9925 — Lactalis Nestlé produits frais/Certain assets of Parmalat)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2020/C 309/02)

On 14 September 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 32020M9925. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32020M9925. EUR-Lex is the online access to European law.

---

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

---
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, John W. Beasley, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB being filed for
Metaline Contact Mines (the Registrant);2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the 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 the 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-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and
have:  (i)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
that material information relating to the Registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly
report is being prepared.(ii)
    
    evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
filing date of this annual report (the Evaluation Date); and(iii)
    
    presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  5.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation, to the Registrants auditors and the audit
committee of the Registrants Board of Directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):  (i)
    
    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
internal controls which could adversely affect the Registrants
ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and
have identified for the Registrants auditors any material weakness
in internal controls; and(ii)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrants
controls; and Exhibit 31.2 - Page 1




---



##### 



6.
    
    The Registrants other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal
controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including
any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
material weaknesses. Date: November 15, 2004 /s/ John W. BeasleyJohn W. BeasleySecretary/Treasurer & CFO
 Exhibit 31.2 - Page 2
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Ryan Stephon Harrison v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01-20-00093-CR

Trial court case number: 1617692

Trial court: 177th District Court of Harris County

The appellant, Ryan Stephon Harrison, has moved for rehearing. The court hereby DENIES 

the appellant’s motion for rehearing.

Justice’s signature: /s/ Gordon Goodman

Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Countiss.

Date: January 28, 2021
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Declination

Filters

              - science_science(6)
              - products_publications(30)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - news_news-149245(1)
              - news_news-149248(1)
              - (-)news_news-149250(1)

## By Location

              - california(1)
              - idaho(1)
              - montana(1)
              - nevada(1)
              - (-)north dakota(1)

## By Year

Featured Story        October 14, 2015        Birds in the Bakken: Oil Development Can Affect Critical Habitat
Alfredo P. SCALZO and Michelle A. Scalzo, Appellants, v. THIRD FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF CLEVELAND ; Lansbrook Master Association, Inc.; and Juniper Bay Homeowners Association, Inc., Appellees.

Case No. 2D17-1539

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed June 29, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15**  **- 6835** 

BRIAN KEITH NESBITT , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,
v. TIM RILEY, Warden; BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director of the Department of Corrections; AMY SPENCER; DR. J. R. BEARDEN; DHO RICHARD TURNER; LAURA CALDWELL; LT. LAWSON, Safety; ADMIN CAPTAIN NANCE; GARY LANE; INVESTIGATOR LANE; KAREN MCMORRIS; CAP. JENNETTE GLEN; LT. JASON WEBBER; MAJOR JAMES PARRIS; CAPTAIN CATHY DUNCAN; DR. T. BYRNE , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill
. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 0:14

- cv - 02788

- RMG

- PJG )

Submitted : October 15, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Brian Keith Nesbitt, Appellant Pro Se. James E. Parham, Jr., Irmo, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Brian Keith Nesbit t appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying Nesbitt’s motions for a preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action . We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. Nesbitt v. Riley , No. 0:14

- cv - 02788

- RMG

- PJG (D.S.C. filed May 1, 2015 & entered May 4 , 2015)
. We deny Nesbitt’s motions for appointment of counsel, a prelimin ary injunction, and a temporary restraining order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-50627

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOSE OSCAR ZAMORANO-GRAJEDA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-01-CR-35-ALL-DB

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

April 11, 2002

Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jose Oscar Zamorano-Grajeda appeals the sentence imposed

following his guilty plea conviction of attempting to illegally

reenter the United States after deportation in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326. Zamorano-Grajeda complains that his sentence

was improperly enhanced pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) based

on his prior deportation following an aggravated felony

conviction. Zamorano-Grajeda argues that the sentencing

provision violates the Due Process Clause because it permitted

the sentencing judge to find, under a preponderance of the
No. 01-50627 

-2-

evidence standard, a fact which increased the statutory maximum

sentence to which he otherwise would have been exposed. 

Zamorano-Grajeda thus contends that his sentence is invalid and

argues that it should not exceed the two-year maximum term of

imprisonment prescribed in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). 

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Zamorano-Grajeda acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1202 (2001). This court

must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court

itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of

the district court is AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that the judgment of the district court be affirmed and that an

appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

 AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
K.A., a Child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-791

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed October 23, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and David M. Dixon, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

COHEN, C.J., LAMBERT and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
STATE EX REL. Henry Eugene BENNETT v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-1720

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 15, 2018

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF RAPIDES**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. The application was not timely filed in the district court, and relator fails to carry his burden to show that an exception applies. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8 ; *State ex rel. Glover v. State* , 93-2330 (La. 9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189. In addition, relator's sentencing claims are not cognizable on collateral *692review. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.3 ; *State ex rel. Melinie v. State* , 93-1380 (La. 1/12/96), 665 So.2d 1172 ; *see also* *State v. Cotton* , 09-2397 (La. 10/15/10), 45 So.3d 1030.

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.
Exhibit 21.0



List of Subsidiaries



Registrant: Jefferson Bancshares, Inc.



|                       |  |                      |  |                                       
|---------------------- |  | -------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|Subsidiaries           |  | Percentage Ownership |  | Jurisdiction or State of Incorporation
|Jefferson Federal Bank |  | 100%                 |  | United States                         



Jefferson Federal Bank



|                                                             |  |                      |  |                                       
|------------------------------------------------------------ |  | -------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|Subsidiaries                                                 |  | Percentage Ownership |  | Jurisdiction or State of Incorporation
|Jefferson Service Corporation of Morristown, Tennessee, Inc. |  | 100%                 |  | Tennessee
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Desert climate and soils

Filters

              - science_science(6)
              - products_data(1)
              - products_publications(14)
              - multimedia_audio(4)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(3)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(1)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141772(1)
              - multimedia_video(36)
              - multimedia_video-149194(25)
              - multimedia_video-149195(3)
              - multimedia_video-149196(1)
              - multimedia_video-149197(3)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)

## By Location

              - alaska(2)
              - arizona(10)
              - california(14)
              - colorado(3)
              - idaho(2)
              - montana(1)
              - nebraska(1)
              - nevada(2)
              - new mexico(4)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oregon(1)
              - south dakota(5)
              - texas(1)
              - utah(5)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

              - 2024(4)
              - 2023(1)
              - 2022(1)

Presentations and Events        July 27, 2017        USGS Public Lecture: Warm Ice—Dynamics of Rapidly Changing Glaciers

Presentations and Events        July 28, 2022        PubTalk-07/2022 - Mapping the World from Satellites

Project        September 18, 2023        New Tools for Modern Land Management Decisions

Presentations and Events        April 28, 2016        Untapped Capacity: Our 4,000 Species of Native Bees

Data Release        August 30, 2020        Seasonal ecophysiological measurement data from December 2015 to September 2016, southeastern Utah

How to's and trainings        October 25, 2022        Using Google Earth Engine to Generate Monthly-to-Weekly Maps of Surface Water

Presentations and Events        November 17, 2022        PubTalk-11/2022: Endangered Bumble Bees - Science on the Threats and Recovery

Presentations and Events        September 22, 2020        Hydrography Updates for USFS Southwestern Region in AZ and NM

#### Pagination

-  First page« First 
-  Previous page‹‹ 
-                Page            1 
-                Page            2 
-                Current page            3
STATE of Louisiana v. Monotor M. PETE

NO. 2018-KO-0061

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

October 29, 2018

Denied.
**EXHIBIT 23**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED**

**PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-106146 and 333-109523 on Form S-3 and Nos. 333-106148, 333-106479,333-124289, 333-132858, 333-142298, 333-159236, 333-165875, 333-167785, 333-173328, 333-177678, 333-180589, 333-180593 and 333-183122 on Form S-8 of Mindspeed Technologies, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) of our report datedDecember 11, 2012, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of the Company and the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, (which report expresses an unqualifiedopinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the Company’s retrospective adoption of new accounting guidance related to the presentation of comprehensive income) appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Company for the yearended September 28, 2012. 

*/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP*

Costa Mesa, CA 

December 11, 2012
Report Of IndependentRegistered Public Accounting Firm
 Board of DirectorsStructured Obligations CorporationNew York, New York
 We have examined the compliance of Structured Obligations Corporation (Depositor) and U.S. Bank National Association
        (Trustee) with the Base Trust Agreement and the Select Notes Trust Supplement LT 2003-1 (the Agreements) relating to the administration of the underlying securities and related credit support deposited in or held by the Select Notes Trust LT 2003-1
        for the year ended December 31, 2018.  Depositor’s management is responsible for compliance with those requirements.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on compliance with the Agreements based on our examination.
 Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United
        States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about Depositor’s and Trustee’s compliance with those requirements described above and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We
        believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination of Depositor’s and Trustee’s compliance with specified requirements.
 
  
 This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Depositor, the Trustee, the Securities and Exchange
        Commission and the Certificate Holders of the Select Notes Trust LT 2003-1, and is not intended to be, and should not be used by anyone other than those specified parties.
 /s/ RubinBrown LLP
 
 March 28, 2019
Cecil HUBBERT, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-381

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed May 29, 2018

Cecil Hubbert, Jr., Raiford, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WALLIS, LAMBERT and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.