alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
SILVER CREEK NEAR SILVER CREEK JUNCTION, UTLatitude: 40.735Longitude: -111.476Elevation: 6452

SILVER CREEK NEAR SILVER CREEK JUNCTION, UT

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Atwater Site Page...



Atwater

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Brighton Site Page...



Brighton

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Thaynes Canyon Site Page...



Thaynes Canyon
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED October 8, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60088 Summary Calendar

MARIA DEL CARMEN HEREDIA-CAMINO, Petitioner,

versus JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

-------------------- Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals BIA No. A78-874-208

-------------------- Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Maria Del Carmen Heredia-Camino petitions this court for review of a decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) allegedly denying her request for an extension of time to file an appeal brief to appeal the Immigration Judge’s decision denying her application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under Convention Against Torture. Heredia-Camino’s argument is misplaced; the BIA granted her motion for anNo. 03-60088 -2- extension of time. The BIA rejected her brief because it was not served on the INS office of record. To the extent she alleges a due process violation based on the rejection of her brief, she has failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice. Anwar v. INS , 116 F.3d 140, 145 (5th Cir. 1997). Heredia-Camino has not shown that she was unable or unwilling to return “‘because of persecution or a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.’”
See Jukic v. INS , 40 F.3d 747, 749 (5th Cir. 1994)(quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(42)(A));
PETITION DENIED.
Dismiss and Opinion Filed February 26, 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-13-01103-CV NEIL NOBLE, Appellant V. CITY OF DALLAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-02526-D



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright a nd Justices Lang-Miers and Brown Opinion by Chief Justice Wright This suit began as a declaratory action by Neil Noble to obtain public information from the City of Dallas pursuant to chapter 552 of the Texas Govern ment Code. Noble obtained the requested information and moved to dismiss the suit. Before the trial court signed the dismissal order, however, Noble filed an “amended” petiti on seeking to evict tenants from his property. The City responded by filing a plea to the jurisdiction. The trial court subsequently granted the plea and dismissed the case. Approximately two months after filing this appeal, Noble informed the Court by letter that the tenants had v acated the property. Because it appeared a live controversy no longer existed, we questioned whether the appeal was moot and we could decide the case. See Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Assoc. v. Jones , 1 S.W.3d 83, 86 (Tex. 1999) (“Appellate courts are prohibited from deciding moot controversies. . . . A case becomes moot if at any–2– stage there ceases to be an actua l controversy between the parties.”) At our request, the parties filed letter briefs addressing our co ncern. In its brief, the City ag rees the case is moot. Noble disputes the case is moot but pr ovides nothing in his brief de monstrating a live controversy exists. Because no live controversy exists between the parties, we are prohibited from deciding this case. See id. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

131103F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

NEIL NOBLE, Appellant
No. 05-13-01103-CV V. CITY OF DALLAS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-02526-D. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers and Brown participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER that appellee City of Dallas recover its costs, if any, of this appeal from appellant Neil Noble.

Judgment entered February 26, 2014

/Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Seymour Holtzman, Co-Chief Executive Officer of LQ Corporation, Inc., hereby certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of LQ Corporation, Inc.; 

 

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 the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsiblefor establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))***)***for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; ******

 

(b)****Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c)Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financialreporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significantrole in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Dated: March 29, 2004
GRAND LAKELatitude: 40.242Longitude: -105.801Elevation: None

Grand Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Never Summer Site Page...



Never Summer

Courtesy NRCS - Go to High Lonesome Site Page...



High Lonesome

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Sawtooth Site Page...



Sawtooth

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Bear Lake Site Page...



Bear Lake

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Lake Irene Site Page...



Lake Irene

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Phantom Valley Site Page...



Phantom Valley

Courtesy NRCS - Go to Stillwater Creek Site Page...



Stillwater Creek
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 15.1

                  AWARENESS LETTER OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS
                  -------------------------------------------


Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

                                                    Re: OYO Geospace Corporation
                                                        Registration on Form S-8

We are aware that our report dated January 21, 2000, on our review of interim
financial information of OYO Geospace Corporation as of December 31, 1999 and
for the three months ended December 31, 1999 and 1998, and included in the
Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 1999
is incorporated by reference in the Company's registration statement on Form S-8
(333-80003).  Pursuant to Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, this
report should not be considered a part of the registration statement prepared or
certified by us within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.



                                                  /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


Houston, Texas
January 21, 2000
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-3665

___________

American Premier Underwriters, Inc., *

*

Appellant, * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the Western

v. * District of Missouri.

*

Smith, Gill, Fisher & Butts, P.C., * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: April 13, 2000

Filed: April 19, 2000

___________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

American Premier Underwriters, Inc. (APU) appeals the district court's adverse

grant of summary judgment in this diversity lawsuit for legal malpractice and fraud.

The district court ruled that APU's claims were barred by the applicable statutes of

limitation. Having carefully analyzed the parties' arguments and following de novo

review of the record and the questions of state law, we conclude the grant of judgment

was proper for the reasons stated by the district court. Because our review involves the

application of state law in a fact-intensive diversity case and the parties' submissions

show they are thoroughly familiar with the issues before the court, we conclude that an
-2-

extensive discussion would serve no useful precedential purpose. We thus affirm the

district court without further discussion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 10.34

REVISED SUMMARY OF COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENT

APPLICABLE TO THE COMPANYS NON-EMPLOYEE
DIRECTORS

As of March 12, 2007, the following represents the compensation program for non-employee directors of NMT Medical, Inc.
(the Company) who are not otherwise compensated by the Company:



| |  |  | an option to purchase 20,000 shares of the Companys Common Stock (the Common Stock) upon initial election and an option to purchase 5,000 shares
(7,000 shares for the Companys Lead Director) of Common Stock annually thereafter upon re-election at the Companys annual meeting of stockholders;
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | following each annual meeting of stockholders, each eligible director who served as a member of a committee of the Board of Directors during the preceding fiscal
year is granted an additional option to purchase (i) 2,000 shares of Common Stock if such director served as chairperson of such committee or (ii) 1,000 shares of Common Stock if such director did not serve as chairperson of such
committee;
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | $15,000 ($18,000 for the Companys Lead Director) per year for their services as directors;
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | $2,000 ($2,500 for the Companys Lead Director) for each meeting of the Board of Directors that they attend in person;
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | $1,000 ($1,250 for the Companys Lead Director) for each telephonic meeting of the Board of Directors that they participate in;
| | - |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | $1,000 ($1,500 for each committee chairperson) for each board committee meeting that they attend in person;
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | $500 ($750 for each committee chairperson) for each telephonic board committee meeting that they participate in; and
| | - |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | expense reimbursement for attending Board of Directors and board committee meetings.
| | - |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
csv

      Evaporation                    
csv

      Inflow                    
csv

      Total Release                    
csv

      Pool Elevation                    
csv

      Inflow Volume                    
csv

      Area                    
csv

      Delta Storage                    
csv

      Release Volume                    
csv

#### All data considered provisional and subject to revision.

      Storage                    
json

      Evaporation                    
json

      Inflow                    
json

      Total Release                    
json

      Pool Elevation                    
json

      Inflow Volume                    
json

      Area                    
json

      Delta Storage                    
json

      Release Volume                    
json
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

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

No. 137 SSM 16

Rosemarie A. Herman, &c., et al.,

 Respondents,

Avon Bard LLC, et al.,

 Plaintiffs,

 v.

Julian Maurice Herman, et al.,

 Appellants,

Michael Offit, et al.,

 Defendants.

(And a Third-Party Action.)

Submitted by John Siegal, for appellants.

Submitted by Natasha Shishov, for respondents. 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules,

order affirmed, with costs, and certified question answered in

the affirmative. Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in

precluding defendant Julian Maurice Herman from participating in

the inquest to assess damages against him. Moreover, the denial

of that defendant's cross motion was proper. Chief Judge DiFiore

and Judges Rivera, Stein, Fahey, Garcia and Wilson concur. Judge

Feinman took no part.

Decided October 12, 2017
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-60664

Summary Calendar

Pritpal Singh, 

Petitioner,

versus

Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A200 240 824

Before Wiener, Southwick, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Pritpal Singh, a native and citizen of India, petitions for review of an 

order by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal from 

the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief 

under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). He challenges the BIA’s 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 9, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 19-60664 Document: 00515772631 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/09/2021
No. 19-60664

2

decision that he lacked credibility and its failure to address whether he was 

entitled to asylum, withholding of removal, or protection under the CAT. To 

the extent that he claims that the immigration judge relied too heavily on the 

credible fear report in determining that he lacked credibility, this claim is 

unexhausted and therefore we lack jurisdiction to address it. See Wang 

v. Ashcroft, 260 F.3d 448, 452-53 (5th Cir. 2001). 

We review the BIA’s decision and consider the immigration judge’s 

decision only to the extent it influenced the BIA. Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 

220, 224 (5th Cir. 2018). Factual findings, including an adverse credibility 

determination, are reviewed for substantial evidence. Avelar-Oliva v. Barr, 

954 F.3d 757, 763 (5th Cir. 2020). 

Despite Singh’s assertions to the contrary, the immigration judge’s 

determination was supported by specific reasons based on the evidence 

presented and was, under the totality of the circumstances, substantially 

reasonable. See Zhang v. Gonzales, 432 F.3d 339, 344 (5th Cir. 2005). 

Because the adverse credibility determination was supported by “specific 

and cogent reasons,” the record does not compel a finding that Singh was 

credible or that no reasonable factfinder could have made an adverse 

credibility finding. See id.; Singh v. Sessions, 880 F.3d 220, 225 (5th Cir. 

2018). Accordingly, the lack of credible evidence precluded Singh from 

meeting his burden of proof for asylum, withholding of removal, and 

protection under the CAT. See Dayo v. Holder, 687 F.3d 653, 658-59 (5th Cir. 

2012). 

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for review is DENIED in part 

and DISMISSED in part. 

Case: 19-60664 Document: 00515772631 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/09/2021
Order entered August 21, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00679
- CV
IN THE INTEREST OF L.A., D. J .A., B.S.A., J.N.A., AND M.N.A., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 330th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 16
- 03637



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s August 20, 2019 first motion to extend time to file her jurisdictional letter brief

. We GRANT the motion and ORDER the letter brie f be filed no later than September 3, 2019. We again caution appellant that failure to file the letter brief may result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice.

/s/ KEN MOLBERG JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K)
of Document Sciences Corporation of our report dated January 23, 1998, included
in the 1997 Annual Report to Stockholders of Document Sciences Corporation.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements (Form S-8) of our report dated January 23, 1998, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of Document Sciences Corporation incorporated
by reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31,
1997.


                                        /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


San Diego, California
March 31, 1998
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk October 26, 2012

p1023 

# Order

October 26, 2012

145668

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 145668

COA: 303727

Jackson CC: 10

- 005752

- FC

AMANDA SUE BALL,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 19, 2012

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Town of East Haven et al. *v.*City of New Haven et al.

*Anthony V. JDeMayo,*for the plaintiffs.

*Roger J. Frechette,*for the defendants.

Submitted April 28

decided May 6, 1975

In accordance with, the stipulation of the parties and in light of the decision in the case of *United States*v. *New Haven,*496 F.2d 452 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. *East Haven*v. *United States,*419 U.S. 958, 95 S. Ct. 218, 42 L. Ed. 2d 174, it is ordered by the Supreme Court that this ease be remanded to the Superior Court in New Haven County with direction to render judgment denying the plaintiff’s prayer that the defendant be found in contempt.
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 Classic Bancshares, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Lisah M. Frazier, Chief Operations Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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.




Date: November 12, 2004                             /s/ Lisah M. Frazier
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Lisah M. Frazier
                                                    Chief Operations Officer and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer