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

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - (-)products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(3)
              - multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(15)
              - arizona(1)
              - (-)arkansas(1)
              - california(11)
              - colorado(10)
              - connecticut(1)
              - idaho(1)
              - kansas(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - maine(2)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - missouri(2)
              - montana(3)
              - nevada(7)
              - new mexico(6)
              - new york(1)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oklahoma(1)
              - pennsylvania(3)
              - rhode island(1)
              - south dakota(3)
              - texas(1)
              - utah(14)
              - virginia(1)
              - wyoming(1)

## By Year

map        November 6, 2014        Geologic map of the west-central Buffalo National River region, northern Arkansas
----

EXHIBIT 32.1 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

In connection with the quarterly report of AlphaRx, Inc. on Form 10-QSB forthe period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof, Michael Lee, as chief executive officer ofAlphaRx, Inc., does hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to thebest of his knowledge: 

> 
1.This 10-QSB report fully complies  with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and 
2.The information contained in this  10-QSB report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial  condition and result of operations of AlphaRx, Inc. 
/s/ Michael Lee Michael Lee Chief Executive Officer August 12, 2005
1

Filed 10/18/13 P. v. Tygenhof CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for 

publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(El Dorado)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RYAN RAYMOND TYGENHOF,

Defendant and Appellant.

C072039

(Super. Ct. No. P09CRF0256)

Appointed counsel for defendant Ryan Raymond Tygenhof asked this court to 

review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People 

v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Finding no arguable error, we affirm the 

judgment.

Defendant pled no contest to child endangerment. (Pen. Code,1 § 273a, subd. (a).) 

A count of lewd and lascivious acts with a child (§ 288, subd. (a)) and an allegation of 

substantial sexual conduct (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8)) were dismissed in the interest of 

justice. Imposition of sentence was suspended and defendant was granted probation for 

four years. He was ordered to pay various fines and fees and victim restitution. 

 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

At the restitution hearing, the mother submitted a claim for mental health 

counseling expenses, family law attorney fees, relocation expenses, and lost wages. Due 

to the emotional stress caused by defendant’s behavior with the child victim, the child’s 

mother missed hundreds of hours of work between March 2008 and December 2010. 

The mother missed 471.5 hours of work in 2008, at $17.78 per hour; 987 hours of work 

in 2009, at $18.67 per hour; and 11 months of work in 2010, at $1,355 every two weeks. 

For the 11 months of 2010, the mother received $948 in state disability payments every 

two weeks, resulting in a net loss of $814 per month. 

Following the restitution hearing, the trial court ordered defendant to pay victim 

restitution in the amount of $37,004.56 plus a 10-percent collection fee. 

Appointed counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and 

requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable 

issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of 

the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening 

brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant. 

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that 

would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 HOCH , J.

We concur:

 HULL , Acting P. J.

 BUTZ , J.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_education(2)
              - science_faqs(32)
              - science_science(43)
              - products_data(30)
              - products_maps(182)
              - products_publications(706)
              - multimedia_audio(154)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(144)
              - multimedia_audio-141767(10)
              - multimedia_image(92)
              - multimedia_image-141769(2)
              - multimedia_image-141771(73)
              - multimedia_image-141772(3)
              - multimedia_image-141774(1)
              - multimedia_image-141775(12)
              - (-)multimedia_image-141776(1)
              - multimedia_video(312)
              - multimedia_video-149194(183)
              - multimedia_video-149195(44)
              - multimedia_video-149196(2)
              - multimedia_video-149197(24)
              - multimedia_video-149198(22)
              - multimedia_video-149225(3)
              - documents_file(5)
              - documents_file-149204(1)
              - documents_file-149213(1)
              - documents_file-149215(1)
              - (-)documents_file-149218(1)
              - documents_file-149219(1)
              - news_news-149249(1)
              - news_newsletters(1)
              - connect_staff_profiles(6)
              - other_basic-42(15)

## By Location

## By Year

Illustrations        January 26, 2015        USGS SIM 3250: Geologic Map of the Agnesi Quadrangle (V–45), Venus

MOUs        June 3, 2005        MOU between the USGS and Clean Beaches Council
Exhibit 10.2





May 28, 2002





Successful Union Limited


P.O. Box 3340, Road Town


Tortola, British
Virgin Islands





| | Re: |  | Pioglobal Forest, L.L.C.
| | --- |  | ------------------------




Gentlemen:





Pursuant to a Purchase Agreement by and between
Successful Union Limited, a British Virgin Islands company (Purchaser), and Pioneer Forest, Inc., a Delaware corporation (Seller), dated April 22, 2002, Purchaser intends to acquire all of Sellers limited liability
company interests in Pioglobal Forest, L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability company (the Company). In connection therewith, the Company and Seller jointly certify to, and agree with, Purchaser as follows:





1.  Seller is the sole member of the Company.





2.  Other than in the ordinary course of business with third parties, neither the Company nor the Seller has ever entered into any agreement,
written or oral, pertaining to the affairs of the Company and the conduct of its business (a limited liability company agreement).





3.  Notwithstanding any provisions of the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act, as amended (the Act), to the contrary, the Company and Seller hereby waive any provision under
the Act which may have the effect of limiting the assignability of a limited liability company interest to the economic attributes corresponding to such limited liability company interest.





4.  The Company and Seller hereby agree that, in the absence of a limited liability company agreement, an assignment of limited liability company
interest executed by Seller shall be deemed sufficient for Purchaser to become the sole member of the Company, and thereby allow Purchaser to direct the management of the business and affairs of the Company and exercise accordingly any other such
rights or powers as a member of the Company.





5.  The party executing this letter on
behalf of the Company is fully authorized and empowered to do so.





6.  The party
executing this letter on behalf of Seller is fully authorized and empowered to do so.





To the extent that any part
of the foregoing conflicts with any type of agreement or understanding of the Company or the Seller, whether written or oral, the provisions of this letter will govern and control.




---




The Company and Seller acknowledge that Purchaser will rely upon the matters set
forth herein in acquiring Sellers limited liability company interests. This letter will inure to the benefit of, and may be relied upon by, Purchaser and Purchasers successors and assigns.





PIOGLOBAL FOREST, L.L.C. By:  Pioneer Forest, Inc. Its:  Sole MemberBy:

/s/    STEPHEN G.
KASNETStephen G. Kasnet President





PIONEER FOREST, INC.By:

/s/    STEPHEN G.
KASNETStephen G. Kasnet President




2
# C_2022051EN.01000901.xml

| 31.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 51/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 51/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Tenth Chamber) of 25 November 2021 — European Commission v UG

(Case C-249/20 P) (1)

(Appeal - Civil service - Contract staff - Contract of indefinite duration - Termination - Grounds for termination - Distortion - Non-material damage - Admissibility - Failure to rule on a head of claim)

(2022/C 51/10)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Appellant: European Commission (represented by: B. Mongin and L. Radu Bouyon, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: UG (represented by: initially by: M. Richard and P. Junqueira de Oliveira, subsequently by: M. Richard, avocats)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 2 April 2020, UG v Commission (T-571/17, not published, EU:T:2020:141) in so far as it annulled the European Commission’s decision of 17 October 2016 to terminate UG’s contract of employment of indefinite duration, found the existence of an illegality capable of giving rise to that institution’s liability and rejected as inadmissible UG’s head of claim seeking compensation for her non-material damage; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Sets aside the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 2 April 2020, UG v Commission (T-571/17, not published, EU:T:2020:141) in so far as it annulled the European Commission’s decision of 17 October 2016 to terminate UG’s contract of employment of indefinite duration, found the existence of an illegality capable of giving rise to that institution’s liability and rejected as inadmissible UG’s head of claim seeking compensation for her non-material damage;

| 2. | Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Refers the case back to the General Court of the European Union;

| 3. | Reserves the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Reserves the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 348, 19.10.2020.

---
Annette LEROUX, AS TRUSTEE OF WILLIAM JAMES ROSS, IV IRREVOCABLE TRUST and Edmund William Ross, II Irrevocable Trust, Appellant, v. William James ROSS, III, and Corinne M. Breer, Appellees.

No. 4D18-1702

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[January 17, 2019]

John M. Stewart and Ryan D. O'Connor of Rossway Swan Tierney Barry Lacey & Oliver, P.L., Vero Beach, for appellant.

John J. Glenn and Kelli E. Lueckert of AndersonGlenn, LLP, Boca Raton, and Anders C. Wick of Husch Blackwell LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for appellee, Corinne M. Breer.

Per Curiam.

*Affirmed* .

Gross, Levine and Forst, JJ., concur.
Derek RABALAIS, et al. v. STRATEGIC RESTAURANTS ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC, d/b/a Burger King, et al.

NO. 2018-CC-2109

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 18, 2019

*454Denied.

CLARK, J., would grant.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT PEDR O R ODRIGUEZ DUR AN, Pe t i tione r, v. LORETTA E. LYNC H, Attorne y Ge ne ra l, R e sponde nt. No. 14-70012 Age n c y No. A095-449-983 M EM O R ANDUM *

On Pe tition for Re vie w of a n Orde r of the B oa rd of Im m igration Appe a ls Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 27, 2016 * * B e fore : TASHIM A , SILVER M AN, a nd M . SM ITH, C irc uit Judge s. Pe dro R odrigue zDura

n, a native and c itiz e n of M e xic o, pe titions pro se for re vie w of the B oa

rd of Im m igration Appe a ls’ orde r dism issing his a p pe a l from

an im m igration judge ’ s de c i sion de ny i ng his motion to re ope n re m ova l proc e e dings ba se d on ine ffe c t i ve a ssista nc e of c ounse l. W e have jurisdic tion under 8 U.S.C .



# FIL ED OCT 05 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).§ 1252. W e re vie w for a b u se of disc re tion thede nia l of a m otion to re o p e n. Av agy an v . Holde r , 646 F.3d 672, 678 (9th C ir. 2011). W e de ny the pe tition for re vie w. The a ge n c y

did not a b u se its disc re tion in deny ing R o drigue z Dura n’ s m otion to re o pe n a s untim e l y whe re the m otion wa s file d m ore tha n thre e y e ars a fte r his re m o va l orde r be c am e fina l, se e 8 C .F.R . § 1003.2(c )(2), an d R odrigue z Duran fa ile d to e sta

blish thedue dilige nc e re quire d for e quita ble tolling of the filing de a dline , se eAv a

gy a n , 646 F.3d a

t 679 (e quita

ble tolling is a

v a i la ble to a pe titione r who is pre ve nte d from filing be c a

use of de c e ption, fra

ud or e rror, a s long a s the pe titione r e xe rc ise d due dilige nc e in disc ove ring suc h c irc um sta nc e s). In light of our disposition, we do not re a c h R odrigue zDura n’ s re m a ining c onte ntion re ga

rding tolling of the

num e ric a l ba

r. Se eSime onov

v . Ashc roft , 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th C ir. 2004) (thec ourt ne e d not re a c h a c o nte ntion whe n a

nothe r dispositive

de te rm ination ha s be e n

m a de ). W e de ny R o d rigue zDura

n’ s re que st for re m and for the purpose s of prose c utoria l disc re tion. Se eVilc hiz-Soto v . Holde r , 688 F.3d 642, 644 (9th C ir. 2012) (orde r). PE T IT IO N FO R RE V IE WDE NIE D.

1 4 - 7 0 0 1 2 2
Tyrone CAMPBELL, Doc #Y02029, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D17-2019

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed December 21, 2018

Tyrone Campbell, pro se.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kiersten E. Jensen, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

SILBERMAN, KELLY, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Stephen G. Kasnet, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-Q/A of Harbor Global Company Ltd.; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof 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 report; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this 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 report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat 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) [paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986];

 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure 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 

 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol 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 materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

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. 

 

Date: September 12, 2005
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

November 23, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________

No. 04-30636

_______________________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

CALVIN W. PENNYWELL, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana,

USDC No. 5:03-CR-50124-1

_________________________________________________________________

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before JONES, BARKSDALE, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In United States v. Pennywell
, No. 04-30636 (Jan . 7,

2005), this court affirmed Calvin W. Pennywell’s conviction for

possession with intent to distribute five grams or more of cocaine

base, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), and possession of

firearms in relation to drug trafficking, in violation of 21 U.S.C.

§ 924(c)(1). Pennywell then filed a petition for writ of

certiorari, for the first time challenging his sentence under

United States v. Booker
, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005). The Supreme Court2

vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of Booker

.

See Pennywell v. United States
, 125 S . Ct. 2278 (2005). We

requested and recei ved supplemental letter briefs addressing the

impact of Booker

.

Because Pennywell raised a Booker -like challenge to his

sentence for the first time in his petition for writ of certiorari,

he must demonstrate “extraordinary circums tances” for us to

consider his Booker challenge. United States v. Taylor , 409 F.3d

675, 676 (5th Cir. 2005). Because Pennywell concedes that he

cannot meet even the Fifth Circuit’s plain error standard, “it is

obvi ous that the much more demanding standard for extraordinary

circumstances, warranting review of an issue raised for the first

time in a petition for certiorari, cannot be satisfied.” See id.

at 677.

Pennywell identifies no evidence in the record suggesting

that the district court “would have reached a signif icantly

different result” under an advisory scheme rather than a mandatory

one. U nited St ates v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 521 (5th Cir. 2005),

cert. denied

, 126 S. Ct. 43 (2005). He correctly acknowledges that

this court has rejected the argument that a Booker error is a

structural error or that such error is presumed to be prejudicial.

See Mares
, 402 F.3d at 520-22; United States v. Malveaux
, 411 F.3d

558, 561 n.9 (5th Cir. 2005), cert. denied

, 124 S. Ct. 194 (2005).

He desires to preserve these arguments for further review.3 Because nothing in the Supreme Court's Booker decision

requires us to change our prior decision in this case, we adhere to

our prior d etermination and therefore reinstate our judgment

AFFIRMING Pennywell’s conviction and sentence.

AFFIRMED.
# C_2022002EN.01002501.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/25 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/25

---

Order of the President of the Court of 13 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunal Arbitral Tributário (Centro de Arbitragem Administrativa — CAAD) — Portugal) — LU v Autoridade Tributária e Aduaneira

(Case C-314/20) (1)

(2022/C 2/31)

Language of the case: Portuguese

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  Date lodged: 9.7.2020.

---
Kendrick KITCHEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-3237

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed February 12, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
STATE of Louisiana v. Dwight HARVEY

NO. 2019-KK-0172

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

January 31, 2019

Stay denied. Writ denied.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_science(1)
              - products_maps(10)
              - products_publications(19)
              - (-)multimedia_audio(1)
              - multimedia_audio-141766(1)
              - multimedia_video(3)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - multimedia_video-149197(2)
              - connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(3)
              - arizona(1)
              - california(2)
              - (-)colorado(1)
              - florida(1)
              - louisiana(2)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - south carolina(3)
              - south dakota(24)
              - virginia(2)

## By Year

Podcasts        October 3, 2019        Outstanding in the Field (Ep 5): Fish in the Grand Canyon