alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Breadcrumb

-  Eastern Ecological Science Center 

#           EESC Upcoming Events      

      By Eastern Ecological Science Center

-  Home 
-  Science 
-  Data 
-  Maps 
-  Multimedia 
-  Publications 
-  Web Tools 
-  Software 
-  News 
-  Connect 
-  Partners 
-  About 

Join us for EESC's Free Annual Earth Day Open House Event at the Leetown Research Laboratory will be held on Sunday, April 28, 2024! 

**Join us for our FREE Annual Earth Day Open House**

**When: Sunday, April 28, 2024 **

**Time: 1:00 - 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time**

**Where: 11649 Leetown Road, Kearneysville, WV 25430**

**The U.S. Geological Survey Eastern Ecological Science Center will be hosting a free family friendly Earth Day Open House Event. Join us for demonstrations that highlight science and activities happening at the center. ****Events include a bug bonanza, learning about the Breeding Bird Survey, Amphibian Research in the Northeast, eDNA applications, life in fish, crafts and more. **

**No registration required. All are welcome to attend.**

View Media Details
Opinion issued June 18, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00332-CV

———————————

VESTALIA, LTD., Appellant

V.

ADONIS F. TAYLOR-WATSON AND LARRY J. WATSON, JR., Appellees

On Appeal from the 215th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 2014-73484

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Vestalia, Ltd., has filed a petition for permissive interlocutory 

appeal, seeking to challenge an interlocutory order denying Vestalia’s amended 
2

motion for summary judgment. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014 

(Vernon 2015); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3. We deny the petition.

To be entitled to a permissive appeal from an interlocutory order that would 

not otherwise be appealable, the requesting party must establish that (1) the order 

to be appealed involves a “controlling question of law as to which there is a 

substantial ground for difference of opinion” and (2) an immediate appeal from the 

order “may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.” TEX. CIV.

PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d) (Vernon 2015); see TEX. R. APP. P.

28.3(e)(4); TEX. R. CIV. P. 168.

Here, Vestalia has not established that the order in issue involves a 

controlling question of law. “When a trial court in its order on a motion for 

summary judgment provides no basis for its denial, the trial court fails to make [a] 

substantive ruling on the controlling question of law sought to be appealed.” Great 

Am. E&S Ins. Co. v. Lapolla Indus., Inc., No. 01-14-00372-CV, 2014 WL 

2895770, at *2 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] June 24, 2014, no pet.) (mem. 

op.). Although finding that the order “involve[d] questions of law as to which there 

is a substantial ground for difference of opinion” and listing four questions, the 

trial court denied Vestalia’s summary judgment motion without explanation. Thus, 

the order does not involve a controlling question of law, and section 51.014(d) 

does not authorize an interlocutory appeal. See Great Am. E&S Ins. Co., 2014 WL 
3

2895770, at *2 (citing TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d) (Vernon 

2015)). In addition, because the trial court did not rule on a controlling question of 

law, Vestalia in turn does not address in its motion the substantial difference of 

opinion that exists as to the determination of that question. 

Accordingly, we deny Vestalia’s petition.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Brown.
Case 7:07-cv-03602-CS-GAY Document 16 Filed 06/18/2008 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 32.1

**CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OFTHE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

****

            In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Vanguard Health Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterly period ended December 31, 2004 (the “Report”), I,Charles N. Martin, Jr., Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, for the purpose of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”),as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

            (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                       of the Exchange Act; 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/ Charles N. Martin, Jr.                      Charles N. Martin, Jr.Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive OfficerFebruary 10, 2005
#                                                                          USNS COMFORT COMPLETES ITS THIRD MISSION STOP OF CP 2022 IN COLOMBIA                                                                    

##### by Petty Officer 2nd Class Juel Foster

25 November 2022CARTAGENA, Colombia  -- 

                221118-N-VQ41-1133 CARTAGENA, Colombia (Nov. 18, 2022) Gen. Laura J. Richardson, commander of U.S. Southern Command, speaks to U.S. and Colombian service members and officials during a closing ceremony signaling the end of the Colombia portion of Continuing Promise 2022 on the pier next to hospital ship USNS Comfort (T-AH 20), Nov. 18, 2022. Comfort is deployed to U.S. 4th Fleet in support of Continuing Promise 2022, a humanitarian assistance and goodwill mission conducting direct medical care, expeditionary veterinary care, and subject matter expert exchanges with five partner nations in the Caribbean, Central and South America. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Ethan J. Soto)            

                221118-N-VQ841-1133            

SHARE IMAGE:

Download Image

Image Details

Photo By: Petty Officer 2nd Class Ethan So

VIRIN: 221118-N-VQ841-1133

                CARTAGENA, Colombia (Nov. 18, 2022) Sailors attached to hospital ship USNS Comfort (T-AH 20) and the Colombian navy present their nation's flags during a closing ceremony signaling the end of the Colombia portion of Continuing Promise 2022 on the pier next to Comfort, Nov. 18, 2022. Comfort is deployed to U.S. 4th Fleet in support of Continuing Promise 2022, a humanitarian assistance and goodwill mission conducting direct medical care, expeditionary veterinary care, and subject matter expert exchanges with five partner nations in the Caribbean, Central and South America. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Ethan J. Soto)            

                221118-N-VQ841-1011            

SHARE IMAGE:

Download Image

Image Details

Photo By: MC2 Ethan Soto

VIRIN: 221118-N-VQ841-1011

Tags:
**Navy medicine**USNS Comfort**continuing promise**Colombia
## Breadcrumb

-  about 
-  Doing Business 

#           Partners and Cooperators      

## We monitor, assess, map, and conduct targeted scientific research

### so that policy makers and the public have the understanding they need to address complex environmental, natural resource, and public safety issues.

Connect with Us

-  About 
-  About Us 
-  Survey Manual 
-  Key Officials 
-  Organization 
-  Congressional 
-  Budget 
-  Careers and Employees 
-  Doing Business     -  Acquisitions and Financial Assistance 
  -  Partners and Cooperators 
  -  Building Partnerships 
-  Emergency Management 
-  Documents 
-  Emergency Management Resources 

Given the increasingly global nature of the world’s natural science problems, we use international partnerships to conduct a variety of science worldwide. Both foreign and domestic organizations help with our global outreach.

#### Alaska Department of Natural Resources - Mining, Land and Water Division

#### Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil and Gas

#### Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities

#### Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys (DGGS)

#### Alaska Earthquake Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks

#### Alaska Harmful Algal Bloom Network 

#### Alaska Pacific University

#### Alaska Pacific University

#### Alaska Power and Telephone

#### Alaska Railroad

#### Alaska SeaLife Center

#### Alaska Volcano Observatory (AVO)

#### Pagination

-  First page« First 
-  Previous page‹ Previous 
-                Page            1 
-                Page            2 
-                Page            3 
-                Current page            4 
-                Page            5 
-                Page            6 
-                Page            7 
-                Page            8 
-                Page            9 
- …
-  Next pageNext › 
-  Last pageLast »
#                                                                         Fleet Forces, Installations Conduct Force Protection Exercise                                                                    

##### by Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command and Commander, Navy Installations Command

01 February 2021NORFOLK, Va.  -- 

            SLIDESHOW | 2 images | 200203-N-EJ843-0042                    200203-N-EJ843-0042 GROTON, Conn. (Feb. 3, 2020) A Sailor assigned to the military working dog unit at Naval Submarine Base New London helps block off a perimeter during a simulated suspicious package training event in support of exercise Citadel Shield-Solid Curtain 2020. Exercise Citadel Shield-Solid Curtain 2020 is a two-part, force protection exercise that is being conducted nationwide on Navy installations, Feb. 3-14. The annual exercise is not in response to any specific threat, but is used to evaluate the readiness of fleet and installation security programs. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Jimmy Ivy III/Released)        

                    200203-N-EJ843-0042                                            1 of 2                    
                        Download Image                                            Image Details                    

                    200204-N-OM854-0008                                            2 of 2                    
                        Download Image                                            Image Details                    

https://www.usff.navy.mil https://www.cnic.navy.milwww.facebook.com/usfleetforceswww.twitter.com/usfleetforceswww.facebook.com/navyinstallationswww.twitter.com/navyinstallations

Tags:
**U.S. Fleet Forces Command**USFFC**Commander Navy Installations Command**CNIC**Homeland Defense**Force Protection**Solid Curtain**Citadel Shield**Citadel Shield Solid Curtain**Anti-Terrorism

Terms:
**Capabilities and Communities
National Fire Academy

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________________

Managing Officer Program

Capstone Certification Statement

Certification Statement

I hereby certify that my capstone project constitutes my own product, that where the language of 

others is set forth, quotation marks so indicate, and that appropriate credit is given where I have used 

the language, ideas, expressions or writings of another.

Signed: 

Date: 

I hereby certify that the capstone project has been completed within six months of its start date and 

that the project meets my approval.

Signed: 

(Fire Chief or Agency Director)

Date: 

Upon completion, please submit the signed original via email to:

tina.crevier@fema.dhs.gov 

Managing Officer Program Administrator
#### Irving J. Litwak et al., Respondents, v Crown Beverages Corp. et al., Appellants.

— In an action to recover on promissory notes, the defendants appeal from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robbins, J.), dated August 4, 1986, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, and (2) a judgment of the same court, dated September 15, 1986, which is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal amount of $120,000.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision, and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, and the motion is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs. The plaintiffs’ time to serve a complaint is extended until 20 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry, and the defendants shall serve their answer within 20 days after service of the complaint.

The defendants’ claim of alteration of the subject promissory notes is a viable defense to the plaintiffs’ claim *(see,*UCC 3-407; *Himan v King Bear Auto Serv. Centers,*62 AD2d 1010; *Trophy Prods. v Smith,*41 AD2d 817). The affidavits in opposition to the motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint raised a factual issue which the court determined in the plaintiffs’ favor after an examination of the original notes. The province of a court on a motion for summary judgment is issue finding rather than issue determination. Here, the factual question raised by the affidavits submitted by the defendants could only be determined at a trial *(see, Christie’s [Intl.] v Gugliarda,*65 AD2d 714, *mod*67 AD2d 854). The court should, accordingly, have denied the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint. Kunzeman, J. P., Kooper, Spatt and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, January 17, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, January 17, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17I0118. EMORY UNIVERSITY, INC. d/b/a EMORY UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL et al. v. NEUROCARE.
Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 11A36471
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

FAUSTO JIMENEZ,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73028

Agency No. A092-445-131

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted October 11, 2013**

Pasadena, California

Before: PAEZ and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSON, Chief District

Judge.***

FILED

OCT 21 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, Chief District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the District of North Dakota, sitting by designation.
Fausto Jimenez (“Jimenez”), a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for

review of a final administrative removal order. We dismiss the petition for review in

part and deny in it part. 

We lack jurisdiction over Jimenez’s claims concerning the Attorney General’s

decision to place him in expedited removal, his classification as an aggravated felon,

his lawful permanent resident status, and his right to apply for relief from removal. 

Jimenez failed to exhaust these claims before the Deciding Service Officer, as allowed

by 8 C.F.R. § 238.1(c). See Barron v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 674, 678 (9th Cir. 2003); 8

U.S.C. § 1252(d)(1) (“A court may review a final order of removal only if . . . the

alien has exhausted all administrative remedies available to the alien as of right.”).

Although we have jurisdiction to consider Jimenez’s constitutional challenge

to the Attorney General’s authority to place him in expedited removal proceedings,

8 U.S.C. § 1228(b), that claimis foreclosed by United States v. Calderon–Segura, 512

F.3d 1104 (9th Cir. 2008).

Jimenez’s motion to file a supplemental brief is denied.

DISMISSED IN PART; DENIED IN PART; MOTION TO FILE

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF DENIED.

2
Case 1:07-cv-05351-AKH Document 34 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-05351-AKH Document 34 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 2 of 2
* 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 April 20, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-31110 Conference Calendar

CLARENCE SAMUELS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus LONNIE HAY; RAY HANSON, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 5:04-CV-1100-SMH

-------------------- Before JONES, SMITH, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Clarence Samuels, Louisiana prisoner # 133005, appeals from the district court’s dismissal with prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). If his appellate brief is afforded liberal construction, Samuels contends that the district court abused its discretion in dismissing his claims as frivolous. First, Samuels challenges the determination that his lost property claim was not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For purposes of his claimNo. 04-31110 -2- that prison guards interfered with his attempts to obtain relief through the state administrative grievance process, Samuels raises an exhaustion argument, contending that the actions of the prison guards delayed his ability to pursue federal relief. Finally, Samuels argues, for the first time, that the prison guards acted with retaliatory intent. New allegations may not be raised and will not be addressed for the first time on appeal. Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co. , 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). Accordingly, we decline consideration of Samuels’s retaliation argument. As determined by the district court, Samuels’s argument concerning the confiscation of his radio headphones fails because Louisiana provides a post-deprivation remedy for property loss.
See Parratt v. Taylor , 451 U.S. 527, 541-44 (1981); Hudson v. Palmer , 468 U.S. 517, 533 (1984); L A . C IV . C ODE A NN . art 2315 (West 1997). Similarly, Samuels fails to show that the district court abused its discretion when rejecting his allegations of denied access to the state administrative grievance procedure. See
Newsome v. EEOC , 301 F.3d 227, 231 (5th Cir. 2002). Samuels’s appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed as frivolous. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2; see also Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Samuels is cautioned that the district court’s dismissal of his complaint and this court’s dismissal of his appeal count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5thNo. 04-31110 -3- Cir. 1996). Samuels is further cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
EXHIBIT 32.1



Section 1350 Certifications



I, Alan D. Feldman, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to my knowledge:



| | (i) | The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 27, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Midas, Inc.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                             
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Alan D. Feldman                                                          
|                                                                             
|Alan D. Feldman President and Chief Executive Officer Date: November 11, 2003



I, William M. Guzik, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that, to my knowledge:



| | (i) | The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 27, 2003 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | The information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Midas, Inc.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                          
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ William M. Guzik                                                                      
|                                                                                          
|William M. Guzik Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Date: November 11, 2003
Order entered October 30, 2018

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 17
- 00770
- CV DOW JONES & COMPANY, INC., Appellant

V. HIGHLAND CAPITAL MAN AGEMENT, L.P., AND P ATRICK DAUGHERTY, Appellee s On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 12
- 04005



### O RDER Before the Court is appellee Highland Capital Management, L.P.’s unopposed Motion to Substitute Counsel. We GRANT Highland Capital’s M otion to Substitute Counsel

. We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to remove Marc D. Katz, Crystal J. Woods, Adam H. Pierson and DLA Piper LLP , located at 1717 Main Street, Suite 4600, Dallas, Texas 75201 as counsel for Highland Capital Man agement, L.P. We further DIRECT the Clerk to send future communications to Highland Capital Management, L.P. through its substitute counsel Michael K. Hurst, Lynn Pinker Cox Hurst, LLP, at 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2 7 00, Dallas, Texas 7520 1

./s/ DAVID J. SC HENCK JUSTICE
Case 1:07-cv-05345-AKH Document 11 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 1 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05345-AKH Document 11 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 2 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05345-AKH Document 11 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 3 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05345-AKH Document 11 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 4 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05345-AKH Document 11 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 5 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05345-AKH Document 11 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 6 of 7Case 1:07-cv-05345-AKH Document 11 Filed 10/15/2007 Page 7 of 7