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

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Extreme Events

Filters

              - science_science(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(6)
              - alaska(19)
              - american samoa(2)
              - arizona(17)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(65)
              - colorado(12)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - connecticut(8)
              - delaware(9)
              - district of columbia(8)
              - florida(18)
              - georgia(8)
              - guam(4)
              - hawaii(13)
              - idaho(4)
              - (-)iowa(1)
              - kansas(3)
              - louisiana(17)
              - maine(9)
              - maryland(13)
              - massachusetts(13)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(3)
              - mississippi(7)
              - missouri(2)
              - montana(2)
              - nevada(4)
              - new hampshire(7)
              - new jersey(10)
              - new mexico(4)
              - new york(11)
              - north carolina(7)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oklahoma(2)
              - oregon(15)
              - pennsylvania(4)
              - puerto rico(12)
              - rhode island(8)
              - south carolina(4)
              - south dakota(13)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(9)
              - u.s. virgin islands(5)
              - utah(2)
              - vermont(3)
              - virginia(7)
              - washington(17)
              - wisconsin(2)
              - wyoming(7)

## By Year

Topic        October 31, 2018        Iowa Flood Information
Christina PAYLAN, M.D., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0091

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 14, 2019

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. The petitioner's motion to expedite is denied as moot.

LaROSE, C.J., and SILBERMAN and NORTHCUTT, JJ., Concur.
Shane Michael BERGIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-2294

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 10, 2019

Shane Michael Bergin, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Brooke Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Wolf, Lewis, and Wetherell, JJ., concur.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Extreme Events

Filters

              - science_science(3)
              - products_publications(1)
              - multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(1)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(6)
              - alaska(19)
              - american samoa(2)
              - arizona(17)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(65)
              - colorado(12)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - connecticut(8)
              - delaware(9)
              - district of columbia(8)
              - florida(18)
              - georgia(8)
              - guam(4)
              - hawaii(13)
              - idaho(4)
              - iowa(1)
              - kansas(3)
              - louisiana(17)
              - maine(9)
              - maryland(13)
              - massachusetts(13)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(3)
              - mississippi(7)
              - missouri(2)
              - montana(2)
              - nevada(4)
              - new hampshire(7)
              - new jersey(10)
              - new mexico(4)
              - new york(11)
              - (-)north carolina(7)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oklahoma(2)
              - oregon(15)
              - pennsylvania(4)
              - puerto rico(12)
              - rhode island(8)
              - south carolina(4)
              - south dakota(13)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(9)
              - u.s. virgin islands(5)
              - utah(2)
              - vermont(3)
              - virginia(7)
              - washington(17)
              - wisconsin(2)
              - wyoming(7)

## By Year

Research        January 18, 2018        Forecasting Coastal Change

Podcasts        September 5, 2011        Responding to Hurricanes, Floods and Droughts in North Carolina

Research        April 12, 2016        Geologic Hazards and Catastrophic Events

Featured Films and Shorts        September 30, 2017        USGS Hurricane Preparedness

Project        April 12, 2016        Understanding Coastal Change

publication        January 8, 2016        Identifying long term empirical relationships between storm characteristics and episodic groundwater recharge

Presentations and Events        August 9, 2023        Insights on the growth and mobility of debris flows from repeat high resolution lidar
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 219 

Amending the Standing Rules of the Senate to authorize the Majority Leader 

to move to proceed to the en bloc consideration of certain nominations. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 18, 2023 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. KING, and Mr. CARDIN) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Amending the Standing Rules of the Senate to authorize 

the Majority Leader to move to proceed to the en bloc 

consideration of certain nominations. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. EN BLOC CONSIDERATION OF CERTAIN NOMI3 NATIONS. 

4 Rule XXXI of the Standing Rules of the Senate is 

5 amended by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘8.(a) In this paragraph, the term ‘covered nomina7 tion’ means a nomination to a position that is not a posi8 tion— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 219 IS 

1 ‘‘(1) at level I of the Executive Schedule under 

2 section 5312 of title 5, United States Code; 

3 ‘‘(2) as a judge of a court of appeals of the 

4 United States; or 

5 ‘‘(3) as Chief Justice of the United States or as 

6 an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the 

7 United States. 

8 ‘‘(b) It shall be in order for the Majority Leader to 

9 move to proceed to the en bloc consideration of not more 

10 than 10 covered nominations that were reported to the 

11 Senate by the same committee of the Senate and placed 

12 on the calendar. 

13 ‘‘(c) Consideration of a motion to proceed under sub14 paragraph (b), and the en bloc consideration of the nomi15 nations that are the subject of the motion, shall be con16 ducted in the same manner as if it were a motion to pro17 ceed to the consideration of a single nomination.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourt **h Court of Appeals**

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 11, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00532

- CR

Edward Lee CARTER

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CR1674

The Honorable Angus McG inty, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellant ’ s Motion for Rehearing, and the motion is

DENIED.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

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

court on this 11th day of December, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
STATE EX REL. Gerald HATCHER v. STATE of Louisiana

No. 2017-KH-1970

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 14, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF ORLEANS**

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. Relator also fails to show entitlement to DNA testing. La.C.Cr.P. art. 926.1.

Relator has now fully litigated at least four applications 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. The district court is ordered to record a minute entry consistent with this per curiam.
Arthur FORBES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D17-4293

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 25, 2019

Arthur Forbes, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley B. Moody, Attorney General, and Amanda D. Stokes, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

AFFIRMED .

Rowe, Bilbrey, and Winsor, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 Alliance Distributors Holding Inc., a
Delaware Corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"),
Barbara A. Ras, Chief Financial Officer/Principal Financial and Accounting
Officer, does hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to her 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 result of operations of the Company.





        Date: August 11, 2006

                                        /s/ Barbara A. Ras
                                        --------------------------------------
                                        Barbara A. Ras
                                        Chief Financial Officer/Principal
                                        Financial and Accounting Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PEDRO RODRIGUEZ DURAN,

Petitioner,

 v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

No. 14-70012

Agency No. A095-449-983

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 27, 2016** 

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

Pedro Rodriguez Duran, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions pro se for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an

immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen removal proceedings

based on ineffective assistance of counsel. We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. 

FILED

OCT 05 2016

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* 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).
§ 1252. We review for abuse of discretion the denial of a motion to reopen. 

Avagyan v. Holder, 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th Cir. 2011). We deny the petition for

review.

The agency did not abuse its discretion in denying Rodriguez Duran’s

motion to reopen as untimely where the motion was filed more than three years

after his removal order became final, see 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2(c)(2), and Rodriguez

Duran failed to establish the due diligence required for equitable tolling of the

filing deadline, see Avagyan, 646 F.3d at 679 (equitable tolling is available to a

petitioner who is prevented from filing because of deception, fraud or error, as long

as the petitioner exercised due diligence in discovering such circumstances).

In light of our disposition, we do not reach Rodriguez Duran’s remaining

contention regarding tolling of the numerical bar. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371

F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (the court need not reach a contention when another

dispositive determination has been made).

We deny Rodriguez Duran’s request for remand for the purposes of

prosecutorial discretion. See Vilchiz-Soto v. Holder, 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th Cir.

2012) (order).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

2 14-70012
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 278 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 278

     To authorize testimony and representation in United States v. 
                               Hostetter.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 22, 2023

  Mr. Schumer (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
     To authorize testimony and representation in United States v. 
                               Hostetter.

Whereas, in the case of United States v. Hostetter, Cr. No. 21-392, pending in 
        the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the 
        prosecution has requested the production of testimony from Daniel 
        Schwager, a former employee of the Office of the Secretary of the 
        Senate;
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec.  288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to represent current and former officers and 
        employees of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request 
        for evidence relating to their official responsibilities;
Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the 
        Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the 
        possession of the Senate may, by the judicial or administrative process, 
        be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the 
        Senate; and
Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of 
        the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will 
        take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the 
        privileges of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That Daniel Schwager, a former employee of the Office of 
the Secretary of the Senate, is authorized to provide relevant 
testimony in the case of United States v. Hostetter, except concerning 
matters for which a privilege should be asserted.
    Sec. 2.  The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent Mr. 
Schwager, and any current or former officer or employee of the 
Secretary's office, in connection with the production of evidence 
authorized in section one of this resolution.
                                 <all>
```
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 amended Quarterly Report of Perfect Health Care Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report),
Antoine Jarjour, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:

(1)  the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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.

Date: December 20, 2004

Signed:

/s/Antoine Jarjour
----------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 4-24-2009 

# U SA v . Ol hovsky P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al D ocke t N o . 07-1642

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin . C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " U SA v . Ol ho vsk y " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1426. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/1426UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________________ N o: 07- 1642

_____________________ UN I TE D ST AT ES O F AM ERI CA

v. NI COLAU OLHOVSKY, Appellant

____________________ O n A ppeal fr om J udgm ent s of C onvi ct i on and Sent ence

in the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey D i s t r i ctJ udge: H on. St anl eyR . C hes l er ( C r i m . N o. 06- cr - 00263)

____________________ A r gued: M ar ch 26, 2008 Be f o r e : M c KE E , RE NDE L L , a n d T AS HI M A

C i r cui tJ udges

_____________________ OR DE R A M E ND I NG OP I NI ON A tt he di r ect i on of t he C our t , i ti s her ebyO R D E R E D t hatt he O pi ni on fi l ed i n t h i s c a s e o n Ap r i l 1 6 , 2 0 0 9 , b e a me n d e d t o r e f l e c tt h e f o l l o wi n g a d d r e s s f

o rE r i c H. Jaso, E sq as foll ow s: E r i c H . J as o, E s q. O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 970 B r oad St r eet R oom 700 N ew ar k, N J 07102FOR TH E CO UR T:

/ s /M ar ci a M . W al dr on M ar ci a M . W al dr on, C lerk D at ed: A pr i l 24, 2009
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 
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 Interactive Motorsports and
Entertainment Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the three months ended
March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the Date
hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned 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 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.

|                         |                                     
|------------------------ | ------------------------------------
|Date:
 November 17, 2008 | /s/ William
 R. Donaldson           
|                         |                                     
|                         | William R.
 Donaldson               
|                         | Chairman and
 Chief ExecutiveOfficer

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

---
Devonteial Markeist GIBSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-1025

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 17, 2019]

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Benjamin Eisenberg, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed.*

Gerber, C.J., Gross and Kuntz, JJ., concur.
Thomas NORRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-572

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[December 20, 2018]

Jack A. Fleischman of Fleischman & Fleischman, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Allan R. Geesey, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

*Affirmed.*

Warner, Ciklin and Levine, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 10.8**

 

**[VALICERT LETTERHEAD]**

 

February 18, 2003 

 

John Vigouroux 

25800 Vinedo Lane 

Los Altos, California 94022 

 

 

Dear Mr. Vigouroux: 

 

Pursuant to our recent discussions, this letter memorializes the terms of your continued employment with Valicert, Inc. (the“Company”). 

 

1.    Salary.    Your salary is $190,000 on an annualized basis, less applicable withholding. 

 

2.    Incentive.    You will be eligible for a variable incentive plan of $160,000 on anannualized basis, as outlined in your employment letter dated July 19, 2002. 

 

3.    Amendment of Stock Option Agreement.    Your stock option agreement shall be amended (the “Option Amendment”) to provide that immediatelyprior to the consummation of the Merger (as such term is defined in the Agreement and Plan of Reorganization and Merger dated February 18, 2003, by and among Tumbleweed Communications Corp. (“Tumbleweed”), Velocity Acquisition Sub, Inc.and the Company (the “Merger Agreement”)), all unvested options held by you shall become fully vested, and the period of time in which you may exercise his options shall be extended to two (2) years after your termination. A copy of theOption Amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

 

4.    Entire Agreement.    This Agreement, including the attached exhibit, constitutes the entire agreement between you and the Company relating to the specific subject matter hereof andsupersedes prior negotiations, representations or agreements between you and the Company. 

 

5.    Modification.    This Agreement may only be modified or amended by a supplemental written agreement signed by you, an authorized representative ofTumbleweed and an authorized representative of the Company. 

 

6.    Termination.    If the Merger (as such term is defined in the Merger Agreement) is terminated and not consummated by the parties thereto, this Agreement shall immediatelyterminate, and the Company shall not be obligated to confer any of the benefits described in paragraph 2 above. This Agreement shall terminate upon consummation of the Merger (as such term is defined in the Merger Agreement). In the event that theMerger does not occur, the terms your employment shall be governed by terms stated in your offer letter dated July 19, 2002. 

 

I agree that there is no other compensation or benefits in any form to which I am entitled from the Company. 

 

Please signand date this letter on the space provided below to acknowledge your acceptance of the terms of this Agreement. 

 

Sincerely,

/s/    TIMOTHY CONLEY

Timothy Conley

Chief Financial Officer

 

I agreeto and accept continued employment with Valicert, Inc. on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. 

 

Date:    
 
2/18/03
   
/s/    JOHN VIGOUROUX