alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8

v. NO. 31,362 9 KEVIN WAYNE CLASS, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY 12 Thomas A. Rutledge, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 for Appellee 16 Jacqueline L. Cooper, Acti ng Chief Public Defender 17 Will O’Connell, Assistant Appellate Defender 18 Santa Fe, NM 19 for Appellant 20 MEMORANDUM OPINION 21 WECHSLER, Judge. 22 Defendant appeals his misdemeanor convi ctions for aggravated driving while 232 under the influence of intoxicating liquor (refu sal) and for failing to maintain traffic 1 lane. [RP 103] Our notice proposed to affirm, and Defendant filed a timely 2 memorandum in opposition. We remain unpersuaded by Defendant’s arguments and 3 therefore affirm. 4 Defendant continues to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support his 5 conviction for aggravated driving while under the influence of intoxicating liquor. 6 See NMSA 1978, § 66-8-102(D)(3) (2010). Insupport of his argument, Defendant 7 refers to State v. Franklin , 78 N.M. 127, 129, 428 P. 2d 982, 984 (1967), and State v. 8 Boyer , 103 N.M. 655, 658-60, 712 P.2d 1, 4-6 (Ct. App. 1985). [MIO 2] For the 9 same reasons provided in our notice, we affirm. In doing so, we acknowledge 10 Defendant’s position that reasons other than intoxication affected his driving and 11 performance on the field sobriety tests—such as his assertions that his headlights were 12 obscured by caliche, that the lane markers were faded and difficult to see at night, and 13 that he had back and knee injuries. [MIO 3] The jury, however, was free to reject 14 Defendant’s version of the incident. See State v. Sutphin , 107 N.M. 126, 131, 753 15 P.2d 1314, 1319 (1988) (recognizing that the factfinder weighs the evidence and may 16 reject the defendant's version of the incident). 17 Based on our notice and the foregoing, we affirm. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 193 _______________________________ 1 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 2 WE CONCUR: 3

__________________________________ 4 CELIA FOY CASTILLO, Chief Judge 5

__________________________________ 6 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 7
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 21.1

                      SUBSIDIARIES OF VISUAL NETWORKS, INC.


Visual Networks Operations, Inc. (DE)
Visual Networks Texas Operations, Inc. (DE)
Visual Networks of Texas, L.P. (TX)
Visual Networks Insurance, Inc. (VT)
Visual Networks Ltd. (Bermuda)
Net2Net, LLC (DE)
Visual Networks UK Operations, Inc. (DE)
Avesta Technologies, Inc. (DE)
Avesta Technologies Canada, Inc. (Canada)
Telecoms Data Systems SAS (France)
Avesta Technologies PTE LTD (Singapore)
Inverse Network Technology (CA)
Visual Networks Investments, Inc. (CA)
Visual Networks Technologies, Inc. (CA)
Visual Networks Protection, Inc. (VT)
CERTIFICATION




1. I have reviewed this Annual report on Form 10-KSB of
**PNG Ventures, Inc.** (the “Company”);




2. Based on my knowledge, this annual 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
      annual report;




3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
      financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all
      material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
      of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual
      report;




4. The Company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for
      establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
      in
      Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Company and we have done the
      following:




a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
      that
      material information relating to the Company is made known to us by others
      within the Company, particularly during the period in which this annual report
      is being prepared;




b. evaluated
      the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and
      procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
      annual report (the “Evaluation Date”); and




c. presented in this annual report our conclusions about the
      effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation
      as of the Evaluation Date;




5.            
      The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
      recent evaluation, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the
      Company’s board of directors:




d. all
      significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
      controls which could adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process,
      summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Company’s
      auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and




e. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
      or
      other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal controls;
      and




5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this
      annual report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls
      or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
      to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions
      with
      regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.


6.




April 13, 2006.
            /s/ Mark L. Baum
              By:  Mark L. Baum
              Its:  President, Chief Executive
                Officer and
              Chief  Financial Officer
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


L\_2013241EN.01000901.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 10.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 241/9 |

---

Corrigendum to Directive 2009/136/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks and services, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws

(
[Official Journal of the European Union L 337 of 18 December 2009](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2009_337_R_TOC)
)

On page 29, point (c) of Article 2(2):

for:

| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ‘(c) | the following point shall be added: | | | | --- | --- | | “(h) | ‘personal data breach’ means ...”;’, | |

read:

| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| ‘(c) | the following point shall be added: | | | | --- | --- | | “(i) | ‘personal data breach’ means ...”;’. | |

---
CHANGE IN TERMS AGREEMENT

Borrower:         US Global Nanospace, Inc.          Lender:  USDR(NV), Inc.
                  f/k/a US Global Aerospace, Inc.
                  2533 N. Carson St., Suite 5107
                  Carson City, NV  89706

Principal:        Amounts up to $500,000.00          Interest Rate:    10.000%

Loan Date:        June 6, 2003

Maturity:         October 31, 2004

Date of Agreement: October 30, 2004

                      DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING INDEBTEDNESS

A Revolving Promissory Note dated June 6, 2003 in original principal amounts up
to $125,000.00, increased for amounts up to $500,000.00 on June 11, 2004.

                         DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE IN TERMS

The maturity date of this Note is being extended to December 31, 2004. All other
terms and conditions remain unchanged.

                                 PROMISE TO PAY

US Global Nanospace, Inc. f/k/a US Global Aerospace, Inc., ("Borrower") promises
to pay to USDR(NV), Inc. ("Lender"), the principal balance then outstanding,
together with interest at the rate of 10.000% per annum on the unpaid principal
balance from June 6, 2003, until paid in full.

                                     PAYMENT

Borrower will pay these loans in one principal payment of the balance then
outstanding, plus interest on or before December 31, 2004. This payment due on
December 31, 2004 will be for all principal and all accrued interest not yet
paid. Unless otherwise agreed or required by applicable law, payments will be
applied first to any accrued unpaid interest, than to principal. Borrower may
pay without penalty all or a portion of the amount owed earlier than it is due.

                             SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS

This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties,
their successors and assigns.


BORROWER:                               LENDER:


US Global Nanospace, Inc.,              USDR(NV), Inc.
f/k/a US Global Aerospace, Inc.


By: /s/ John Robinson                   By: /s/ Julie Seaman
  ----------------------------------       -------------------------------------
  John Robinson, Chairman                  Julie Seaman, Secretary
1 –OPINION AND ORDER 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

WORLD FUEL SERVICES, INC., 

 Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, 

 v. 

EVERGREEN HELICOPTERS, INC., 

a/b/n ERICKSON HELICOPTERS, INC., 

 Defendant/Counter-Claimant. 

Case No. 3:16-cv-00504-SB 

OPINION AND ORDER 

MOSMAN, J.,

 On December 2, 2019, Magistrate Judge Stacie F. Beckerman issued her Findings and 

Recommendation (“F&R”) [68], recommending that Defendants’ Motion to Amend Answer and 

Counterclaim [21] be granted and that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [17] be denied. 

Plaintiff objected [70], and Defendant filed a response to the objection [71].

DISCUSSION

 The magistrate judge makes only recommendations to the court, to which any party may 

file written objections. The court is not bound by the recommendations of the magistrate judge 

but retains responsibility for making the final determination. The court is generally required to 

make a de novo determination regarding those portions of the report or specified findings or 

recommendation as to which an objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, the court 

is not required to review, de novo or under any other standard, the factual or legal conclusions of 

the magistrate judge as to those portions of the F&R to which no objections are addressed. See 
2 –OPINION AND ORDER 

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 

(9th Cir. 2003). While the level of scrutiny under which I am required to review the F&R 

depends on whether or not objections have been filed, in either case, I am free to accept, reject, 

or modify any part of the F&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). 

CONCLUSION

Upon review, I agree with Judge Beckerman’s recommendation and I ADOPT the F&R 

[68]. I GRANT Defendant’s Motion to Amend Answer and Counterclaim [21], and I DENY 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment [17]. Finally, I ORDER the parties to submit a 

proposed case management plan within seven (7) days of the date of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this day of January, 2020. 

____________________________

MICHAEL W. MOSMAN

United States District Judge 

8th
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         1,338,215
<SECURITIES>                                   23,457,501
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,285,380
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               28,032,290
<PP&E>                                         17,337,807
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (1,391,781)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 45,446,929
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,685,011
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       105,052
<OTHER-SE>                                     32,706,281
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   45,446,929
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               944,800
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               15,786,439
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             132,367
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                0
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (12,719,416)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.33)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.33)
        


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7027

FRANKLIN DELYNN MEADERS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RANDALL LEE; J. BOYD BENNETT; THEODIS BECK;

JANE DOE; MR. WHITE,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,

District Judge. (CA-03-880-5-CT-H)

Submitted: October 14, 2004 Decided: October 21, 2004

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Franklin Delynn Meaders, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Franklin Delynn Meaders appeals the district court’s

order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error.

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. See Meaders v. Lee, No. CA-03-880-5-CT-H (E.D.N.C. May 3,

2004). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 14.(a).4





CONSENT





I hereby consent to the inclusion of the summary of my appraisal of Alon Holdings Blue Square's investment property under the captions “Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” (note 2f) and “Investment Property” (note 7) in the consolidated financial statements of Alon Holdings Blue Square-Israel Ltd. contained in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Alon Holdings Blue Square-Israel Ltd. for the year ended December 31, 2010, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.




Tel Aviv, Israel
/s/ Barak, Friedman Cohen & Co.June 26, 2011
Barak, Friedman Cohen & Co.Economic & Real Estate Appraisal
EXHIBIT
23.1




CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM




To the
Board of Directors and Shareholders


of CNS
Response, Inc.




We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (File No. 333-150398) of our report, dated December 29, 2009, relating to
our audits of the consolidated financial statements which appear in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of CNS Response, Inc. for the year ended September 30,
2009.




/s/
Cacciamatta Accountancy Corporation




Cacciamatta
Accountancy Corporation




Santa
Ana, California




December
29, 2009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

**OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,**

**Petitioner**

**v. TERRY ELIZABETH SILVA,**  **Respondent :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **: :**  **No. 2275 Disciplinary Docket No. 3**

**No. 164 DB 2014 Attorney Registration No. 42470**  **(Delaware County)**

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 14 th**  **day of July, 2016, upon consideration of the Report a nd**  **Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board, Terry Eliza beth Silva is suspended from**  **the Bar of the Commonwealth for a period of three y ears, and she shall comply with all**  **the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217. Respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board**  **pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).**
**EXHIBIT 12.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, Bernard Charlès, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Dassault Systèmes; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows ofthe company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The Company’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (asdefined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company andhave:
 a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to thecompany, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b. [omitted pursuant to the guidance of Release No. 33-8238 (June 5,2003)]  c. evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d. disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5. The Company’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s boardof directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management orother employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date:  June 30, 2004         By:  /s/  Bernard Charlès   Name:  Bernard Charlès    Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF R.A.P., A MINOR

PETITION OF: R.A.P.

:

:

:

:

:

No. 226 WAL 2020

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 29th day of December, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
# C o u r t o f A p p e a l s

o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g i a

A T L A N T A

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Th e C o u rt o f A p p e a l s h e re b y p a sse s t h e f o l l o w i n g o rd e r:

A 1 9 A 0 3 7 4

. C A

R L O S E A ST M A

N v

. G L O B A

L P E R SO N N E L SE R V

IC E S, IN C

.

e t a l

.

I n t h i s d i r e c t a

p p e a l

, C a r l o s E a st m a n se e k s r e v i e w o f t

h e su p e r i o r c o u r t ’ s o r d e r

a f f i r m i n g a d e c i si o n o f t

h e St a t e B o a r d o f W o r k e r s’ C o m

p e n sa t i o n

. H o w e v e r

, a

n

a p p e a l f r o m a d e c i si o n o f t

h e su p e r i o r c o u r t r e v i e w i n g a d e c i si o n o f t h e St a t e B o a r d

o f W o r k e r s’ C o m

p e n s a t i o n m u st b e b r o u g

h t b y a p p l i c a t i o n f o r d i s c r e t i o n a

r y a p p e a l

.

Se e OC G A § 5

- 6

- 3 5 ( a ) ( 1 ) ; A d i v a ri v

. S e a rs, R o e b u c k & C o

. , 2 2 1 G a

. A

p p

. 2 7 9 ( 4 7 1

SE 2 d 5 9 ) ( 1 9 9 6 )

. B e c a

u se E a st m a n f a i l e d t o f o l l o w t h e p r o p e r a

p p e l l a t e p r o c e d u r e

, h i s

a p p e a l i s h e r e b y D I SM

I SSE D f o r l a c k o f j u r i sd i c t i o n

. Se e A d i v a ri

, su p r a

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g i a

C l e r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t l a n t a

,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y t h a t t h e a b o v e i s a t

r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i t n e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t

h e s e a l o f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. October 02, 2018

10/02/2018
HBC & West Grand Canyo

TWG Discussion 
Provisional: Do not use or cite

Spatial Look at Seining 2015 Results
Provisional: Do not use or cite

30M

LCR

BAC

SHI

STE

MGG

HAV
Albrecht et al. 2014;2015 (Bio West;

ASIR)

Provisional: Do not use or cite
Length Frequency‐‐

HBC
How Old is a 9‐10mm fish

Uncertain, but here’s a guess:

• Size at hatch – 6.7‐7.4 mm; doubles in 2

(conforms with Robinson and Childs 200(Hammond 1982)

• Growth 0.29mm/day Robinson and Child

• Thus 9mm fish 5‐8 days??• 10mm fish 8‐11 days??
What’s happening?

• Hyp 1: Warm water (~ 2003 +) increased survival of yo

drifting/swimming out of LCR – Direct drift;

• Hyp 2: Warm water (~ 2003+) increased survival of you

drifting/swimming out of LCR. Migration and Reproductio

• Hyp 3: Warm water and low predator loads have facilit

spawning and initial survival at sites in W Grand Canyon – 

aggregations, Havasu, throughout W GC. Reproduction & 

• Hyp 4: Combinations of above and ?
A few Questions‐‐

• Where are fish originating/spawning ta

place?

• Does this represent recruitment & popu

expansion or a population sink?

• Are mainstem HBC separate population

continuous population with variable

densities?

• Are W GC fish genetically similar to LCR 

they differentiated (or bottlenecked)?

• Limiting factors for self‐sustaining popu
What can we do to bette

understand these changes

• Revisit use of otolith microchemistry to

identify off‐channel spawning;

• Use Judas Fish ‐ Sonic tagged HBC relea

into W GC to determine habitat/geogra

use/movement during spawning;

• Increase surveillance of younger fish via

seining (planned for 2016);

• RBT NO‐like effort?
Photo by D. Van