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

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earthquakes

link

link

### Latest Earthquakes

### Latest Earthquakes

View the latest earthquake events and information from the past 24 hours, 7 days, or 1 month.

Earthquake Hazards Program

Search the Earthquake Catalog

Earthquake data and products

Earthquake science

Earthquake FAQs

Filters

              - science_education(22)
              - science_faqs(118)
              - science_science(411)
              - products_data(220)
              - products_maps(149)
              - products_publications(5605)
              - products_software(48)
              - products_web_tools(35)
              - multimedia_audio(122)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(105)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(17)
              - multimedia_image(1088)
              - multimedia_image-141769(48)
              - multimedia_image-141770(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(861)
              - multimedia_image-141772(15)
              - multimedia_image-141774(9)
              - multimedia_image-141775(101)
              - multimedia_image-141776(49)
              - multimedia_image-204460(1)
              - multimedia_image-207195(3)
              - multimedia_slideshow(13)
              - multimedia_video(384)
              - multimedia_video-149194(127)
              - multimedia_video-149195(159)
              - multimedia_video-149196(31)
              - multimedia_video-149197(7)
              - multimedia_video-149198(23)
              - multimedia_video-149225(1)
              - documents_file(28)
              - (-)documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149214(1)
              - documents_file-149217(2)
              - documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149220(23)
              - news_news-149245(54)
              - news_news-149246(15)
              - (-)news_news-149247(1)
              - news_news-149248(46)
              - news_news-149249(13)
              - news_news-149250(101)
              - news_newsletters(15)
              - news_other_news(255)
              - connect_locations(3)
              - connect_social_media(9)
              - connect_staff_profiles(160)
              - other_basic-37(7)
              - other_basic-42(111)

## By Location

## By Year

link

link

### Latest Earthquakes

### Latest Earthquakes

View the latest earthquake events and information from the past 24 hours, 7 days, or 1 month.

Earthquake Hazards Program

Search the Earthquake Catalog

Earthquake data and products

Earthquake science

Earthquake FAQs

Policy and Directives        December 30, 2015        Recommendations from NEPEC on operational earthquake forecasting

Employee in the News        May 10, 2016        USGS Scientists Receive Presidential Awards for Research on Earthquakes, Fish Disease, and Paleoclimate
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTON A. EWING, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

K2 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 

DBA Conserva Solar, a California Limited 

Liability Company; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-56487 

D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00678-LAB-AGS 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted July 15, 2019**

Before: SCHROEDER, SILVERMAN, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges. 

Anton A. Ewing appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment enforcing

the terms of a settlement agreement in his action alleging federal and state law 

claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of 

 

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

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

JUL 24 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-56487 

discretion the district court’s enforcement of a settlement agreement, Doi v. 

Halekulani Corp., 276 F.3d 1131, 1136 (9th Cir. 2002), and for clear error the 

district court’s findings of fact, Ahern v. Cent. Pac. Freight Lines, 846 F.2d 47, 48 

(9th Cir. 1988). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by enforcing the parties’ 

settlement agreement because the district court’s findings that Ewing agreed to the 

terms, and that defendants substantially complied with those terms, were not 

clearly erroneous. See Doi, 276 F.3d at 1137-40 (district court did not abuse its 

discretion in enforcing settlement agreement where material terms of agreement 

were read into the record and parties agreed to them); Jeff D. v. Andrus, 899 F.2d 

753, 759 (9th Cir. 1989) (“The construction and enforcement of settlement 

agreements are governed by principles of local law which apply to interpretation of 

contracts generally.”); see also Cal. Civ. Code § 1550 (setting forth essential 

elements to the existence of a contract under California law); id. § 1567 (consent 

not free when obtained through duress, fraud, undue influence, or mistake).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief, or arguments and allegations raised for the first time on 

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Appellee Klein’s request for sanctions under 28 U.S.C. § 1927, set forth in 
3 18-56487 

his answering brief, is denied.

AFFIRMED.
Karen MOULTON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. STEWART ENTERPRISES, INC., et al

NO. 2018-CA-0178

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Fourth Circuit.

NOVEMBER 28, 2018

Andrew A. Lemmon, Scott J. Falgoust, LEMMON LAW FIRM, 15058 River Road, Hahnville, LA 70057, David T. Wissbroecker, Maxwell R. Huffman, ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP, 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101-8498, COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS/APPELLANTS

Steven W. Usdin, BARRASSO USDIN KUPPERMAN FREEMAN & SARVER, LLC, 909 Poydras Street, 24th Floor, New Orleans, LA 70112, Robert B. Bieck, Jr., Mark A. Cunningham, Alexander N. Breckinridge, V, Thomas E. Slattery, JONES WALKER LLP, 201 St. Charles Ave., 49th Floor, New Orleans, LA 70170, Edward J. Castaing, Jr., Edward J. Lilly, CRULL CASTAING & LILLY, 601 Poydras Street, Suite 2323, New Orleans, LA 70130 Pamela S. Palmer, Pro Hac Vice, PEPPER HAMILTON LLP, 350 South Grand Avenue, Two California Plaza, Suite 3400, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3427, COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT/APPELLEE

(Court composed of Judge Edwin A. Lombard, Judge Daniel L. Dysart, Judge Paula A. Brown )

Judge Edwin A. Lombard *457Plaintiffs/Appellants, Philip Rosen and Alex Rodgers, seek review of the Amended Judgment rendered by the district court on August 14, 2017, which granted the respective motions for summary judgment of the Appellees, Mr. Stewart and Stewart Enterprises, Inc. ("STEI"), John B. Elstrott, Alden J. McDonald, Jr., Thomas M. Kitchen, Ashton J. Ryan, Jr., Ronald H. Patron and John K. Saer. For the reasons that follow, we remand this case to the district court for completion of the record.

**INCOMPLETE RECORD**

When the record was lodged in this Court, it is unclear whether the documents attached in support of the Plaintiffs/Appellants' "Omnibus Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment," specifically the documents tabbed 1-51 attached to the Affidavit of Maxwell R. Huffman, were included in the record. These were documents that were filed in the Civil District Court on or about June 15, 2016 in CDC Case No. 2013-05636 c/w 2013-05887.1

On October 4, 2018, this Court ordered the Civil District Court to produce the above-referenced tabbed documents. However, the Civil District Court is unable to comply. Therefore, pursuant to La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 2161,2 which mandates that an appeal is not be dismissed because of an incomplete record, we remand this case to the district court for completion of the record.

**REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS**

1

It appears that Plaintiffs/Appellants fax filed their opposition, but did not fax file the 51 tabbed attachments at issue.

2

La. Code Civ. Proc. art. 2161, states in pertinent part, "An appeal shall not be dismissed because the trial record is missing, incomplete or in error no matter who is responsible, and the court may remand the case either for retrial or for correction of the record."
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 14

- 00011

- CV

J. Felix GONZALEZ

- LIMON

, Appellant

v.

Ruth GONZALEZ

, Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 06392 Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARION

, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that appellee, Ruth Gonzalez, recover her costs of this appeal from appellant, J. Felix Gonzalez

- Limon.

SIGNED November 19, 2014.

_____________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 448 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 448

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the symbols 
 and traditions of Christmas should be protected for use by those who 
                          celebrate Christmas.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           December 19, 2013

  Mr. Lamborn (for himself, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Bentivolio, Mrs. Black, 
   Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Broun of Georgia, Mrs. Capito, Mr. Cole, Mr. 
  Conaway, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Fincher, Mr. Fleming, Mr. Flores, Mr. 
     Forbes, Mr. Gingrey of Georgia, Mr. Griffith of Virginia, Mr. 
 Goodlatte, Mr. Harris, Mr. Hensarling, Mrs. Hartzler, Mr. Huelskamp, 
Mr. Kelly of Pennsylvania, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. Neugebauer, Mr. Pitts, Mr. 
 Posey, Mr. Southerland, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Wenstrup, Mr. Westmoreland, 
 Mr. Bridenstine, Mr. Lankford, Mr. Jones, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Pearce, Mr. 
Jordan, and Mr. Miller of Florida) submitted the following resolution; 
 which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the symbols 
 and traditions of Christmas should be protected for use by those who 
                          celebrate Christmas.

Whereas Christmas is a national holiday celebrated on December 25; and
Whereas the Framers intended that the First Amendment of the Constitution, in 
        prohibiting the establishment of religion, would not prohibit any 
        mention of religion or reference to God in civic dialog: Now, therefore, 
        be it
    Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
    (1) recognizes the importance of the symbols and traditions of 
Christmas;
    (2) strongly disapproves of attempts to ban references to 
Christmas; and
    (3) expresses support for the use of these symbols and traditions 
by those who celebrate Christmas.
                                 <all>
```
Ryan B. GUST, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4504

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

November 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
#*

William Arthur Mcintosh

TDCJ-ID no. 688254

Robertson Unit

12071 F.M. 3522

Abilene, Texas 79601

Clerk/ Abel Acosta

Court of Criminal Appeals

P.O. Box 12308

Capitol Station

Austin, texas 78711

June 28, 2015

Mr. Acosta,

I am requesting a copy of th edocket sheet fior the following cause no.'s

PD-0331-15, PD-0332-15, PD-0333-15, PD-0334-15, PD-0335-15, PD-0336-l5,fD-0337-

15, PD-0338-15, PD-0339-15, PD-0340-15. I would greatly appreciate getting a

copy of the docket sheet for the above numbered cause numbers as I would like

to see the progress of my PDR.

Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter.

Sincerely,

William Mcintosh

, RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

JUL 012015

AbelAcosta,Clerk
<PAGE>


Exhibit 32.2 - CERTIFICATIONS 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 filing of the Genesis HealthCare Corporation's Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2003 with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James V. McKeon,
the Chief Financial Officer of Genesis HealthCare Corporation, 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, except for the filing date; and

2.  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: February 4, 2004

/s/ JAMES V. MCKEON
-------------------
James V. McKeon
Order entered March 12, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 20

- 00819

- CV

PAUL YODER SHULTZ, JR. , Appellant

V.

JENNIFER ROYAL SHULTZ , Appellee

On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 16

- 13529

O RDER

Before the Court is appellee’s March 10, 2021 unopposed second motion for

extension of time to file her brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the brief

be filed no later than March 26, 2021.

/s/ CRAIG SMITH JUSTICE
We GRANT Van Dusen’s motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. 

1

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

F I LED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 27, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

JASON VAN DUSEN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

MARTY SIRMONS, Warden; DREW

EDMONDSON, Attorney General of

the State of Oklahoma, 

Respondents-Appellees.

No. 06-6376

(D.C. No. CIV-06-295-M)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER

Before BRISCOE, EBEL, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner-Appellant Jason Van Dusen requests a certificate of appealability

(“COA”), see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), that would enable him to appeal the district

court’s decision denying him habeas relief, see 28 U.S.C. § 2254, from his

Oklahoma convictions for first degree rape of a child under fourteen years of age

and rape by instrumentation. In his habeas petition, Van Dusen first asserts that 1

his trial attorney was ineffective for waiving the preliminary hearing and for

failing to investigate the case; prepare adequately for trial; call defense witnesses,

including the victim’s babysitter, a Department of Human Services employee, the
- 2 -

victim’s twelve-year-old sister, a teacher, and Jessica Denton; seek a

psychological expert to evaluate a social worker’s interview with the victim; seek

an expert to evaluate the results of several physical examinations of the victim;

call one of the examining physicians as a witness; better cross-examine the

State’s witnesses; make an opening statement; and object to the prosecutor’s

improper arguments. Van Dusen also asserts that the prosecutor acted improperly

by making inappropriate remarks during voir dire, trial, closing argument, and

sentencing; introducing false testimony; introducing false evidence; suppressing

exculpatory evidence; and threatening to charge the victim’s mother if she did not

testify against Van Dusen. Van Dusen further alleged that an undersheriff

eavesdropped on Van Dusen’s meetings with his defense attorney; there was

insufficient evidence presented at trial to support either of Van Dusen’s

convictions; the trial judge erred in refusing to respond to a question from jurors

during their deliberations; cumulative error warrants habeas relief; and Van

Dusen’s appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise these arguments on

direct appeal. 

Van Dusen will be entitled to a COA if he can make“a substantial showing

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). He can make

such a showing by establishing that “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or,

for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different

manner or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to
- 3 -

proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000) (quotations

omitted). For substantially the reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation, adopted by the district court, we conclude Van Dusen has failed

to make an adequate showing in this case. We, therefore, DENY his motion for a

COA and DISMISS this appeal. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

David M. Ebel

Circuit Judge
**EXHIBIT 12.1**

 

THE OLD EVANGELINE DOWNS, LLC

Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

(amounts in thousands except ratio information)

 

 
| **Earnings:**                                               |   | **2003** |    |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------|---------|
|                                                        |   |     |    |
| Total earnings                                              |   | $        | (18,767 | ) |
|                                                        |   |     |    |
| Fixed charges:                                              |   |     |    |
|                                                        |   |     |    |
| Interest charges (including capitalized  interest)          |   | 14,379   |    |
|                                                        |   |     |    |
| Amortization of deferred financing costs  and bond discount |   | 1,974    |    |
|                                                        |   |     |    |
| Total fixed charges                                         |   | 16,353   |    |
|                                                        |   |     |    |
| Capitalized interest                                        |   | (2,202   | )       |
| Earnings as adjusted                                        |   | $        | (4,616  | ) |
|                                                        |   |     |    |
| Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                          |   | (0.3     | )x*     |

 

----

*  Earnings were insufficient tocover fixed charges for the year ended December 31, 2003 by $21.0 million.

 

----
IIB 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 634 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 13, 2013 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and 

Urban Affairs 

AN ACT 

To provide end user exemptions from certain provisions of 

the Commodity Exchange Act and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 634 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Business Risk Mitiga3 tion and Price Stabilization Act of 2013’’. 

4 SEC. 2. MARGIN REQUIREMENTS. 

5 (a) COMMODITY EXCHANGE ACT AMENDMENT.— 

6 Section 4s(e) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 

7 6s(e)), as added by section 731 of the Dodd-Frank Wall 

8 Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, is amended 

9 by adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

10 ‘‘(4) APPLICABILITY WITH RESPECT TO

11 COUNTERPARTIES.—The requirements of paragraphs 

12 (2)(A)(ii) and (2)(B)(ii), including the initial and 

13 variation margin requirements imposed by rules 

14 adopted pursuant to paragraphs (2)(A)(ii) and 

15 (2)(B)(ii), shall not apply to a swap in which a 

16 counterparty qualifies for an exception under section 

17 2(h)(7)(A), or an exemption issued under section 

18 4(c)(1) from the requirements of section 2(h)(1)(A) 

19 for cooperative entities as defined in such exemption, 

20 or satisfies the criteria in section 2(h)(7)(D).’’. 

21 (b) SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT AMENDMENT.— 

22 Section 15F(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 

23 (15 U.S.C. 78o–10(e)), as added by section 764(a) of the 

24 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protec25 tion Act, is amended by adding at the end the following 

26 new paragraph: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

HR 634 RFS 

1 ‘‘(4) APPLICABILITY WITH RESPECT TO

2 COUNTERPARTIES.—The requirements of paragraphs 

3 (2)(A)(ii) and (2)(B)(ii) shall not apply to a secu4 rity-based swap in which a counterparty qualifies for 

5 an exception under section 3C(g)(1) or satisfies the 

6 criteria in section 3C(g)(4).’’. 

7 SEC. 3. IMPLEMENTATION. 

8 The amendments made by this Act to the Commodity 

9 Exchange Act shall be implemented— 

10 (1) without regard to— 

11 (A) chapter 35 of title 44, United States 

12 Code; and 

13 (B) the notice and comment provisions of 

14 section 553 of title 5, United States Code; 

15 (2) through the promulgation of an interim 

16 final rule, pursuant to which public comment will be 

17 sought before a final rule is issued; and 

18 (3) such that paragraph (1) shall apply solely 

19 to changes to rules and regulations, or proposed 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
4 

HR 634 RFS 

1 rules and regulations, that are limited to and di2 rectly a consequence of such amendments. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 12, 2013. 

Attest: KAREN L. HAAS, 

Clerk. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 243 (Wednesday, December 18, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 102965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-29903]

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

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: December 18, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
December 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 950 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-692, K2025-691.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-29903 Filed 12-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
Exhibit 23.10




McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd.





March 27, 2014





TO:  Seabridge Gold Inc.





Ladies and Gentlemen:





Reference is made to the Annual Report on Form 40-F (the “40-F”) of Seabridge Gold Inc. (the “Company”), to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the Annual Information Form (the “AIF”) of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2013, which is being filed as an exhibit to and incorporated by reference in the 40-F.





I, Robert Parolin, P.Eng., on behalf of myself and McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd., hereby consent to the references to, and the information derived from, the following reports and to the references, as applicable, to my name and McElhanney Consulting Services Ltd.’s name in connection with the following reports in the AIF and the 40-F:


·
2012 KSM (Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell) Prefeasibility Study dated June 22, 2012;


·
Kerr-Sulphurets-Mitchell (KSM) Prefeasibility Study Update 2011 dated June 15, 2011; and


·
KSM Preliminary Feasibility Study 2010 dated March 31, 2010.








Yours truly,/s/ Robert ParolinRobert Parolin, P.Eng.