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

San Antonio, Texas

August 5, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00472

- CV

ARC PARKLANE, INC.

, Appellant

v.

Arvel SEALS , Jr., Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014

- CI

- 10177 Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant has filed an unopposed motion to abate this appeal because the issue presented in this appeal is the same issue previously decided by this court and now pending before the

T e xas Supreme Court in Fredericksburg Care Co. L.P. v. Perez , 406 S.W.3d 313, pet. granted).

We grant the motion. For administrative purposes, this appeal will be treated as a closed case unless and until a motion to reinstate is filed and granted

.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 5th day of August, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of A.R. and L.F.R. Jr., * From the 35th District Court

children of Brown County,

Trial Court No. CV 2004167.

No. 11-22-00163-CV *October 27, 2022

* Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
RED RIVER BELOW FISH HATCHERY, NEAR QUESTALatitude: 36.683Longitude: -105.654Elevation: 7082

RED RIVER BELOW FISH HATCHERY, NEAR QUESTA

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Taos Powderhorn Site Page...



Taos Powderhorn

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Taos Pueblo Site Page...



Taos Pueblo

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Red River Pass #2 Site Page...



Red River Pass #2
U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Effects of Water Temperature 

on Predation Vulnerability of 

Humpback Chub

David Ward

Grand Canyon Monitoring and Research Center

Southwest Biological Science Center
Dams effect fish in Four 

Primary ways

 Change timing and 

magnitude of flows

 Reduce turbidity

 Impede fish 

movement

 Alter water 

temperature

Water temperature affects all 

aspects of fish life

 Gamete development

 Egg hatching

 Bioenergetics/Metabolism

 Growth

 Swimming ability

 Predation Vulnerability
What we know 

 Grand Canyon native fish are warm water fish 

(20° C)

 Current Mainstem Colorado River Water in 

Grand Canyon is not warm!

 Continuous cold water is detrimental to 

native fish
Egg/larval survival

Adapted from data presented in:

Marsh et al. 1985 and Hamman 1982
Gorman and Vanhoosen 2000

Growth of Juvenile Humpback Chub in the Laboratory
Kappenman et al. 2012
Mean Total Length (mm)

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120

FV 50 (cm/s)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

20 C

14 C

10 C

Ward et al. 2002, Transactions

Swimming ability of Flannelmouth Suckers
How does water temperature 

affect predation vulnerability?








What we know

 Water Temperature effects predation vulnerability

 Continuous cold water is detrimental to native fish

 Warmer water will benefit native fish

 Warmer water will also benefit non-native warm water 

fishes
What we know

 Warm water non native fish and warm water native 

fish will not coexist at the same location for very 

long!

Marsh and Pacey 2005

Clarkson et al. 2005

Mueller 2005

Lots of examples

Reservoirs and rivers
Temperature Conundrum for 

Colorado River Native Fishes

VS Cold Water is Bad

(physiological effects)

Warm Water is Bad

(Invasive fish effects)

What about warm water every once in a while ?
Long life span of Colorado River Native fishes allows for interval 

between warm water events to be relatively long

Time 

15

What about climate change and drought

Induced warming?
Conclusions

• Cold water although detrimental to Grand 

Canyon native Fishes may act to conserve 

them

• Interval of drought induced warming may 

play a critical role in the persistence of native 

fish in Grand Canyon
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Paul R. Tenney, Also Known as Paul Ryan Tenney, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 1.)

[946 NYS2d 912]

— Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered January 4, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the third degree.

*1404It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35 [1]) and imposing a sentence of a term of incarceration and, in appeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment ordering him to pay restitution in the amount of $108,091.10. Addressing first appeal No. 1, defendant’s sole contention is that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe, and we reject that contention. As for appeal No. 2, defendant waived his sole contention therein, i.e., that County Court erred in failing to conduct a restitution hearing, inasmuch as he stipulated to the amount of restitution owed *(see People v Faso,*82 AD3d 1584, 1584-1585 [2011], *lv denied*17 NY3d 816 [2011], *reconsideration denied*17 NY3d 952 [2011]; *People v Brown,*70 AD3d 1378, 1379 [2010]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Smith, Centra, Lindley and Martoche, JJ.
#### In the Matter of Progressive Northern Insurance Company, Respondent, v Ilja Foss et al., Appellants.

[947 NYS2d 317]

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 75 to temporarily stay arbitration of a claim for supplementary underinsured motorist benefits, Ilja Foss and Bella Foss appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rios, J.), entered October 18, 2011, which denied their motion to dismiss the petition and granted the petition to the extent of staying the arbitration pending the completion of certain discovery.

Ordered that the order and judgment is reversed, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with costs, the motion to dismiss the petition is granted, and the proceeding is dismissed.

The petitioner commenced this proceeding to temporarily stay arbitration of a claim for supplementary uninsured/ underinsured motorist (hereinafter SUM) benefits pending the completion of certain discovery permitted by the subject insurance policy. The Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in granting the petition to the extent of staying the arbitration pending the completion of certain discovery, and denying the appellants’ motion to dismiss the petition. The petitioner had ample time to seek the desired discovery before commencing the proceeding, and unjustifiably failed to do so *(see Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Mendoza,*69 AD3d 623, 624-625 [2010]; *Matter of State-Wide Ins. Co. v Womble,*25 AD3d 713, 713-714 [2006]; *Matter of New York Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v Gershovich,*1 AD3d 364, 365 [2003]; *Matter of Government Empls. Ins. Co. v Rosenfarb,*306 AD2d 478, 478-479 [2003]). Florio, J.P., Lott, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM AND RELATED
NOTES OF AMERIN CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES FOR THE SIX MONTH PERIOD END JUNE
30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                           394,077
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                           0
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                                 402,386
<CASH>                                           4,103
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          11,365
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 452,509
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                 37,053
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                             23,927
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           265<F1>
<OTHER-SE>                                     378,281
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   452,509
<PREMIUMS>                                      57,127
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             10,417
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                                 552
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<BENEFITS>                                      16,420
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                      9,592
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                             7,610
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,474
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,997
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             24,477
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    24,477
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .92
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                                  0<F2>
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                                    0<F2>
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                                   0<F2>
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                                     0<F2>
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                      0<F2>
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                              0<F2>
<FN>
<F1>Common stock at par value
<F2>Available on an annual basis only.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
# C_2021184EN.01000601.xml

| 12.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 184/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 184/6

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

Case AT.40023 – Cross-border access to pay-TV – Withdrawal

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 184/06)

The draft decision, addressed to The Walt Disney Company, The Walt Disney Company Limited, Comcast Corporation, Universal Studios International B.V., Universal Studios Limited, Sony Group Corporation, CPT Holdings Inc., Colgems Productions Limited, Warner Media LLC, Warner Bros. International Television Distribution Inc. Sky Limited and Sky UK Limited (together ‘the parties’), concerns the withdrawal of the Commission’s 2019 Decision in Case AT.40023 – Cross border access to pay-TV (the ‘2019 Decision’) (2) that made certain commitments binding on the parties.

On 21 January 2021, the Directorate-General for Competition wrote to the parties, informing them that it was considering proposing that the Commission withdraw the 2019 Decision and discharge the monitoring trustees from their obligation to monitor compliance with the commitments (‘21 January 2021 Letter’), in light of the judgment in Case C-132/19 P (3) that annulled the commitments in the Commission’s 2016 Decision in Case AT.40023 – Cross border access to pay-TV, (4) that were essentially identical in scope to the commitments in the 2019 Decision. The 21 January 2021 Letter invited the parties to submit any observations regarding the potential withdrawal of the 2019 Decision by 5 February 2021. None of the parties objected to the withdrawal of the 2019 Decision.

I consider that all parties have been able to effectively exercise their procedural rights in this case.

Brussels, 18 March 2021.

Wouter WILS

---

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29).

1

(2)  Commission Decision of 7 March 2019 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40023 — Cross- border access to pay-TV), C(2019) 1772 final (OJ C 132, 9.4.2019, p. 8).

2

Cross- border access to pay-TV

(3)  Case C-132/19 P - Groupe Canal + v Commission, EU:C:2020:1007.

3

Groupe Canal + v Commission

(4)  Commission Decision of 26 July 2016 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case AT.40023 — Cross- border access to pay-TV), C(2016) 4740 final (OJ C 437, 25.11.2016, p. 5).

4

Cross- border access to pay-TV

---
RIO GRANDE AT THIRTY MILE BRIDGE NEAR CREEDELatitude: 37.725Longitude: -107.256Elevation: None

RIO GRANDE AT THIRTY MILE BRIDGE NEAR CREEDE

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Wager Gulch Site Page...



Wager Gulch

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Beartown Site Page...



Beartown

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Upper Rio Grande Site Page...



Upper Rio Grande
Exhibit 32.2


                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                            18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                            AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                                SECTION 906 OF
                        THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



          In connection with the Quarterly Report of Blount International,
Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Calvin E. Jenness, Senior Vice President, Chief Financial
Officer and Treasurer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     (i) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
     15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

     (ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the report.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Blount International, Inc. and will be retained by Blount
International, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or
its staff upon request.


Date:  May 12, 2004


/s/ Calvin E. Jenness
---------------------
Calvin E. Jenness
Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2091 

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to clarify the ability to request 

consumer reports in certain cases to establish and enforce child support 

payments and awards. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 29, 2015 

Mr. POLIQUIN (for himself, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. DAVID SCOTT of Georgia, Mr. 

DUFFY, Mr. MURPHY of Florida, and Mrs. WAGNER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

A BILL 

To amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act to clarify the ability 

to request consumer reports in certain cases to establish 

and enforce child support payments and awards. 

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 ‘‘Child Support Assist5 ance Act of 2015’’. 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2091 IH

1 SEC. 2. REQUESTS FOR CONSUMER REPORTS BY STATE OR 

2 LOCAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT 

3 AGENCIES. 

4 Paragraph (4) of section 604(a) of the Fair Credit 

5 Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681b(a)(4)) is amended— 

6 (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ‘‘or deter7 mining the appropriate level of such payments’’ and 

8 inserting ‘‘, determining the appropriate level of 

9 such payments, or enforcing a child support order, 

10 award, agreement, or judgment’’; 

11 (2) in subparagraph (B)— 

12 (A) by striking ‘‘paternity’’ and inserting 

13 ‘‘parentage’’; and 

14 (B) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

15 (3) by striking subparagraph (C); and 

16 (4) by redesignating subparagraph (D) as sub17 paragraph (C). 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 23.2


                         Consent of Independent Accountants







     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Pre-effective Amendment No.
1 to registration  statement on Form S-3 and  Post-Effective  Amendment No. 2 of
this registration  statement on Form S-3 to Form S-1 (File No. 333-45603) of our
report,  dated January 18, 1996,  except for the second  paragraph of Note 1 and
the fifth  paragraph  of Note 2, as to which the date is March 4,  1996,  on our
audits  of  the  consolidated   financial   statements  of  BancBoston  Mortgage
Corporation as of December 31, 1995 and for the year then ended, which report is
included (or incorporated by reference) in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Jacksonville, Florida
December 22, 1998
**CERTIFICATION**

**OF**

**CHIEF      EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

|                                   |                                                                                |                                 |
|----------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                              |                                                                           |                            |
| Date:                November 14, 2006 |                                                                                | /s/ Douglas                Abel |
|                                   | Douglas                  AbelPresident                  and Chief Executive Officer |

|                                             |                                                                                       |                                              |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                        |                                                                                  |                                         |
| Date:                    November 14, 2006  |                                                                                       | /s/ Michael                    G. McGuinness |
|                                             | Michael                        G. McGuinnessChief                        Financial Officer |

----
#### William R. Hargrove et al. *v.*The Bristol Redevelopment Agency

*Robert L. Hirtle,*for the appellees (plaintiffs).

*Robert G. Danaher,*for the appellant (defendant).

Argued March 4

decided March 4, 1975

The plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is denied and this ruling renders moot the defendant’s motion to strike the plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the defendant’s appeal.
CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of PNG Ventures, Inc., a Nevada corporation,
(the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Mark L. Baum, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify the following
pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 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 results of operations of the
      Company.





/s/ Mark L.
Baum


Mark L.
Baum


President,
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer





April 14,
2008
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v.
ADAM MICHAEL HARRIS,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 17

- 10376

D. C. No. 2:13

- cr
- 00140

- APG

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada Andrew P. Gordon, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 15, 2018 **

Before: SILVERMAN, BEA, and WATFORD , Circuit Judges.

Adam Michael Harris appeals from the district court’s judgment and
challenges the 13

- month sentence imposed upon revocation of supervised release.
We have jurisd iction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Harris contends that the district court procedurally erred by failing to explain

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not p recedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

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

# FILED

MAY 17 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 17

- 10376

the sentence adequately. He also argues that the court's remarks concerning
specific deterrence and the need to keep him away from drugs reflect that the court
made clearly erroneous findings that the instant revocation involved drug use and

new crimes. We review for plain error, see United States v. Valencia

- Barragan , 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010), and conclude that there is none. The district
court adequately explained why the above

- Guidelines sentence was warranted,
citing Harris’s long record of resistance to supervision and breaches of the court’s
trust, as documented in four prior hearings stemming from violations of his
supervisory conditions. Furthermore, the record does not support Harris’s
argument that the court mis understood the nature of his supervised release
violations. In light of Harris's history, the court reasonably observed that a prison
term would have the salutary effect of keeping Harris away from alcohol and drugs
for a period of time. In addition, it did not plainly err by invoking the need for

deterrence. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3553(a)(2)(B), 3583(e); United States v. Miqbel , 444
F.3d 1173, 1181 & n.19 (9th Cir. 2006).

Harris also contends that his above

- Guidelines sentence is substantively

unreasonable. The district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Harris’s

sentence. See Gall v. United States , 552 U.S. 3 8, 51 (2007) . The sentence is
substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e ) factors and the totality

of the circumstances , including Harris’s extensive record of violating his3 17

- 10376

conditions of supervised release

. See Miqbel , 444 F.3d at 1182 (defendant’s

breach of the cour t’s trust is an appropriate sentencing consideration at a
revocation sentencing)

.
AFFIRMED.