alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 14, 2020

No. 04-19-00570-CV

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO,

Appellant

v.

Olga HURON and Dianna Rico,

Appellees

From the County Court At Law No. 10, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019CV05317

Honorable J Frank Davis, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice 

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice 

Irene Rios, Justice

The panel has considered Appellant’s motion for rehearing; the motion is DENIED. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 49.3.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 14th day of October, 2020.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court
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
 Northeast Area
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        
                Northeast Area Cities

                    Washington, D.C.
                            Newark, Delaware
                            Boston, Massachusetts
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BHNRC)
                            Beltsville, Maryland (BARC)
                            Frederick, Maryland
                            Orono, Maine
                            Geneva, New York
                            Ithaca, New York
                            University Park, Pennsylvania
                            Wyndmoor, Pennsylvania
                            Kearneysville, West Virginia
                            Leetown, West Virginia
                            Burlington, Vermont


                    Civil Rights & EEO Policy StatementsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Docs BARC Public Field Day





- ARS News & Events
- AgResearch Magazine
- Image Gallery
- News

Newsheadline bar Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Field Day Field Day is scheduled for September 10th, 2016 from 10am to 2pm  Fun for the Whole Family! **For more information click here** Research Exhibits - Hands on Demonstrations Light Refreshments for Sale Signing and Handicapped Access Vans Available Travel Directions     Image Gallery of Past Field Days


Return to top


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
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>    1,000
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                       OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                         DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       868
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                535
<ALLOWANCES>                                  53 
<INVENTORY>                                1,336
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           3,076 
<PP&E>                                     5,787
<DEPRECIATION>                             4,245 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             4,618
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        864
<BONDS>                                        0
<COMMON>                                     429
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<OTHER-SE>                                 3,263
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               4,618 
<SALES>                                    1,633
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           1,633 
<CGS>                                        988
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              1,629
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0                              
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             1                          
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               21                   
<INCOME-TAX>                                   7      
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           14 
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                  14
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                .00
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7298

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DONALD EUGENE SMITH, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. Voorhees, District Judge. (CR-93-17-V, CA-01-114-2-5-V) Submitted: November 29, 2001 Decided: December 10, 2001 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harold Johnson Bender, BENDER & MATUS, Charlotte, North Carolina,for Appellant. Harry Thomas Church, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Donald Eugene Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Smith , Nos. CR-93-17-V; CA01-114-2-5-V (W.D.N.C. filed July 24, 2001 & entered July 25, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Richard S. Bell Plumbing & Heating, Inc., Appellant, v Penzer and Sloan, Respondent.

In a special proceeding for the turnover of funds held by respondent as escrowee, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Isseks, J.), entered May 2, 1984, which denied the application as premature.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

The judgment appealed from denied petitioner’s application as premature because it had not been determined whether the judgment debtor had an interest in the escrow funds. Based on the facts as they existed at the time the judgment was made, we agree with Special Term that the application for the direction to turn over the funds was premature. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June
30, 2004, (the Report) of The Hillman Companies, Inc. (the Registrant), as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof; I, Max W.
Hillman, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, to the best of
my knowledge, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of the Registrant. /s/ Max W. HillmanName:
    Max W. HillmanDate: August 13, 2004
#### In re FANNING. In the matter of the application of Elbert A. Fanning to continue Second street, in the village of Riverhead.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 15, 1898.)

PER CURIAM.

The undertaking does not bear the approval of the county judge, as required by section 83 of the highway law. There is no proof among the papers of the posting of the notice specifying the time and place of meeting of the commissioners, and the other matters, as prescribed by section 85 of the same statute. The papers upon which the order of the county court was granted have not been certified by such court to the appellate division, as directed by section 90 of the highway law. If these several omissions are supplied, the application may be renewed. The approval of the undertaking can be obtained nunc pro tunc. If the notices under section 85 were actually posted, proof of that fact, if filed now, will be sufficient.
ex10_26.htm



    
      

    

    Exhibit
10.26

    


    AMENDED EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT

    


    Agreement
entered into as of this 26th day of October 2009, between J. Robert Saron
(“Employee”) and Bovie Medical Corporation, (“Employer”)

    


    WHEREAS, the parties have
heretofore entered into an Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated February
1, 2000, as the same has been amended pursuant to the Board Resolutions dated
January 23, 2002, January 6, 2004, November 15, 2006, and October 26, 2009;
and

    


    WHEREAS, the parties are
desirous of memorializing the effect of the aforementioned resolutions and
further amending said Agreement on the terms hereinafter set forth.

    


    NOW THEREFORE, in
consideration of the premises and covenants herein contained,

    


    IT
IS HEREBY AGREED:

    


    
      	
              1.

            	
              Paragraph
      3 of the Agreement is hereby amended in its entirety to read as
      follows:

            


    

    


    TERM:
The initial term of employment under this Agreement shall be effective as of the
1st day
of February, 2000, and shall continue until January 31, 2014 or until terminated
as hereinafter provided. After January 31, 2014, the term of this Agreement
shall be automatically extended for continuous terms of one year each unless the
Employer provides the Employee with written notice of termination at least nine
months prior to the date the Employer plans to terminate.

    


    
      	
              2.

            	
              Except
      as amended hereby, the Agreement is hereby ratified and
      approved.

            


    

    


    IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties
have set forth their signatures this 30th day of November, 2009.

     

    
      	 
      	
              BOVIE
      MEDICAL CORPORATION

            
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	
              By:

            	
              /s/
      Andrew Makrides

            	
               

            
	 
      	 
      	
              Andrew
      Makrides, President

            
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	 
      
	 
      	 
      	
              /s/
      J. Robert Saron

            	
               

            
	 
      	 
      	
              J.
      Robert Saron
Exhibit 15.2

CONSENT OF ICAP SHIPPING

Tsakos Energy Navigation Limited

367 Syngrou Avenue

175 64 P. Faliro

Athens, Greece

April 9, 2012

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Reference is made to the Tsakos Energy Navigation Limited (the Company) Annual Report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 (the Form 20-F).

We have reviewed the section entitled Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and ProspectsGeneral Market Overview World Oil
Demand / Supply and Trade included in the Form 20-F and confirm it accurately describes the international tanker industry. We further advise the Company that our role has been limited to the provision of the statistical data and other
information set forth in such section of the Form 20-F. With respect to such statistical data and other information supplied by us, we advise you that:

| |  |  | Certain information included in this discussion is derived from estimates or subjective judgments;
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | The information the databases of other maritime data collection agencies may differ from this data; and
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | While we have taken reasonable care in the compilation of the statistical and other information and believe it to be accurate and correct, data
compilation is subject to limited audit and validation procedures.
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We hereby consent to the reference to
our firm in the Form 20-F and to the use of the statistical data and other information supplied by us and included under the section Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and ProspectsGeneral Market OverviewWorld Oil Demand /
Supply and Trade included in the Form 20-F. In addition, we hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Companys Registration Statements (Form F-3 No. 333-159218, Form F-3 No. 333-111615, Form S-8 No. 333- 102860, Form S-8
No. 333-104062 and Form S-8 No. 333-134306, as amended) and in the related Prospectuses of the information provided by us and included under the section Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and ProspectsGeneral Market
OverviewWorld Oil Demand / Supply and Trade included in the Form 20-F.

We hereby consent to the filing of this
letter as an exhibit to the Form 20-F to be filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Sincerely,



LOGO

ICAP Shipping, London

GREIG ACPHERSON

DIRECTOR, HEAD OF SALE & PURCHASE
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
 PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 result of operations of the Corporation.
 Date:
January 31, 2006
    
    
    
    By:
    
    /s/ John M. HughesName:
    
    John M. HughesTitle:
    
    Chief Financial Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramiro VALLE-NEGRETE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-10298.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

*442Submitted June 15, 2011.*

Filed June 29, 2011.

Susan B. Gray, Office of the U.S. Attorney, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Ap-pellee.

Manuel Urquidez Araujo, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, San Jose, CA, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Ramiro Valle-Negrete appeals from the 60-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Valle-Negrete contends that the district court committed procedural error by failing to consider his challenges to the 16-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(l)(A) and by failing to explain its sentence sufficiently in view of those challenges. The record reflects that the district court considered the parties’ arguments, and its statements at sentencing, though brief, were sufficient to permit meaningful appellate review of the below-Guidelines sentence imposed. *See United States v. Carty,*520 F.3d 984, 992 (9th Cir.2008) (en banc).

Valle-Negrete also challenges section 2L1.2(b)(l)(A)’s 16-level enhancement *443as unreasonable and lacking in empirical foundation and argues that its application in his case resulted in a substantively unreasonable sentence. The 60-month sentence imposed was substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors and the totality of the circumstances, which include a criminal and immigration history that, while largely nonviolent, is extensive and underscores the need for deterrence and to promote respect for the criminal and immigration laws of the United States. *See Carty,*520 F.3d at 993.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
##### 



Fourteenth Amendment to
Alion Science and Technology Corporation
Employee Ownership, Savings and Investment Plan
     th
 Alion Science and Technology CorporationBy:
    /s/ Bahman AtefiIts:  Chief Executive Officer




---



##### 



Supplement No. 3
 MA&D 401(k) Plan
 Purpose
 Former MA&D Participants
 Employment Commencement Date
 Participation
 Mapping of Investments
 Diversification
 Vesting
  2




---



##### 



(a)
    
    the amount of his or her forfeitures of account balances attributable to the
MA&D Plan shall be restored to his or her Account as of the last day of the Plan Year
in which he or she is reemployed and shall be deducted from forfeitures which otherwise
would be allocable for such year or, to the extent such forfeitures are insufficient,
shall require a supplemental contribution from the Employer; and(b)
    
    such restored amounts will be fully vested upon restoration.
 Normal Retirement Age
 In-Service Withdrawals 1 2
 Merger of MA&D Plan
 3
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20444

Conference Calendar

 

JOSEPH YOUNG, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

CITY OF HOUSTON TEXAS; METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY;

PLEASANTVILLE CIVIC LEAGUE; DENVER HARBOR CIVIC LEAGUE; 

PORT OF HOUSTON CIVIC LEAGUE; FIFTH WARD CIVIC LEAGUE 

CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF HOUSTON/GALVESTON; SOUTHERN BAPTIST

CONVENTION; HOUSTON RECOVERY CAMPUS; CORRECTIONAL 

SERVICES CORP; CORRECTIONAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA; PROSPECT

HOUSE/FULFILLMENT FOUNDATION; HOUSTON AFTERCARE; CHANNEL

13NEWS/ABC BROADCASTING CO; GEHOVA WITNESS ASSOCIATION; OPEN 

DOOR MISSION/BOARD OF DIRECTORS; TIMMY DANG CHICKEN AND 

RICE; SUPER MERCARDO FOOD MARKET; JERRY CRAWFORD, doing 

business as Jerry Crawford Real Estate; UNITED STATES POSTAL

SERVICE; FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; U.S. ATTORNEY'S 

OFFICE; JACK IN THE BOX INC.,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CV-2348

--------------------

December 12, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Joseph Young has appealed the district court's order

dismissing his civil rights complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Young has limited his arguments on

appeal to his claims against the City of Houston. We have
No. 01-20444

-2-

reviewed the record and Young's arguments on appeal and are

unable to conclude that Young's allegations, if developed

further, might present a nonfrivolous constitutional claim

against the City of Houston. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9

(5th Cir. 1994); see also Board of County Comm’rs of Bryan

County, Okla. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997); Johnson v.

Moore, 958 F.2d 92, 94 (5th Cir. 1992). Young's conclusional

arguments do not demonstrate that the district court abused its

discretion in dismissing his complaint as delusional and

factually frivolous. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193

(5th Cir. 1997) (standard of review). 

Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R.

42.2. Young's request for injunctive relief and all other

outstanding motions are DENIED. 

APPEAL DISMISSED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED.
EXHIBIT 23.1

To the Board of Directors
Tiens Biotech Group (USA), Inc.

Consent of Independent Accountants Tiens Biotech Group (USA), Inc. Audited
Financial Statements December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004.

We consent to the incorporation in the Annual Report of Tiens Biotech Group
(USA), Inc on Form 10-K of our report dated March 19, 2007 on our audits of the
financial statements of Tiens Biotech Group (USA), Inc. and Subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2006, 2005 and 2004 and for the years then ended, which our reports
are incorporated in the Form 10-K.


                                 /S/ Moore Stephens Wurth Frazer and Torbet, LLP
                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                 Moore Stephens Wurth Frazer and Torbet, LLP

                                 Walnut, California

                                 March 29, 2007
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 19

- 00194

- CV

IN RE BRAYDEN CROOK

AND JONATHAN CROOK

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators’ petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Relators’ Motion for Emergency Relief and Real Party in Interest’s Motion to

Dismiss as Moot are dismissed.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray, *

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

( * Chief Justice Gray dissenting)

Petition denied

Opini on delivered and filed June 19, 2019

[ OT 06]
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Slice of Life, LLC :

and Val Kleyman, :

Appellants :

:

v. : No. 941 C.D. 2016

:

Hamilton Township :

Zoning Hearing Board :

and Hamilton Township :

O R D E R

NOW, August 7, 2017

, having considered appell ees ’ application for

reargument and appell ant s ’ answer in response thereto , the application is denied.

MARY HANNAH LEAVITT,

P resident Judge
# C_2022132EN.01000101.xml

| 24.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 132/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 132/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2021-2022 SESSION

Sittings of 4 to 7 October 2021

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MARK MURRY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D21-1493 

[October 21, 2021]

Appeal of order denying 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for the 

Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Kirk C. Volker, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 50-1998-CF-000747AXXXMB.

Lisa Viscome of Law Offices of Salnick & Fuchs, P.A., West Palm 

Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lindsay Warner, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, GERBER and LEVINE, JJ. concur. 

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.