alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 18.

#### Hunter M. Meriwether et al., Plaintiffs in Error, *v.*Annie B. Wood et al.

In error to the Supreme Court of the State of Kansas. October 22, 1908. Dismissed with costs on motion of counsel for the plaintiffs in error. *Mr. Frank Doster*for plaintiffs in error. No appearance for defendants in error.
✎AO 85 (Rev. 8/98) Notice, Consent, and Order of Reference — Exercise of Jurisdiction by a United States Magistrate Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

District of

NOTICE, CONSENT, AND ORDER OF REFERENCE —

EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES

Plaintiff MAGISTRATE JUDGE

V.

Case Number:

Defendant

NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY OF A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(c), and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, you are notified that a United States

magistrate judge of this district court is available to conduct any or all proceedings in this case including a jury or nonjury trial,

and to order the entry of a final judgment. Exercise of this jurisdiction by a magistrate judge is, however, permitted only if all

parties voluntarily consent.

You may, without adverse substantive consequences, withhold your consent, but this will prevent the court’s jurisdiction

from being exercised by a magistrate judge. If any party withholds consent, the identity of the parties consenting or withholding

consent will not be communicated to any magistrate judge or to the district judge to whom the case has been assigned.

An appeal from a judgment entered by a magistrate judge shall be taken directly to the United States court of appeals for

this judicial circuit in the same manner as an appeal from any other judgment of this district court.

CONSENT TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

In accordance with provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73, the parties in this case consent to have a United

States magistrate judge conduct any and all proceedings in this case, including the trial, order the entry of a final judgment, and

conduct all post-judgment proceedings.

Party Represented Signatures Date

ORDER OF REFERENCE

IT IS ORDERED that this case be referred to

United States Magistrate Judge, to conduct all proceedings and order the entry of judgment in accordance with 28 U.S.C.

§636(c) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 73.

Date United States District Judge

NOTE: RETURN THIS FORM TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT ONLY IF ALL PARTIES HAVE CONSENTED 

ON THIS FORM TO THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Case 7:07-cv-05832-KMK-GAY Document 3-3 Filed 06/20/2007 Page 1 of 1
Case 7:07-cv-05832-KMK-GAY Document 13 Filed 10/03/2007 Page 1 of 1
## Breadcrumb

-  Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center  

#           Eyes on Earth Episode 35 – Watching the Water Supply with OpenET      

      By Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center 

## Eyes on Earth

Get every episode

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

Eyes on Earth is a podcast on remote sensing, Earth observation, land change and science, brought to you by the USGS Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS) Center. In this episode, we hear about a partnership that aims to simplify and share critical water use data for the Western U.S.

View Media Details

View

Download and Transcript Access

View Media Details

**Summary**: Evapotranspiration is the process by which water transpires from the leaves and stems of plants and evaporates from the Earth’s surface. ET is an important metric for managing water use, but data availability has long been an issue. On this episode of Eyes on Earth, we talk about OpenET, a bold initiative whose goal is to improve water management by making that water consumption data more easily accessible to 17 western states. A consortium of agencies and organizations is working together to create a “one-stop shop” where users can access remotely sensed water consumption models on a single web-based platform.

**Guests**: Robyn Grimm, Environmental Defense Fund, Forrest Melton, NASA/Cal State University-Monterey Bay, Justin Huntington, Desert Research Institute, Gabriel Senay, USGS EROS

**Host**: Steve Young

**Producer**: John Hult

**Release date**: October 5, 2020

**More on OpenET**: 
                            - Agencies Announce Bold Initiative to Fill Water Management Data Gap in Western U.S.
                            - OpenET website
                            - Eyes on Earth Episode 17 – Evapotranspiration

### Contacts
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 1 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 2 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 3 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 4 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 5 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 6 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 7 of 8
Case 1:07-cv-05366-AKH Document 6 Filed 08/06/2007 Page 8 of 8
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                         JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                 2,021,399
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                              1,050
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                       2,031,260
<PP&E>                                   184,115
<DEPRECIATION>                            47,595
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         2,936,375
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    146,833
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                               5,491,483
<OTHER-SE>                             2,801,941
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           2,936,375
<SALES>                                   35,113
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          35,113
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                            484,577
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (427,167)
<INCOME-TAX>                               1,716
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (428,883)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                            (428,883)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                              (0.03)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Tyrone Jones, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lakritz, J.), rendered December 14, 1987, convicting him of murder in the second degree, manslaughter in the first degree, attempted robbery in the first degree (two counts), attempted robbery in the second degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Specifically, there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction of felony murder based on the evidence of the defendant’s participation in the attempted robbery. According to the defendant’s own statement, although he was not feeling well and wanted to go home, he *591voluntarily accompanied a friend and two others, after his friend specifically stated that they were going to "make some money” by looking for someone or something to "rip off”. At the time, the defendant knew that his friend was armed, and there was some evidence that he himself was armed. There was also evidence that, after the incident, the defendant took the weapons used during the commission of the offense to his mother’s house. The jury could have properly concluded from this testimony that the defendant’s intention was to commit the robbery *(see, People v Bosque,*78 AD2d 986).

We note also that the defendant was not entitled to a circumstantial evidence charge because one witness testified that the defendant had admitted participation in the robbery and the shoot-out which resulted in the victim’s death. That testimony constituted some direct evidence of guilt despite the fact that the witness in. question admitted to making a prior inconsistent statement, attributing the confession to another.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, and find them to be without merit. Rubin, J. P., Spatt, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

January 17, 2023

No. 04-23-00060-CR

IN RE Jose GARCIA-VAQUERA

Original Mandamus Proceeding

ORDER

Sitting: Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela, Justice

On January 17, 2023, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and an emergency

motion to stay pending final resolution of the petition for writ of mandamus. This court believes

a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further

consideration. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). Respondent and real party in interest may file a

response to the petition in this court no later than February 6, 2023. Any such response must

conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4.

Relator’s emergency motion for temporary stay is GRANTED IN PART as follows:

1. All pretrial settings requiring relator’s in-person appearance are STAYED 

pending further order from this court. Pretrial settings that do not require relator’s 

in-person appearance may proceed.

2. The January 23, 2023 trial setting is STAYED pending further order from this 

court. 

It is so ORDERED January17, 2023.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:__________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT
Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS     Document 19      Filed 07/15/2008     Page 1 of 9

Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS     Document 19      Filed 07/15/2008     Page 2 of 9

Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS     Document 19      Filed 07/15/2008     Page 3 of 9

Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS     Document 19      Filed 07/15/2008     Page 4 of 9

Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS     Document 19      Filed 07/15/2008     Page 5 of 9

Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS     Document 19      Filed 07/15/2008     Page 6 of 9

Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS     Document 19      Filed 07/15/2008     Page 7 of 9

Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS     Document 19      Filed 07/15/2008     Page 8 of 9

Case 7:07-cv-05926-CS     Document 19      Filed 07/15/2008     Page 9 of 9
Case 1:07-cr-00554-WHP Document 14-5 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

IN RE LOWER MANHATTAN DISASTER 

SITE LITIGATION 

 21 MC 102 (AKH) 

 

ROSA CULCAY, 07-CV-05346 (AKH) 

 

Plaintiff, 

 

-againstNOTICE OF DEFENDANT VERIZON 

NEW YORK INC.’S ADOPTION OF 

ANSWER TO MASTER COMPLAINT 

VERIZON NEW YORK INC., 

et al.

 

 

Defendants. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Defendant Verizon New York Inc. (“Verizon”) 

hereby adopts as its Answer in the instant case its Answer to Plaintiffs’ Master Complaint which 

was filed and served on October 16, 2007 in the matter of In re World Trade Center Lower 

Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). In accordance with Case Management 

Order No. 4, the allegations of the instant Check-Off Complaint are deemed to be denied. 

Verizon also incorporates by reference all averments and denials of its Answer to Plaintiffs’ 

Master Complaint as though same were more fully set forth herein at length. Verizon further 

adopts the responses contained in any Amended Answer filed and served herein. 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that Verizon reserves the right to file and 

serve an amended answer and specifically reserves the right to interpose cross-claims and thirdparty claims. 

WHEREFORE, Verizon demands judgment dismissing the above-captioned 

action as against Verizon, together with its cost and disbursements. 

Case 1:07-cv-05346-AKH Document 11 Filed 12/10/2007 Page 1 of 2
 2 

Dated: November 26, 2007 /s/ Eric F. Leon 

Eric F. Leon 

Lee Ann Stevenson 

Andrew Dunlap 

Michael D. Reisman 

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 

Citigroup Center 

153 East 53rd Street 

New York, New York 10022-4611 

Telephone: (212) 446-4800 

Facsimile: (212) 446-4900 

Attorneys for Defendant Verizon New York Inc.

TO: Christopher LoPalo, Esq. 

WORBY GRONER EDELMAN & NAPOLI BERN, LLP 

115 Broadway, 12th Floor 

New York, New York 10006 

 Robert A. Grochow, Esq. 

ROBERT A. GROCHOW, P.C. 

233 Broadway, 5th Floor 

New York, New York 10279 

 Gregory J. Cannata, Esq. 

LAW OFFICES OF GREGORY J. CANNATA 

233 Broadway, 5th Floor 

New York, New York 10279 

Liaison Counsel for Plaintiffs 

 Marc D. Weinblatt, Esq. 

SANDERS, SANDERS, BLOCK, WOYICK, VIENER & GROSSMAN, P.C. 

100 Herricks Road 

Mineola, New York 11501 

 David Kremen, Esq. 

OSHMAN & MIRISOLA, LLP 

42 Broadway, 10th Floor 

New York, NY 10004 

 

All Defense Counsel (via ECF)

Case 1:07-cv-05346-AKH Document 11 Filed 12/10/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Patrick Scotti, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Browne, J.), rendered January 7, 1986, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, arson in the first degree, robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of that branch of the defendant’s omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Most of the issues raised by the defendant on this appeal have been considered and rejected by this court on the appeal of his codefendant Christopher Peters *(see, People v Peters,*136 AD2d 750).

In view of the defendant’s extensive history of criminal behavior and the seriousness of the crimes which evince his utter disregard for human life, we decline to reduce the sentences imposed in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction *(see, People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80, 85-86; *People v Roman,*84 AD2d 851).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
Case 1:07-cv-05866-LTS Document 7 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 1 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05866-LTS Document 7 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 2 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05866-LTS Document 7 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 3 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05866-LTS Document 7 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 4 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05866-LTS Document 7 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 5 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05866-LTS Document 7 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 6 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05866-LTS Document 7 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 7 of 7
Case 1:07-cv-05717-SAS     Document 3      Filed 09/10/2007     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-05763-JSR     Document 31      Filed 09/24/2007     Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT
13.2





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 annual report of ChineseWorldNet.com, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kelvin Fu Szeto,
Chief Operating Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:





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





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.





Dated:
 June [26], 2009





/s/
      Kelvin Fu SzetoKelvin
      Fu SzetoChief
      Operating Officer and Chief Financial
Officer
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 28 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05785-PAC Document 28 Filed 08/17/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05551-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05551-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 2 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05551-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 3 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05551-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 4 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05551-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 5 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05551-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 6 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05551-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 7 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05551-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 8 of 9Case 1:07-cv-05551-AKH Document 11 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 9 of 9
October 31, 2005

VIA FACSIMILE AND E-MAIL

Office of the Secretariat

Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Three Lafayette Centre

1155 21st Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20581

Re: Rule Certifications. New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. Submission
#05.196: Amendment of NYMEX Rule 2.50

Dear CFTC Commissioners:

The New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) is notifying the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission (“Commission”) that it is amending NYMEX Rule 2.50. Pursuant to Section 5c(c) of
the Commodity Exchange Act (“Act”) and CFTC Rule 40.6, the Exchange hereby certifies that the
attached amendments comply with the Act, including regulations under the Act; these rule changes will be
made effective on November 2, 2005.

Should you have any questions concerning the above, please contact the undersigned at (212)
299-2207.

Very truly yours,

Brian J. Regan
Vice President and Counsel

Att.


NOTIFICATION OF AMENDMENTS TO NYMEX RULE 2.50
(“TRANSFER OF MEMBERSHIPS”)

(Underlining indicates additions; strike-outs indicate deletions.)
Rule 2.50 — Transfer of Memberships

(Sections (A) — (B)(iii) remain unchanged)

(iv) If the transferor, trustee or any subsequent trustee exercises, in his
own name, the floor trading privileges associated with said membership, the
membership will be treated as the asset of the transferor, trustee or any
subsequent trustee for the purposes of satisfying any obligations to the
Exchange or its Members arising out of the transferor’s, trustee’s or subsequent

trustee's suse © of the membership. The trustee shall have the Fights, duties and

(Sections 2.50 (B)(v) — (3)(iii) remain unchanged.

(iv) If the transferor, managing general partner or any subsequent
managing general partner exercises, in his own name, the floor trading privileges
associated with said membership, the membership will be treated as the asset of
the transferor, managing general partner or any subsequent managing general
partner for the purposes of satisfying any obligations to the Exchange or its
Members arising out of the transferor’s, managing general partner's or
Subsequent managing general Partners us use of the membership. The managing

(The remainder of Rule 2.50 remains unchanged.)
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

 

I,George E. Crapple, the Co-Chief Executive Officer of Millburn RidgefieldCorporation, the Managing Owner of Global Macro Trust (the “Trust”), certifythat (i) the Annual Report of the Trust on Form 10-K for the period endingDecember 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information containedin such Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Trust.

 

 
| Date:  | March  30, 2006                               |   |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|   |
|   | /s/George  E. Crapple                         |   |
|   |    George  E. Crapple          |
|   |    Co-Chief  Executive Officer |

 

----
Case 1:07-cv-05805-RJS-AJP Document 10 Filed 11/15/2007 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit
32.1





Certification of Principal
Executive Officer


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 SRKP 15, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September
30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Richard A. Rappaport, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.
1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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
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/ Richard A.
    RappaportRichard
      A. RappaportPrincipal
      Executive OfficerNovember
      12, 2010
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-12-00112-CV

Premier Ambulatory Surgery of Austin, L.L.P. d/b/a

South Austin Surgery Center, Appellant

v.

Sandra Pellerin, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-11-002325, HONORABLE RHONDA HURLEY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Premier Ambulatory Surgery of Austin, L.L.P. d/b/a South Austin

Surgery Center no longer wishes to pursue its appeal and has filed an Unopposed Motion for

Voluntary Dismissal. Appellant’s counsel states that he has conferred with counsel for appellee

Sandra Pellerin, who does not oppose this motion. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. 

Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).

__________________________________________

Jeff Rose, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Rose

Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion

Filed: April 25, 2012