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

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_publications(3)
              - multimedia_video(2)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149194(2)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - alaska(8)
              - arizona(6)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(43)
              - colorado(1)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - florida(2)
              - georgia(1)
              - hawaii(15)
              - idaho(1)
              - indiana(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - louisiana(2)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(2)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(2)
              - mississippi(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - nevada(1)
              - new jersey(2)
              - north carolina(2)
              - north dakota(1)
              - oregon(3)
              - (-)puerto rico(2)
              - south carolina(1)
              - south dakota(2)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(2)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - virginia(4)
              - washington(13)
              - west virginia(1)
              - wisconsin(4)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

Presentations and Events        May 18, 2022        Landslides triggered by Hurricane Maria: Assessment of an extreme event in Puerto Rico

Presentations and Events        November 12, 2020        Climate Adaptation to Support Amphibian Conservation in U.S. Caribbean
March 10, 2015



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF T .R.M. AKA E. T.M., AND T.J.W AKA T.W., CHILDREN ,

NO. 14

- 14

- 00773

- CV

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights signed September 4, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We fu rther order this decision certified below for observance. We further order the mandate be issued immediately.
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 531 

Designating the week of January 21 through January 27, 2024, as ‘‘National 

School Choice Week’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 24, 2024 

Mr. SCOTT of South Carolina (for himself, Mr. COTTON, Mr. BUDD, Mr. 

JOHNSON, Mr. HAGERTY, Mr. TUBERVILLE, Mr. CASSIDY, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. CRAMER, Mr. SCOTT of Florida, Mr. RUBIO, Mr. TILLIS, Mrs. 

HYDE-SMITH, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. RISCH, Mr. ROMNEY, Mrs. BRITT, Mr. 

CRAPO, Mr. BRAUN, Mr. LEE, Mr. WICKER, Mr. RICKETTS, Mr. CRUZ, 

Mr. CORNYN, Mr. MCCONNELL, and Mr. YOUNG) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

RESOLUTION 

Designating the week of January 21 through January 27, 

2024, as ‘‘National School Choice Week’’. 

Whereas providing a diversity of choices in K–12 education 

empowers parents to select education environments that 

meet the individual needs and strengths of their children; 

Whereas high-quality K–12 education environments of all varieties are available in the United States, including traditional public schools, public charter schools, public magnet schools, private schools, online academies, and home 

schooling; 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 531 IS 

Whereas talented teachers and school leaders in each of these 

education environments prepare children to achieve their 

dreams; 

Whereas more families than ever before in the United States 

actively choose the best education for their children; 

Whereas more public awareness of the issue of parental 

choice in education can inform additional families of the 

benefits of proactively choosing challenging, motivating, 

and effective education environments for their children; 

Whereas the process by which parents choose schools for 

their children is nonpolitical, nonpartisan, and deserves 

the utmost respect; and 

Whereas tens of thousands of events are planned to celebrate 

the benefits of educational choice during the 14th annual 

National School Choice Week, held the week of January 

21 through January 27, 2024: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) designates the week of January 21 through 

3 January 27, 2024, as ‘‘National School Choice 

4 Week’’; 

5 (2) congratulates students, parents, teachers, 

6 and school leaders from kindergarten through grade 

7 12 education environments of all varieties for their 

8 persistence, achievements, dedication, and contribu9 tions to society in the United States; 

10 (3) encourages all parents, during National 

11 School Choice Week, to learn more about the edu12 cation options available to them; and 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
3 

•SRES 531 IS 

1 (4) encourages the people of the United States 

2 to hold appropriate programs, events, and activities 

3 during National School Choice Week to raise public 

4 awareness of the benefits of opportunity in edu5 cation. 

Æ 


ssavage on LAPJG3WLY3PROD with BILLS
# C_2020045EN.01007701.xml

| 10.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/77 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/77

---

Action brought on 18 November 2019 — Bennahmias v Parliament

(Case T-798/19)

(2020/C 45/62)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Jean-Luc Bennahmias (Marseille, France) (represented by: J.-M. Rikkers, J.-L. Teheux, and M. Ganilsy, lawyers)

Defendant: European Parliament

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 16 September 2019; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament of 16 September 2019;

| — | annul debit note No 2019-1599 ordering the recovery of EUR 29 806; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul debit note No 2019-1599 ordering the recovery of EUR 29 806;

| — | order the European Parliament to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the European Parliament to pay the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on four pleas in law.

| 1. | First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is inadequately reasoned, in that the reasoning of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament is ambiguous and does not indicate the extent to which the documents submitted did not constitute proof of work. |
| --- | --- |

1.

First plea in law, alleging that the contested decision is inadequately reasoned, in that the reasoning of the Secretary-General of the European Parliament is ambiguous and does not indicate the extent to which the documents submitted did not constitute proof of work.

| 2. | Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in the contested decision in that the facts relied on by the Secretary-General of the European Parliament were incorrect. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Second plea in law, alleging an error of assessment in the contested decision in that the facts relied on by the Secretary-General of the European Parliament were incorrect.

| 3. | Third plea in law, alleging a reversal of burden of proof. In that regard, the applicant claims that it is not for him to adduce evidence as regards the work of his parliamentary assistant; rather, it is for the Parliament to prove the contrary. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Third plea in law, alleging a reversal of burden of proof. In that regard, the applicant claims that it is not for him to adduce evidence as regards the work of his parliamentary assistant; rather, it is for the Parliament to prove the contrary.

| 4. | Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in so far as the sum claimed from the applicant implies that the parliamentary assistant never worked for the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Fourth plea in law, alleging infringement of the principle of proportionality in so far as the sum claimed from the applicant implies that the parliamentary assistant never worked for the applicant.

---
Michael JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D18-1314

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Decision filed December 31, 2018

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Glendon George Gordon, Jr., Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BERGER, WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.6

                     AMENDMENT OF DISTRIBUTORSHIP AGREEMENT


This Amendment of Distributorship Agreement ("Termination Agreement") is made
and entered into as of the 17th day of February, 2005 between Rubicon Medical
Inc, a U.S. corporation with its principal offices at 3598 W. 1820 South, Salt
Lake City, Utah, 84119, USA ("Rubicon Medical"), and NGC Medical Spa, an Italian
corporation with its principal offices at Novedrate (CO), via Provinciale 35,
ITALY ("Distributor").

WHEREAS, Rubicon Medical and Distributor entered into that certain
Distributorship Agreement dated as of February 6, 2004 (the "Distributorship
Agreement"); and

WHEREAS, Rubicon Medical and Distributor now wish to amend the Distributorship
Agreement in the manner set forth herein;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and agreements herein
contained, Rubicon Medical and Distributor agree as follows:

1.   The Distributorship Agreement is hereby amended by inserting the following
     paragraph as new section 12.9 of the Distributorship Agreement, immediately
     following existing section 12.8 thereof:

         12.9 Rubicon Medical may terminate this Agreement for any reason or for
         no reason by providing written notice of termination to Distributor and
         paying Distributor an early termination fee in the amount of U.S.
         $200,000. Any such notice of termination shall specify the date of
         termination and shall be delivered to Distributor not less than five
         days prior to the specified termination date.

2.   Except as specifically provided herein, the Distributorship Agreement shall
     be unmodified and shall continue in full force and effect.

Dated as of the date first above written.

 "Rubicon Medical"                                    "Distributor"

 Rubicon Medical, Incorporated                        NGC Medical Spa


 By /s/ Richard J. Linder                             By /s/ Paolo Cremascoli
   ----------------------                               -----------------------
 Name: Richard J. Linder                              Name: Paolo Cremascoli
 Title: President and CEO                             Title: CEO
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-10745

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

IRVING GARCIA-CATALAN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:18-CR-158-2

Before HAYNES, DUNCAN, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Irving Garcia-Catalan has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Garcia-Catalan has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 1, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-10745 Document: 00515367518 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/01/2020
No. 19-10745

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 19-10745 Document: 00515367518 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/01/2020
Cyrus Wilfred AHYOUNG, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D17-1832

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[February 14, 2019]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7241

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

PERRY COUSINS, a/k/a Pzo, 

Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (4:10-cr-00047-RBS-TEM1; 4:16-cv-00060-RBS) 

Submitted: August 20, 2019 Decided: August 30, 2019

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Perry Cousins, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Perry Cousins seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as time-barred 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate 

of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, 

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that 

the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must 

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 

states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cousins has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Cousins’ 

motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
# C_2020329EN.01000502.xml

| 5.10.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 329/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 329/5

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Administratīvā apgabaltiesa (Latvia) lodged on 22 July 2020 — SIA MONO v Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

(Case C-326/20)

(2020/C 329/07)

Language of the case: Latvian

Referring court

Administratīvā apgabaltiesa

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant at first instance and appellant on appeal: SIA MONO

Defendant and appellant on appeal: Valsts ieņēmumu dienests

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 12(1) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that excise goods intended to be used in the context of diplomatic or consular relations are to be exempted from excise duty on the condition that payment for the goods in question is to be made by non-cash means, that payment has actually been made, and that the payment to the supplier was made by the actual recipients of the goods? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 12(1) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC (1) be interpreted as meaning that excise goods intended to be used in the context of diplomatic or consular relations are to be exempted from excise duty on the condition that payment for the goods in question is to be made by non-cash means, that payment has actually been made, and that the payment to the supplier was made by the actual recipients of the goods?

| 2. | Must Article 12(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC be interpreted as meaning that Member States may lay down conditions and limitations which, in the context of diplomatic and consular relations, make the exemption from duty for excise goods subject to the requirement that the purchaser of the goods has actually paid for the goods by non-cash means? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Must Article 12(2) of Council Directive 2008/118/EC of 16 December 2008 concerning the general arrangements for excise duty and repealing Directive 92/12/EEC be interpreted as meaning that Member States may lay down conditions and limitations which, in the context of diplomatic and consular relations, make the exemption from duty for excise goods subject to the requirement that the purchaser of the goods has actually paid for the goods by non-cash means?

---

(1)  OJ 2009 L 9, p. 12.

---
Earl BUTLER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. Keith A. PETERSON, Esq., et al., Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D19-0936

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 27, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
Justin STOLLENWERCK, Individually and as Natural Tutor of His Minor Son, Ryse Stollenwerck v. Robert SCHWEGGMAN, Jr. and Scottsdale Insurance Company

NO. 2018-C-1884

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 11, 2019

Denied.

JOHNSON, C.J., would grant.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
EXHIBIT  32.1


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


Pursuant  to  section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b)  of  section  1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
undersigned  officers  of  Xtreme  Companies,  Inc.,  a  Nevada corporation (the
"Company"),  does  hereby  certify,  to  such  officer's  knowledge,  that:

The  Annual  Report  for the year ended December 31, 2004 (the "Form 10-KSB") of
the  Company  fully  complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form
10-KSB  fairly  presents,  in all material respects, the financial condition and
results  of  operations  of  the  Company.



Date:  April  15,  2005



/s/  Kevin  Ryan
----------------------
Kevin  Ryan
President
Chief  Executive  Officer
Director



Date:  April  15,  2005


/s/  Barrett  Evans
------------------------
Barrett  Evans
Interim  Chief  Financial  Officer
Principal  Accounting  Officer
Director
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_maps(1)
              - products_publications(7)
              - multimedia_image(2)
              - multimedia_image-141775(2)
              - multimedia_video(3)
              - multimedia_video-149194(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)
              - multimedia_video-149197(1)
              - (-)connect_staff_profiles(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - california(1)
              - colorado(1)
              - (-)massachusetts(1)

## By Year

              - 2023(1)

staff profileClaudia Flores
EX PARTE Woodburck NOE

CR-16-0780

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

August 1, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to Dallas Cir. Ct.
SUCCESSION OF Mack HOUSTON, Jr., Carlyle Houston, and McKinley Houston

NO. 2018-CC-2012

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 11, 2019

*898Denied.
STATE of Louisiana v. Errol VICTOR, Sr.

NO. 2016-KO-1516

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 11, 2019

Not considered. See La.S.Ct.R. IX, § 6.
2149.

#### Sconyers *v.*The State.

Russell, J.

1. The exceptions to the rulings upon the demurrers were not properly preserved pendente lite, and could- not be considered when offered as ground of the motion for new trial. *Mayor &c. of Dublin*v. *Dudley,*2 *Ga. App.*762 (59 S. E. 84).

2. The evidence, as well as the defendant’s statement, absolutely demanded the verdict finding that the defendant sold drugs without license; and hence the errors assigned are immaterial.

3. One may own a drug-store without being a licensed druggist or pharmacist, provided that the drugs and' medicines he offers for sale are sold or compounded, as the ease may be, either by one who has himself been licensed according to law, or by an assistant under the supervision *805of a licensed dl-uggist. Brit even though the manager of a drug-store or pharmacy be licensed, this fact will not authorize sales of drugs or the compounding of prescriptions by his partner or employee, where such licensed manager is not in actual personal chai-ge of the business.

Indictment for misdemeanor, from Tattnall superior court — ■ Judge Morgan presiding. August 11, 1909.

Submitted October 6, —

Decided October 13, 1909.

*Warnell & Anderson, A. 8. Way,*for plaintiff in error.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Federal Aviation Administration 

National Part 139 CertAlert

**Advisory**Cautionary**Non-Directive**Advisory**Cautionary**Non-Directive**Advisory**Cautionary**Non-Directive** 

Date: 05/05/2020 No. 20-03 

To: All Title 14 CFR Part 139 Airport Operators

Subject: Title: Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) Examples when Closing

Runway(s) and/or Taxiway(s) to temporarily park aircraft

Point of Contact: Phillip Davenport, AAS-320, 202-267-7072 

Email: Phillip.Davenport@faa.gov

1. Purpose. This CertAlert provides information and examples for airport operators to utilize

when producing NOTAMs that close runway(s) and/or taxiway(s) to temporarily park

aircraft. Airport operators are being advised to add remarks to any current or new

NOTAMs, “FOR ACFT PRKG”, after the condition Closed (CLSD) is selected. These

additional remarks are being added to the NOTAM sentence to better inform aircrews of

where airports may be temporarily parking aircraft in the movement area.

2. Background. The reduction of air traffic has caused numerous airports to temporarily close

some runway(s) and/or taxiway(s) and use these movement area surfaces to park all types of

commercial aircraft. Representatives from various aviation, pilot, and airport operator

groups have requested more descriptive remarks be added to any closure NOTAMs

associated with runway(s) and taxiway(s) being used to park aircraft, so they are better

informed why these surfaces are closed.

3. Applicability. The guidance here is not legally binding in its own right and will not be relied

upon by the FAA as a separate basis for affirmative enforcement action or other

administrative penalty. Conformity with this guidance, as distinct from existing statutes,

regulations, and grant assurances, is voluntary only, and nonconformity will not affect

existing rights and obligations.

4. Recommendations. Below are example NOTAMs that airport operators can use when

closure NOTAMs are issued for aircraft parking. Since this is a unique circumstance, this

remark is not provided as a drop down option within the NOTAM Manager System.
CertAlert No. 20-03 

05/05/2020

2

NOTAM originators producing this NOTAM will have to enter a Freeform NOTAM to 

include the additional information in the closure NOTAM. 

RWY XX/XX CLSD FOR ACFT PRKG

TWY XX CLSD FOR ACFT PRKG

TWY PARL TWY XX CLSD FOR ACFT PRKG

For assistance or questions on placement of “FOR ACFT PRKG” remarks for a surface closure 

NOTAM sentence, please contact the USNOF at 888-876-6826 or 540-422-4262. Or, if you

have questions on NOTAM policy; please email U.S. NOTAM Governance contacts: 

john.b.warner@faa.gov; or Gary.CTR.Bobik@faa.gov

_________________________________ _____________ 

Birke Rhodes, Manager 

Airport Safety and Operations, AAS-300 

Date

05/05/2020