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

              - alaska(4)
              - california(4)
              - colorado(1)
              - idaho(1)
              - nebraska(2)
              - new jersey(1)
              - new mexico(4)
              - new york(3)
              - virginia(1)
              - washington(3)
              - west virginia(1)

## By Year

Project        January 7, 2011        Linking Sources to the Sound

science        February 28, 2008        Results of the Indian National Gas Hydrate Program Expedition 01

Research        August 3, 2010        Hormones Degrade in the Environment!

Project        May 22, 1997        Groundwater Monitoring in the Espanola Basin Piezometers

Project        August 6, 2015        Regionalization of Channel Geomorphology Characteristics for Streams of New York State, Excluding Long Island

Research        June 17, 2019        Gulf Coast Wetland Shoreline Change

Project        May 22, 1997        Groundwater-Level Monitoring in Middle Rio Grande Basin Piezometers

Project        May 22, 1997        Middle Rio Grande Piezometer network

Project        February 13, 2020        Well Pad Reclamation and Research

Topic        June 5, 2018        Water Quality after a Wildfire

Project        June 13, 2017        Improving Time of Concentration Estimates for Small Rural Watersheds in the Appalachian Plateaus Physiographic Province, West Virginia

Project        August 23, 2018        Gas Hydrates- Submarine Slope Destabilization

Project        July 24, 2018        Coastal Change Processes- Cape Hatteras, NC

#### Pagination

-  First page« First 
-  Previous page‹‹ 
-                Page            1 
-                Current page            2
no. CP&HI&S

THE STATE OF TEXAS IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF

VS. COMANCHE COUNTY, TEXAS

~fc^( £J^*J fc,'/^ 3ft 220TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

TRIAL COURT'S CERTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT'S RIGHT OF APPEAL

I, Judge ofthe trial court, certify in this criminal case that the Defendant's appeal:

V is not aplea-bargain case and the Defendant has the right ofappeal; or

is aplea-bargain case, but is on matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on

before trial, and the Defendant has the right of appeal; or

is aplea-bargain case, but is taken after getting the trial court's permission to appeal, and the

Defendant has a right of appeal; or

is aplea-bargain case, and the Defendant has NO right ofappeal.

iwaived the right of appeal.

C>/z//&>/'7

JUDGE PRESIDING DATE SIGNED

Ihave received acopy ofthis certification. Ihave also been informed ofmy rights concerning any appeal ofthis criminal

case including any right to file apro se petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 68 of the Texas Rules of

Appellate Procedure. Ihave been admonished that my attorney must mail acopy ofthe court of appeal's judgment and

opinion to my last known address and that Ihave only 30 days in which to file apro se petition for discretionary review

in the court ofcriminal appeals. TEX.R.APP.P.68.2. Iacknowledge that, ifIwish to appeal this case and ifIam entitled

to do so, it is my duty to inform my appellate attorney, by written communication, ofany change in the addressatwhich

Iam currently living or any change in ycurrent prison unit. Iunderstand that, because of appellate deadhnesfirmil to

timely inform my appella;e attorney ofany change in my address, Imay lose the opportunity tofile apr/se petjt^n for

discretionary review.

FILED^

fendant (if not presented by counsel) At. o.C|0Ck_^Defepdant's Counsel ^q GTjDO failing Address^ ^- . , ^"JX" <>^T7^> J>^^

M^hnneNumber: _ J A> I JUN 212017 &

Fax Number: _ Telephone Number:

BRENDA DICKEYFaxNumber:

District Clerk. Comanche Co., TX ,_ „ .- .. „*, **Adefendant in acriminal case has the righto^pp^undex^sejuje^^^ial court shall enter acertification ofthe

defendant's right to appeal in every case in which it enters ajudgmenToTguilt or other appealable order. In aplea bargain case-that is, acase in which adefendant's plea was guilty or nolo contendere and the punishment did not exceed the

punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant- adefendant may appeal only: (A) those

maters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial courts permission

to appeal. TEXAS RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 25.2 (a)(2). IN COURJO^F APPEALS rr ELEVENTH DISTRICT

JUN 2 6 2017

SHERffafyOJJAMSON, CLERK

Ry ^4DW\ Deputy
Eric Vernardo ODOM v. STATE

2160625

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

August 17, 2017 August 29, 2017-Order of 08/17/2017 set aside

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Transferred to the Ct. of Crim. App. for lack subject-matter jurisdiction.

Dismissed.
# C_2023216EN.01003802.xml

| 19.6.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 216/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.6.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 216/38

---

Judgment of the General Court of 26 April 2023 — SRB v EDPS

(Case T-557/20) (1)

(Protection of personal data - Procedure for granting compensation to shareholders and creditors following the resolution of a bank - Decision of the EDPS in which it found that the SRB failed to fulfil its obligations concerning the processing of personal data - Article 15(1)(d) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 - Concept of personal data - Article 3(1) of Regulation 2018/1725 - Right of access to the file)

(2023/C 216/49)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Single Resolution Board (represented by: H. Ehlers, M. Fernández Rupérez, A. Lapresta Bienz, acting as Agents, and by H.-G. Kamann, M. Braun, F. Louis, and L. Hesse, lawyers)

Defendant: European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) (represented by: P. Candellier, X. Lareo and T. Zerdick, acting as Agents)

Re:

By its action based on Article 263 TFEU, the Single Resolution Board (SRB) seeks, first, annulment of the revised decision of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) of 24 November 2020 adopted following the SRB’s request for review of the decision of the EDPS of 24 June 2020 concerning five complaints submitted by several complainants (Cases 2019-947, 2019-998, 2019-999, 2019-1000 and 2019-1122) and, second, a declaration that the decision of the EDPS of 24 June 2020 is illegal.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls the revised decision of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) of 24 November 2020 adopted following the request from the Single Resolution Board (SRB) for review of the decision of the EDPS of 24 June 2020 concerning five complaints submitted by several complainants (Cases 2019-947, 2019-998, 2019-999, 2019-1000 and 2019-1122); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the revised decision of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) of 24 November 2020 adopted following the request from the Single Resolution Board (SRB) for review of the decision of the EDPS of 24 June 2020 concerning five complaints submitted by several complainants (Cases 2019-947, 2019-998, 2019-999, 2019-1000 and 2019-1122);

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the EDPS to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the EDPS to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 390, 16.11.2020.

---
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(a)/15d-14(a)

I, Paul G. Anderson, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly
report on Form 10-Q of FCStone Group, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of 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 financial information 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 officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that 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) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure 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

c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that
occurred during the registrants 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 materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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: July 13, 2007



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ Paul G. Anderson         
|Paul G. Anderson             
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(Principal Executive Officer)



46.
# C_2021242EN.01003702.xml

| 21.6.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 242/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.6.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 242/37

---

Judgment of the General Court of 28 April 2021 — Nosio v EUIPO — Tros del Beto (ACCUSÌ)

(Case T-300/20) (1)

(EU trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for the EU word mark ACCUSÌ - Earlier EU word mark ACÚSTIC - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Similarity of the signs - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 (now Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2021/C 242/51)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Nosio SpA (Mezzocorona, Italy) (represented by: J. Graffer, G. Rubino and A. Ottolini, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Söder and V. Ruzek, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO: Tros del Beto, SLU (Marçà, Spain)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 13 March 2020 (Case R 871/2019-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Tros del Belo and Nosio.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 247, 27.7.2020.

---
# C_2022119EN.01004401.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/44 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/44

---

Order of the General Court of 22 December 2021 — Guangdong Haomei New Materials and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology v Commission

(Case T-725/20) (1)

(Dumping - Imports of aluminium extrusions originating in China - Act imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty - Act not open to challenge - Preparatory act - Inadmissibility - Definitive anti-dumping duty - No longer any interest in bringing proceedings - No need to adjudicate)

(2022/C 119/61)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicants: Guangdong Haomei New Materials Co. Ltd (Qingyuan, China) and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology Co. Ltd (Yuan Tan Town, China) (represented by: M. Maresca, C. Malinconico, D. Guardamagna, M. Guardamagna, D. Maresca, A. Cerruti, A. Malinconico and G. La Malfa Ribolla, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: G. Luengo, P. Němečková and F. Tomat, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for, primarily, annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1428 of 12 October 2020 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of aluminium extrusions originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ 2020 L 336, p. 8), and, in the alternative, annulment of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21).

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as inadmissible. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as inadmissible.

| 2. | Guangdong Haomei New Materials Co. Ltd and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology Co. Ltd shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Guangdong Haomei New Materials Co. Ltd and Guangdong King Metal Light Alloy Technology Co. Ltd shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 44, 8.2.2021.

---
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Geology General

Filters

              - products_publications(3)
              - (-)multimedia_video(1)
              - multimedia_video-149195(1)

## By Location

              - alabama(1)
              - alaska(12)
              - arizona(12)
              - arkansas(1)
              - california(49)
              - colorado(3)
              - commonwealth of the northern mariana islands(1)
              - connecticut(1)
              - delaware(3)
              - district of columbia(3)
              - florida(3)
              - georgia(1)
              - hawaii(43)
              - idaho(3)
              - indiana(1)
              - iowa(1)
              - kentucky(1)
              - louisiana(2)
              - maine(3)
              - maryland(5)
              - massachusetts(3)
              - michigan(1)
              - minnesota(2)
              - mississippi(1)
              - missouri(1)
              - montana(4)
              - nevada(5)
              - (-)new hampshire(1)
              - new jersey(3)
              - new mexico(2)
              - new york(1)
              - north carolina(3)
              - north dakota(3)
              - oregon(6)
              - pennsylvania(1)
              - puerto rico(2)
              - rhode island(1)
              - south carolina(1)
              - south dakota(7)
              - tennessee(1)
              - texas(5)
              - u.s. virgin islands(1)
              - utah(3)
              - virginia(5)
              - washington(16)
              - west virginia(2)
              - wisconsin(8)
              - wyoming(6)

## By Year

Featured Films and Shorts        April 8, 2024        USGS Northeast Region: The Short Story
Exhibit 10.7


 





First
Amendment to the Executive Employment Agreement


 


This First Amendment (the “Amendment”) to the Executive
Employment Agreement dated August 12, 2013 (the “Agreement”), by and between ShoreTel, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(“ShoreTel”) and Donald Joos (the “Executive”) is effective as of the last date set forth in the signature
block below (the “Effective Date”). Unless otherwise defined herein, all capitalized terms shall have the meanings
ascribed to them in the Agreement.


 


The parties hereby agree to amend and restate Section 7.3.1
of the Agreement in its entirety to read as follows:


 


“7.3.1 Executive shall receive an amount
equal to twenty-four (24) months of Executive’s Base Salary, payable in one lump sum.”


 


This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts
(including by facsimile), and each such counterpart hereof shall be deemed to be an original instrument, but all such counterparts
together shall constitute but one agreement. This Amendment to the extent signed and delivered by means of digital imaging and
electronic mail or a facsimile machine, shall be considered to have the same binding legal effect as if it were the original signed
version thereof delivered in person.


 


	
        Executive

         

         

        /s/ Donald
Joos

        Donald Joos

         

         

        June 1, 2016

        Date
	 	
        ShoreTel, Inc.

         

         

        By: /s/ Chuck
Kissner

        Name: Chuck Kissner

        Title: Chairperson of the Board

         

        May 31, 2016

        Date
# C_2020045EN.01008502.xml

| 10.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/85 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/85

---

Action brought on 6 December 2019 — Grammer v EUIPO (Representation of a geometric figure)

(Case T-833/19)

(2020/C 45/71)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Grammer AG (Amberg, Germany) (represented by: J. Bühling and D. Graetsch, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Trade mark at issue: Application for the EU figurative mark (Representation of a geometric figure) — Application for registration No 15 389 621

Contested decision: Decision of the Second Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 19 September 2019 in Case R 1478/2019-2

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred in the appeal proceedings.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council. |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council.

---
STATE of Louisiana v. Jerry J. PINESTRAW

No. 2018-KH-0227

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

February 11, 2019

**ON SUPERVISORY WRITS TO THE TWENTY-FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, PARISH OF LIVINGSTON**

PER CURIAM:

Denied. Relator fails to show that he received ineffective assistance of counsel under the standard of *Strickland v. Washington* , 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984). As to his remaining claims, relator fails to satisfy his post-conviction burden of proof. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.2. The application is also repetitive. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.4.

Relator has now fully litigated his application 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 second or 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.
FINANCIAL TRADE PARTNERS, LLC, Appellant, v. OCEANIC AEREO, LLC, Eduardo Gomez and Soranela Cunha, Appellees.

No. 4D18-2851

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

February 14, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
William Foley MILLER, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D17-3340

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

October 11, 2017

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Dismissed.
IN RE: Christine Yvonne VOELKEL

NO. 2019-B-0344

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 8, 2019

ORDER

Considering the Petition for Interim Suspension for Threat of Harm filed by the Office of Disciplinary Counsel,

IT IS ORDERED that respondent, Christine Yvonne Voelkel, Louisiana Bar Roll number 29469, be and she hereby is suspended from the practice of law on an interim basis pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 19.2, pending further orders of this court. Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 26(E), this order is effective immediately.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Office of Disciplinary Counsel may seek the appointment of a trustee(s) to protect the interests of respondent's clients pursuant to the provisions of Supreme Court Rule XIX, § 27, if appropriate.