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

              - california(1)
              - oregon(2)
              - south carolina(1)

## By Year

Interviews        June 1, 2022        Landers Rupture — Jonathan Fieldwork

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

Interviews        November 17, 2010        Completion of Continent - Wide Soil Survey

Interviews        July 5, 2011        Earth History of the National Capital Region – Volcanoes, Earthquakes & Dinosaurs... Oh My!

Interviews        September 15, 2010        Making Waves: Hypoxia in U.S. Coastal Waters

Interviews        August 30, 2009        The Water Beneath Our Feet: New Study on California's Central Valley Groundwater Level Decline

Interviews        July 6, 2010        Science for a Dangerous Planet

Interviews        November 30, 2009        Urban Hydrology: Restoration and Monitoring of Johnson Creek in Portland, Oregon

Interviews        April 18, 2011        USGS Hydrologic Investigation of West Africa's Congo River (part 3)

Interviews        September 6, 2011        Stranger than Fiction: The Secret Lives of Freshwater Mussels

Interviews        August 24, 2009        Pharmaceuticals in Urban Streams in Northwest Oregon
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1292

CHUN RAO, a/k/a Rao Chun,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration 

Appeals.

Submitted: August 12, 2015 Decided: August 18, 2015

Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Chun Rao, Petitioner Pro Se. Charles S. Greene, III, Erik 

Robert Quick, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Chun Rao, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of 

China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of 

Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen. On 

appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the 

informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Rao fails in 

his informal brief to challenge several key findings in the 

Board’s order that are ultimately dispositive of his claims, we 

conclude that Rao has forfeited appellate review of these 

findings and deny the petition for review. See In re Chun Rao

(BIA Feb. 20, 2015). 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.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 32.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350,as
adopted Pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
American Lorain Corporation (the Company) for the period ended June 30, 2009,
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Si Chen, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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; and

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

Dated: August 14, 2009

/s/ Si Chen Si Chen Chief Executive Officer

---
B.H., Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. DEPT. OF CHILDREN & FAMILIES, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D18-4189

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 21, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Appeal is dismissed.
# C_2020320EN.01001001.xml

| 28.9.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.9.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/10

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Audiencia Nacional (Spain) lodged on 1 July 2020 — GE Auto Service Leasing GMBH v Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central

(Case C-294/20)

(2020/C 320/13)

Language of the case: Spanish

Referring court

Audiencia Nacional

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: GE Auto Service Leasing GMBH

Defendant: Tribunal Económico Administrativo Central

Questions referred

| 1. | Must it be accepted as lawful for a taxable person, following repeated requests from the tax authority that it establish compliance with the conditions for entitlement to a refund, to fail to comply with those requests without any reasonable justification and, after it has been refused a refund, for that person to defer the submission of documents until the review procedure or legal action? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must it be accepted as lawful for a taxable person, following repeated requests from the tax authority that it establish compliance with the conditions for entitlement to a refund, to fail to comply with those requests without any reasonable justification and, after it has been refused a refund, for that person to defer the submission of documents until the review procedure or legal action?

| 2. | Can a situation where a taxable person does not provide the tax authority with the necessary information on which it bases its right when it has been permitted and formally required to do so, and that taxable person fails to provide that information without reasonable justification and the information is instead submitted voluntarily at a later date to a review body or a court, be regarded as an abuse of rights? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Can a situation where a taxable person does not provide the tax authority with the necessary information on which it bases its right when it has been permitted and formally required to do so, and that taxable person fails to provide that information without reasonable justification and the information is instead submitted voluntarily at a later date to a review body or a court, be regarded as an abuse of rights?

| 3. | Does a non-established taxable person, either on the ground that it failed to submit the relevant information for establishing its right to a refund on time and without reasonable justification, or on the ground that it engaged in abusive practices, lose its right to a refund once the period stipulated or granted for that purpose has elapsed and the tax authority has issued a decision refusing the refund? |
| --- | --- |

3.

Does a non-established taxable person, either on the ground that it failed to submit the relevant information for establishing its right to a refund on time and without reasonable justification, or on the ground that it engaged in abusive practices, lose its right to a refund once the period stipulated or granted for that purpose has elapsed and the tax authority has issued a decision refusing the refund?

---
EXHIBIT
99.1





Schedule
of Note Holders


Of


10%
Senior Secured Promissory Notes





The following items are furnished to
provide the information for each of the blanks on the form of the 10% Senior
Secured Promissory Notes filed as Exhibit 99.1 with the quarterly report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008:








Amount
            
            Date
            
            Name$
            37,500
            
            April 3,
      2008
            
            Ecewa Capital
      Group, LLC$
            30,000
            
            April 3,
      2008
            
            Ecewa Capital
      Group, LLC$
            5,000
            
            May 14,
      2008
            
            Sagoso
      Capital, LLC$
            5,000
            
            May 14,
      2008
            
            Hang
      Dang
IV 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 649 

Directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of Representatives copies of any emails in the possession of the Department of Defense 

or the National Security Agency that were transmitted to or from the 

email account(s) of former Internal Revenue Service Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner between January 2009 and April 

2011. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 25, 2014 

Mr. STOCKMAN submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Directing the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House 

of Representatives copies of any emails in the possession 

of the Department of Defense or the National Security 

Agency that were transmitted to or from the email account(s) of former Internal Revenue Service Exempt Organizations Division Director Lois Lerner between January 2009 and April 2011. 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives direct 

2 the Secretary of Defense to transmit to the House of Rep3 resentatives, no later than 14 days after the date of the 

4 adoption of this resolution, copies of any electronic comVerDate Mar 15 2010 03:32 Jun 26, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR649.IH HR649

smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 649 IH 

1 munication in the possession of the Secretary, the Director 

2 of the National Security Agency, or any office that reports 

3 to the Secretary or the Director that was transmitted to 

4 or from any electronic mail account(s) used by former In5 ternal Revenue Service Exempt Organizations Division Di6 rector Lois Lerner at any time between January 1, 2009, 

7 and April 30, 2011. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Johnathan Oshaun GOULD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 5D17-2595

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Opinion filed February 8, 2019

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Ailene S. Rogers, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kellie A. Nielan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

WALLIS, J.

*290Johnathan Oshaun Gould appeals his judgment and sentences for attempted armed burglary of a conveyance with a firearm, attempted robbery with a firearm, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and aggravated assault while discharging a firearm. Gould raises two issues on appeal, and we find merit in one of them. Gould argues that the trial court erred by denying his *ore tenus* motion to withdraw his guilty pleas that he made prior to sentencing without giving him the opportunity to be heard. We agree and reverse.

At the sentencing hearing, in response to Gould's *ore tenus* motion to withdraw his previously entered guilty plea, the trial court asked if Gould had filed a written motion. When Gould explained that he had not, the trial court denied the motion and instructed Gould to file a written motion at an appropriate time.

As we explained in *McInturff v. State*, 111 So.3d 296, 297 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013), "there is no requirement that a motion to withdraw a guilty plea be in writing," and a motion raised at a sentencing hearing, but prior to the imposition of sentence, is a timely Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.170(f) motion. Based on the record, the trial court, like the court in *McInturff*, denied the motion because it was not written. *See* *id.* This was reversible error because a written motion was not required, and the trial court should have given Gould an opportunity to be heard on his motion. *See* *id.*; *see also* *Lehmkuhle v. State*, 20 So.3d 971, 974 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) ("The trial court here should have given Lehmkuhle an opportunity to be heard before ruling on his motion."); *Morales v. State*, 973 So.2d 679, 681 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) (holding that defendant who orally moved to withdraw plea at beginning of sentencing should have been given opportunity to present argument and be heard on his motion to withdraw plea before sentencing). Accordingly, we reverse and remand the case to the trial court to hold a hearing on Gould's motion.

REVERSED and REMANDED with Instructions.

ORFINGER and LAMBERT, JJ., concur.
Antonio Marcus ODOM, II, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-768

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 22, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.2





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 Harbor Global Company Ltd. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Donald H. Hunter, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 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 result of operations of the Company.





Dated: November 12, 2002


/s/    DONALD H. HUNTERDonald H. Hunter Chief
Financial Officer





This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
# C_2021009EN.01000701.xml

| 11.1.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 9/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.1.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 9/7

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) lodged on 29 September 2020 — RightNow GmbH v Wizz Air

(Case C-469/20)

(2021/C 9/11)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Amtsgericht Nürnberg

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: RightNow GmbH

Defendant: Wizz Air

Question referred

Is Article 3(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (1) to be interpreted as meaning that a term in the general terms and conditions of a commercial air carrier which has not been individually negotiated, under which a contract of carriage concluded with a consumer in the course of electronic commerce is to be governed by the law of the Member State in which the air carrier is resident, which is not identical to the law of the place in which the passenger is habitually resident, is unfair in so far as it leads the consumer into error by failing to draw his attention to the fact that the choice as to the law applicable in accordance with the second subparagraph of Article 5(2) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) (2) does not apply to any law and is limited to the law of the countries named in the second subparagraph of Article 5(2) of the Rome I Regulation?

The case was removed from the Register of the Court of Justice by order of the Court of 12 November 2020.

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29.

(2)  OJ 2008 L 177, p. 6.

---
# C_2022002EN.01000701.xml

| 3.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 2/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 2/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 28 October 2021 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof — Germany) — Ferrari SpA v Mansory Design Holding GmbH, WH

(Case C-123/20) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 - Community designs - Articles 4, 6 and 11 - Infringement proceedings - Unregistered Community design - Appearance of a part of a product - Conditions for protection - Component part of a complex product - Individual character - Act of making available to the public)

(2022/C 2/09)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesgerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ferrari SpA

Defendant: Mansory Design Holding GmbH, WH

Operative part of the judgment

Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs must be interpreted as meaning that the making available to the public of images of a product, such as the publication of photographs of a car, entails the making available to the public of a design of a part of that product, within the meaning of Article 3(a) of that regulation, or of a component part of that product, as a complex product, within the meaning of Article 3(c) and Article 4(2) of that regulation, provided that the appearance of that part or component part is clearly identifiable at the time the design is made available.

In order for it to be possible to examine whether that appearance satisfies the condition of individual character referred to in Article 6(1) of that regulation, it is necessary that the part or component part in question constitute a visible section of the product or complex product, clearly defined by particular lines, contours, colours, shapes or texture.

---

(1)  OJ C 215, 29.6.2020.

---
Janet ELDRIDGE, Appellant, v. Anthony BROTHERS, M.D., Appellee.

No. 1D17-3744

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

February 8, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
##### 



(LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. LOGO)
    
    NEWS RELEASE
Lakes Entertainment, Inc.
130 Cheshire Lane
Minnetonka, MN 55305
952-449-9092
952-449-9353 (fax)
www.lakesentertainment.com
(LACO)
 
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
 
 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
  LAKES ENTERTAINMENT, INC. TO HOST CONFERENCE CALL AND WEBCAST
ON FIRST QUARTER 2006 RESULTS
 MINNEAPOLIS, May 3, 2006  Lakes Entertainment, Inc. (NASDAQ: LACO)
  WHEN:
    
    Tuesday, May 9, 2006Conference Call:
    
    1:00 p.m. CT (2:00 p.m. ET)Dial-in Number:
    
    (800) 525-6384Caller ID:
    
    Lakes Entertainment First Quarter 2006
 WEBCAST:
    
    To listen to a live webcast of the conference
call, go to Lakes web site, www.lakesentertainment.com, click on Conference
Call.The webcast replay will be available from 3:00 p.m. CT, Tuesday, May 9, until 6:00
p.m. CT on June 9, on the Lakes Entertainment website at
www.lakesentertainment.com. Listening to the webcast requires speakers and Windows
Media Player. If you do not have Media Player, download the free software at
www.windowsmedia.com.If you do not have Internet access and want to listen to an audio replay, call
1-800-395-0403 and enter conference call code 8806986. The audio replay will be
available beginning at 3:00 p.m. CT on Tuesday, May 9 until Tuesday, May 16.




---



##### 



About Lakes Entertainment
# C_2021035EN.01001903.xml

| 1.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 35/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 35/19

---

Appeal brought on 9 July 2020 by Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf against the judgment of the General Court (Fourth Chamber) delivered on 13 May 2020 in Case T-443/18, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf v European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

(Case C-309/20 P)

(2021/C 35/27)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Appellant: Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Düsseldorf (represented by: P. Lange, A. Auler, M. Wenz and C. Möller, lawyers)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, Peek & Cloppenburg KG, Hamburg

By order of 29 October 2020, the Court of Justice of the European Union (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to bear its own costs.

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - science_science(1)
              - products_publications(4)
              - multimedia_video(3)
              - multimedia_video-149194(2)
              - (-)multimedia_video-149195(1)

## By Location

              - alaska(1)
              - arizona(3)
              - california(3)
              - connecticut(1)
              - delaware(3)
              - district of columbia(3)
              - florida(1)
              - hawaii(5)
              - kentucky(1)
              - maine(1)
              - maryland(3)
              - massachusetts(1)
              - montana(2)
              - nevada(2)
              - new hampshire(1)
              - (-)new jersey(1)
              - new york(1)
              - north carolina(1)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - rhode island(1)
              - south dakota(2)
              - utah(1)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(1)
              - west virginia(1)
              - wisconsin(4)
              - wyoming(2)

## By Year

Featured Films and Shorts        April 8, 2024        USGS Northeast Region: The Short Story
III 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 245 

Honoring the memory of the victims of the heinous attack at the Pulse 

nightclub on June 12, 2016. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 8, 2023 

Mr. SCOTT of Florida (for himself and Mr. RUBIO) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the memory of the victims of the heinous attack 

at the Pulse nightclub on June 12, 2016. 

Whereas, on June 12, 2016, a gunman inspired by the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria targeted the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida, where he killed 49 innocent victims and wounded dozens more in a despicable attack; 

Whereas the attack at the Pulse nightclub was an attack on 

the LGBTQ community, the Hispanic community, the 

City of Orlando, the State of Florida, and the United 

States; 

Whereas the Orlando community continues to mourn the 

tragic loss of life but has demonstrated remarkable 

strength, unity, and resilience in the aftermath of the 

horrendous event; 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 245 ATS 

Whereas June 12 is designated as ‘‘Pulse Remembrance 

Day’’ in the State of Florida to honor the victims and 

survivors of the senseless attack; 

Whereas the people of the United States continue to pray for 

those affected by the tragedy; and 

Whereas June 12, 2023, marks 7 years since the lives of the 

49 innocent victims were tragically cut short by this 

senseless act of terrorism: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate— 

2 (1) commemorates the 49 innocent victims 

3 killed in the attack at the Pulse nightclub in Or4 lando, Florida, on June 12, 2016, and offers heart5 felt condolences to the families, loved ones, and 

6 friends of the victims; 

7 (2) honors the dozens of survivors of the attack 

8 and pledges continued resolve to stand against ter9 rorism and hate; and 

10 (3) expresses gratitude to the brave law en11 forcement and emergency medical personnel who re12 sponded to the attack. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS