alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Billy N. STEVENSON, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, v. Don ANDERSON, Sheriff; NFN Sneed, Lieutenant; NFN Lynn, Medical Officer, Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees.

No. 04-10633

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

April 24, 2006.

Billy N. Stevenson, Greenville, TX, for Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant.

Joe C. Tooley, Rockwall, TX, for Defendants-Counter Claimants-Appellees.

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Billy N. Stevenson, a former inmate at the Hunt County Jail, appeals the district *340court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint wherein he alleged that he was injured and denied adequate medical treatment after he fell in standing water in the jail shower. The district court granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that Stevenson had failed to respond to the motion with competent evidence of causation.

Stevenson asserts that the district court did not inform him of the “date the trial was to be held, therefore the lawyers of the defendants mailed the information to my mothers address, but was well aware of my whereabouts.” Insofar as Stevenson is complaining about not receiving notice of the proposed trial, his argument is frivolous because a trial was never held. Insofar as Stevenson is contending that he did not receive notice of the motion for summary judgment, we reject such contention because the record shows that the motion for summary judgment was mailed to Stevenson at his last known address. *See*FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b); *New York Life Ins. Co. v. Brown,*84 F.3d 137, 142 (5th Cir. 1996).

Although he recounts that his hip is swollen and his feet “were swollen from the back up of sludge into the shower,” Stevenson makes no argument challenging the district court’s determination that he failed to respond with evidence of causation. Accordingly, Stevenson has waived any such argument. *See Hughes v. Johnson,*191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir.1999).

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Southeast Watershed Research: Tifton, GA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Scientific Partnerships
                        Long Term Agriculture Research Network (LTAR)
                                    GA Coastal Plain LTAR
                                    NRCS Conservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP)
                                    Southeast Biomass Research Center
                    About Us
                        History & Program
                                    Business Partnerships
                                    Models
                                    Public DataSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




Measuring surface runoff volume and water quality
 Measuring water storage in agricultural ponds.


Mission


Research Projects
                            More... Biologically-based Management Systems for Insect Pests and Pollinators in Agricultural Landscapes in the Southeastern Region Integrating Animal and Industrial Enterprise Byproducts in Gulf Atlantic Coastal Plain Cropping Systems for Enhancing Productivity, Efficiency, and Resiliency of Agroecosystems Magnitude of the Residue Analyses in Minor Crops from Experimental Applications of Pesticides


Southeast Area   Alisa.Coffin@usda.gov


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
EXHIBIT 32.1 PHARMOS CORPORATION
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION In connection
with the quarterly report of PHARMOS CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation (the
Company), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, ROBERT F.
JOHNSTON, Executive Chairman (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company,
hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter
63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge: (1) the Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
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 at the dates
and for the periods indicated. This
Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. Date:
 November 6, 2008By: /s/
 Robert F. Johnston A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signatures that appear
in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
by Section 906, has been provided to Pharmos Corporation and will be retained
by Pharmos Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request. 28
Exhibit 99.1
 DEBT COVENANT COMPLIANCE
AS OF JULY 31, 2009
 Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA:
 (in 000s)
    
    LTM(i)
    
    
    Q2 FY09
    
    
    Q3 FY09
    
    
    Q4 FY09
    
    
    Q1 FY10Net Income
    
    $
    (33,968
    )
    
    $
    412
    
    
    $
    (21,363
    )
    
    $
    (4,471
    )
    
    $
    (8,546
    )Add Back:Depreciation and Amortization
    
    
    4,525
    
    
    
    1,047
    
    
    
    1,113
    
    
    
    1,133
    
    
    
    1,232Income Tax Provision (Benefit)
    
    
    (11,500
    )
    
    
    2,162
    
    
    
    (11,106
    )
    
    
    (1,950
    )
    
    
    (606
    )Interest Charges
    
    
    2,396
    
    
    
    161
    
    
    
    328
    
    
    
    943
    
    
    
    964Non-Cash Charges
    
    
    4,403
    
    
    
    1,538
    
    
    
    1,210
    
    
    
    1,492
    
    
    
    163Allowable Add backs Pursuant to Credit Facility Agreement, as amended
    
    
    42,502
    
    
    
    404
    
    
    
    32,064
    
    
    
    4,336
    
    
    
    5,698Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA
    
    $
    8,358
    
    
    $
    5,724
    
    
    $
    2,246
    
    
    $
    1,483
    
    
    $
    (1,095
    )I. Consolidated Leverage RatioA. Total Long-Term Obligations and Notes Payable (ii)
    
    $
    25,291B. Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA
    
    $
    8,358C. Consolidated Leverage Ratio (Line I.A ÷ Line I.B)
    
    
    3.03Maximum Permitted
    
    3.25x to 1II. Liquidity TestBook Value of Consolidated Accounts Receivable at 65%
    
    $
    20,225Book Value of Consolidated Inventory at 40%
    
    $
    8,108A.
    
    $
    28,333B. Total Long-Term Obligations and Notes Payable (ii)
    
    $
    25,291(Line II.A) must be greater than (Line II. B)
    
    YesIII. Consolidated Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio (i)A. Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA1 Consolidated Net Income
    
    $
    (33,968
    )2 Consolidated Interest Charges
    
    $
    2,3963 Provision for income taxes
    
    $
    (11,500
    )4 Depreciation expenses
    
    $
    4,1735 Amortization expenses
    
    $
    3526 Non-recurring non-cash reductions of Consolidated Net Income
    
    $
    4,4037 Allowable Add backs Pursuant to Credit Facility Agreement, as amended
    
    $
    42,5028 Consolidated Adjusted EBITDA (Lines III.A.1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7)
    
    $
    8,358B. Cash payments for taxes
    
    $
    1,870C. Maintenance Capital Expenditures
    
    $
    2,000D. Consolidated Interest Charges (except non-cash interest)
    
    $
    968E. Current portion of other long term debt (iii)
    
    $
    648F. Consolidated Fixed Charge Coverage Ratio ((Line III.A.8 - Line III.B  Line III.C)
/ (Line III.D + Line III.E)
    
    
    2.8Minimum required
    
    2.0x to 1
 
 Notes:(i)
    
    Last Twelve Months (Most Recent Four Fiscal Quarters)(ii)
    
    Includes letters of credit of $7.4 million and excludes subordinated debt(iii)
    
    Represents current portion of other long-term debt as of July 31, 2009
# Industry
#### Kevin Slavin et al., Petitioners, v Robert P. Levine et al., Respondents.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondent Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Ardsley, dated August 8, 1983, which granted a variance for use of the subject premises as a veterinary hospital and boarding kennel for cats and dogs.

Determination confirmed and proceeding dismissed on the merits, with costs.

*382There was substantial evidence to support the findings and the determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals *(see, Matter of Cowan v Kern,*41 NY2d 591, 598-599; *Matter of Douglaston Civic Assn, v Klein,*67 AD2d 54, 61). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2219 

To ensure that, during time of war and in another country, the United 

States does not detain a United States citizen unless the United States 

first ensures that the citizen’s fundamental rights to information, counsel, 

and communication are protected. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 10, 2005 

Mr. GERLACH introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To ensure that, during time of war and in another country, 

the United States does not detain a United States citizen 

unless the United States first ensures that the citizen’s 

fundamental rights to information, counsel, and communication are protected. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Fair Treatment of 

5 Americans by Americans Act’’. 
2 

•HR 2219 IH 

1 SEC. 2. DETENTION OF UNITED STATES CITIZEN IN AN2 OTHER COUNTRY DURING TIME OF WAR. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—During time of war and in an4 other country with respect to which no protective treaty 

5 or international agreement is in effect, an agent of the 

6 United States shall not detain, or cause to be detained, 

7 a United States citizen unless the United States first en8 sures that the citizen receives— 

9 (1) reasonably adequate information informing 

10 the citizen of the reasons for the detention; 

11 (2) reasonable access to counsel; and 

12 (3) reasonable opportunity and assistance to 

13 regularly communicate with family members. 

14 (b) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

15 (1) The term ‘‘during time of war’’ means in a 

16 period during which United States Armed Forces 

17 are engaged in armed conflict against an enemy of 

18 the people of the United States. 

19 (2) The term ‘‘protective treaty or international 

20 agreement’’ means, with respect to a country, a trea21 ty or agreement entered into between the United 

22 States and the government of that country that de23 fines the duties, obligations, process, and procedures 

24 necessary and adequate to afford a United States 

25 citizen taken into custody, or otherwise detained, in 
3 

•HR 2219 IH 

1 that other country, the protections specified in para2 graphs (1) through (3) of subsection (a). 

3 (3) The term ‘‘agent of the United States’’ 

4 means an officer or employee (whether civilian or 

5 military) of the United States or of a contractor or 

6 subcontractor (at any tier) of the United States. 

7 (c) CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATION.—A person who 

8 violates this section shall be fined under title 18, United 

9 States Code, imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both. 

10 (d) CONSTRUCTION WITH OTHER LAWS.—This sec11 tion does not apply when— 

12 (1) the citizen’s rights, when so detained, are 

13 clearly articulated by other Federal law (such as 

14 chapter 47 of title 10, United States Code (the Uni15 form Code of Military Justice)) or by one or more 

16 treaties or international agreements; and 

17 (2) the United States ensures that the citizen 

18 receives those rights. 

Æ
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We have issued our report datedJuly 22, 2011 (except for Note J, as to which the date is June 14, 2012), with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of Orion Energy Systems, Inc. on Form 10-K/A for the years ending March 31,2010 and 2009. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of Orion Energy Systems, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File No. 333-169611, effective September 28, 2010 and File No. 333-148401,effective December 28, 2007). 

/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP 

Milwaukee, Wisconsin 

June 14, 2012
Opinion filed June 30, 2011

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-11-00024-CR

__________

THANH VU CHRISTIANSON, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 52nd District Court

Coryell County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. FISC-10-20254

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Thanh Vu Christianson entered an open plea of guilty to the offense of continuous sexual 

abuse of a child. In this regard, he executed a written stipulation wherein he judicially confessed 

that he “committed the offense as alleged in the indictment/information in this cause.” The trial 

court accepted appellant’s plea of guilty and sentenced him to confinement in the Institutional 

Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice for a term of forty-five years. We dismiss 

the appeal.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw. The motion is 

supported by a brief in which counsel professionally and conscientiously examines the record 
2

and applicable law and states that he has concluded that the appeal is frivolous. Counsel has 

provided appellant with a copy of the brief and advised appellant of his right to review the record 

and file a response to counsel’s brief. A response has not been filed.1 Court-appointed counsel 

has complied with the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re 

Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403 (Tex. Crim. App. 2008); Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 

S.W.2d 684 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex. Crim. App. 1969); 

and Eaden v. State, 161 S.W.3d 173 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2005, no pet.). Following the 

procedures outlined in Anders and Schulman, we have independently reviewed the record, and 

we agree that the appeal is without merit and should be dismissed. Schulman, 252 S.W.3d at 

409. 

We note that counsel has the responsibility to advise appellant that he may file a petition 

for discretionary review with the clerk of this court seeking review by the Texas Court of 

Criminal Appeals. TEX. R. APP. P. 48.4 (“In criminal cases, the attorney representing the 

defendant on appeal shall, within five days after the opinion is handed down, send his client a 

copy of the opinion and judgment, along with notification of the defendant’s right to file a pro se

petition for discretionary review under Rule 68.”). Likewise, this court advises appellant that he 

may file a petition for discretionary review pursuant to TEX. R. APP. P. 68.

The motion to withdraw is granted, and the appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM

June 30, 2011

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel2consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Hill, J.3

 

1

By letter, this court granted appellant thirty days in which to exercise his right to file a response to counsel’s brief.

2

Rick Strange, Justice, resigned effective April 17, 2011. The justice position is vacant pending appointment of a 

successor by the governor.

3

John G. Hill, Former Justice, Court of Appeals, 2nd District of Texas at Fort Worth, sitting by assignment.
fpi_Ex_10-27


		
			Exhibit 10.27
		

		
			 
		

		
			CONTRACT AMENDMENT AGREEMENT
		

		
			 
		

		
			This Contract Amendment Agreement (the “Agreement”) is made this 18th day of December, 2014, by and between FPI Colorado LLC, a Delaware limited liability company with principal offices at 8670 Wolff Court, suite 240, Westminster, CO 80031 (the “Buyer”), and James C. Justice Companies, Inc. and Ten Mile Bay, LLC, with principal offices at 302 S Jefferson Street, Roanoke, VA 24011  (collectively, the “Seller”).
		

		
			 
		

		
			WHEREAS, on November 13, 2014 Buyer and Seller entered into a Real Estate Purchase Agreement for the sale by Seller to Buyer of approximately 6,819 acres of farmland in Marion, Lee, Clarendon and Sumter Counties, South Carolina (the “REPA”);
		

		
			 
		

		
			WHEREAS, the REPA contemplates the lease back to Seller of a portion of the real estate sold using the lease agreement form in Exhibit B of the REPA (the “Turbeville Lease”);
		

		
			 
		

		
			WHEREAS, on the basis of certain due diligence findings Buyer and Seller have agreed that it is in their mutual interest to make certain amendments to the REPA;
		

		
			 
		

		
			NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Buyer and Seller agree as follows:
		

		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 1.
			

			
	
			
			The Purchase Price in Section 2 of the REPA shall now be $27,450,000.




		
			 
		

			
	
			
				 2.
			

			
	
			
			The annual rent due as defined in Section 3 of the Turbeville Lease shall now be $764,727.54.




		
			 
		

		
			 
		

		
			IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be duly executed by their duly authorized representatives, all as of the date first written above.
		

		
			 
		

		
			 
		

			
					
						/s/

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						BUYER:

					
					
						    

					
					
						SELLER:

				
	
					
						FPI Colorado LLC

					
					
						 

					
					
						James C. Justice Companies, Inc.

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						Ten Mile Bay, LLC

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						By:

					
					
						/s/ Paul A. Pittman

					
					
						 

					
					
						By:

					
					
						/s/ James C. Justice

				
	
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

					
					
						 

				
	
					
						Date:

					
					
						December 18, 2014

					
					
						 

					
					
						Date:

					
					
						December 19, 2014

				



		
			 
		

		 


		

			1
[No. 16508-6-III.

Division Three.

October 14, 1997.]

#### Pamela J. Johnson, *Appellant,*v. Central Washington Cataract & Glaucoma Surgical Center, Inc., *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Yakima County, No. 96-2-00224-0, Robert N. Hackett, J., entered March 14, 1997. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Thompson, J. Pro Tern., concurred in by Schultheis, A.C.J., and Kurtz, J.
NO. 07-03-0152-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

MARCH 28, 2003

______________________________

IN RE NATHAN FELDER,

Relator

 _______________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and QUINN and REAVIS, JJ.

Pending before the court is a motion for a writ of prohibition filed by Nathan Felder.

The latter seeks an order “prohibiting Judge Bill Sheehan of the 69th District [C]ourt of

Dallum [sic] County from continuing prosecution of cause number 3539 until it is

determined whether said court has proper jurisdiction . . . to try Relator.” The relator is

being tried for capital murder. Furthermore, the trial court purportedly lacks jurisdiction

over the proceeding because the indictment allegedly fails to charge Felder “with a violation

of an offense under Article 5 Section 12b, Tx. Const. as defined by Article 3 Section 29,

Tx. Const.” We deny the motion.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.3(j)(1) requires the one seeking a writ of

prohibition to append to the request “a certified copy or sworn copy of . . . any . . .

document showing the matter complained of.” There are at least two documents which fall

within the category described by Felder. The first is the indictment which purportedly failed
2

to charge an offense. The second is the pretrial petition for writ of habeas corpus which

he allegedly filed and awaits determination. According to the motion before us, it is that

petition for habeas relief which must first be considered and determined before the trial

court can continue with the criminal prosecution. Yet, neither document accompanied

Felder’s request for a writ of prohibition. Thus, he not only has failed to provide us with

documentation necessary to assess his contentions but also failed to comply with Rule

52.3(j)(1).

Accordingly, the request for a writ of prohibition is denied.

Per Curiam
#### In re ORR et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

November 8, 1907.)

In the matter of Alexander E. Orr and others.

No opinion. Application granted.