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

San Antonio, Texas

January 29, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00014

- CV

Virginia BRETADO,

Appellant

v.

NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,

Appellee

From the 407th Judicial District C ourt, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- CI

- 09066

Honorable Antonia Arteaga, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice (not participating)

Patricia O. Alvarez (recused)

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 49.3 (“A motion for

rehearing may be granted by a majority of the justices who participated in the decision of the

case. Otherwise, it must be denied ).

I t is so ORDERED on this January, 2019

.

PER CURIAM

A TTESTED TO:

_____________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

        EXHIBIT 12 -- COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
             (COMBINED WITH 50%-OWNED UNCONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES)

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                2002    2001
           SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30 (In millions)               ----    ----
<S>                                                             <C>     <C>
Income from continuing operations...........................    $102    $ 74
Add
  Interest..................................................      47      57
  Portion of rentals representative of interest factor......       6       7
  Income tax expense and other taxes on income..............      68      53
                                                                ----    ----
  Earnings as defined.......................................    $223    $191
                                                                ====    ====
Interest....................................................    $ 47    $ 57
Interest capitalized........................................       2       2
Portion of rentals representative of interest factor........       6       7
                                                                ----    ----
  Fixed charges as defined..................................    $ 55    $ 66
                                                                ====    ====
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges..........................    4.05    2.89
                                                                ====    ====
</Table>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 246 (Friday, December 21, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 65949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-31538]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6624-8]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental 
Review Process (ERP), under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and 
Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act as amended. 
Requests for copies of EPA comments can be directed to the Office of 
Federal Activities at (202) 564-7167.
    An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental 
impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated May 18, 2001 (66 FR 
27647).

Draft EISs

    ERP No. D-COE-A39138-00 Rating **3, Programmatic EIS--Nationwide 
Permits Procedures Review and Examination, US Army Corps of Engineers 
Section 10 and 404 Permit Issuance.
    Summary: EPA believes the data used in the Draft PEIS and the 
methods used to analyze and draw conclusions from that data were 
inadequate, thereby preventing a full disclosure of potentially 
significant environmental impacts of the proposal. EPA recommended that 
the draft PEIS be formally revised and made available for public 
comment in a supplemental or revised draft PEIS.
    ERP No. D-USA-A10074-00 Rating EC2, Programmatic EIS--Army 
Transformation, Army Vision to Address the Changing Circumstances of 
the 21st Century, Transformation in three Phases: Initial Phase, 
Interim Capacibility Phase, and an Objective Force Phase.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding air, land 
use, water resources, and noise and requested additional information 
regarding impact analysis.

    Dated: December 18, 2001.
Joseph C. Montgomery,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 01-31538 Filed 12-20-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Dismiss and Opinion Filed July 25, 2013 

# S

In The Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-13-00131-CV JOHNNY RICH, Appellant V. GLENBROOK PLACE APARTMENTS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-00208-E
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Lang-Miers and Lewis Opinion by Chief Justice Wright The clerk’s record in this case is overdue . By letter dated June 13, 2013, we informed appellant that the County Clerk had notified the Court that the cl erk’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for or made arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to file written verification that he had paid for or made arrangements to pay for
the clerk’s record or that he had been found en titled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that if he did not file the required documentation within ten days, we might dismiss the appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not provided the required documentation or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of the clerk’s
record.–2– Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.3(b).

130131F.P05 /Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
JOHNNY RICH, Appellant
No. 05-13-00131-CV V. GLENBROOK PLACE APARTMENTS, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-00208-E. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. Justices Lang-Miers a nd Lewis participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

. It is ORDERED that appellee GLENBROOK PLACE APARTMENTS recover its costs of this appeal from appellant JOHNNY RICH.

Judgment entered July 25, 2013

/Carolyn Wright/ CAROLYN WRIGHT CHIEF JUSTICE
Certification of Chief 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 filing of the Annual Report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011 (the “Report”) by New Gold Inc. (the “Company”), I, Robert J. Gallagher, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge that:
 1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.
 
  Dated: March 26, 2012
  “Robert J. Gallagher”
 
 Robert J. Gallagher
 Chief Executive Officer
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shannon Michelle CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 10-30105.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 22, 2010.

Timothy John Racicot, Office of the U.S. Attorney, Missoula, MT, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

David F. Ness, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Defenders of Montana, Great Falls, MT, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

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

MEMORANDUM **

Shannon Michelle Clark appeals from her eight-month sentence imposed following revocation of probation. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Clark contends the district court failed to recognize that her alcohol abuse was caused by stressors in her life, and imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. The record reflects that the district court did not procedurally err and that, in light of the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not abuse its discretion because the sentence is substantively reasonable. *See Gall v. United States, 552*U.S. 38, 51, 128 S.Ct. 586, 169 L.Ed.2d 445 (2007); *see also United States v. Peters,*470 F.3d 907, 909 (9th Cir.2006) (per curiam) (stating that sentences imposed upon revocation of probation are reviewed for reasonableness).

Clark also challenges the special condition of supervised release that prohibits her from entering any establishment where alcohol is the primary item of sale unless granted permission by the probation office for employment purposes only. She argues that this condition is over-broad and unnecessarily interferes with her ability to earn a living as a dancer at gentlemen’s clubs and bars. The record indicates that this condition is narrowly tailored and is not a greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary to promote the goals of deterrence, protection of the public, and rehabilitation. *See United States v. Napulou,*593 F.3d 1041, 1044 (9th Cir.2010). Therefore, the district *203court did not plainly err. *See United States v. Vega,*545 F.3d 743, 747 (9th Cir.2008).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
#### Khaldoun KHATTAB, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 09-14748

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 3, 2010.

*375Khaldoun Khattab, for Appellant.

Joshua Isaac Bosin, Cynthia G. Burnside, Holland & Knight LLP, Laurie Webb Daniel, 1201 W. Peachtree St., Suite 2000, Atlanta, GA, for Appellee.

Before TJOFLAT, MARTIN and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In July 2004, Dr. Khaldoun Khattab began an internal medicine residency at Morehouse School of Medicine (“More-house”) for the academic year, 2004-2005. In June 2005, Morehouse decided not to renew his residency for the 2005-2006 academic year and therefore terminated his residency. Morehouse did so because it found serious deficiencies in Dr. Khattab’s performance.

In July 2006, Dr. Khattab brought this action against Morehouse claiming that, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Morehouse discriminated against him on the basis of his race, color, national origin, and religion1 through discriminatory work assignments, by harassing him in the work place, and in terminating his residency. He claimed that such discrimination continued after the termination in that Morehouse provided one or more other institutions with negative information that precluded him from finding another job in medicine. He also claimed that Morehouse slandered and defamed him in violation of state law.

Morehouse denied liability and following discovery moved the district court for summary judgment. The court referred the motion to a magistrate judge who, on July 14, 2009, issued a Report and Recommendation (“R & R”) recommending that the district court grant the motion. Dr. Khattab objected to the R & R. The district court overruled his objections, received the R *&*R with approval, and adopted it as the opinion of the court. Dr. Khattab now appeals.

We have carefully considered the magistrate judge’s R *&*R in light of Dr. Khattab’s arguments for reversal. We find that the magistrate judge’s comprehensive R & R of some 43 pages properly analyzed and disposed of Dr. Khattab’s claims, and therefore affirm the district court on the basis of the magistrate judge’s analysis.2

AFFIRMED.

1

. Dr. Khattab is Caucasian, a native of Syria, and a Muslim.

2

. In addition to challenging the district court's decision granting summary judgment, Dr. Khattab argues that the magistrate judge and the district court abused their discretion in striking his response to Morehouse’s motion for summary judgment for failing to comply with the court's local rules, and that the magistrate judge and the district court abused their discretion in not extending the time for the filing of his response to Morehouse’s motion. We find no abuse of discretion.
Skip to main content    

      Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission    

En Español

            - About FMSHRC               - News
              - Commissioners
              - Chairman and Commissioner Tenure
              - Administrative Law Judges
            - Guides               - Frequently Asked Questions
              - FOIA Guide
              - How a Case Proceeds Before the Commission
              - Guide to Commission Proceedings
              - Requests to Reopen
              - Instructions for Electronic Filing
              - Videoconference Hearings
              - Section 105(c)(3) Complaints
            - Decisions               - Review Commission Decisions
              - ALJ Decisions
              - Blue Books
            - Review Commission Arguments & Meetings               - Oral Arguments
              - Meetings
            - The Mine Act & Procedural Rules               - The Mine Act
              - Procedural Rules
              - Changes to Procedural Rules
            - FOIA               - Submit a FOIA Request
              - FOIA Guide
              - Rules
              - FOIA References
              - FOIA Library
              - FOIA Public Liaison
              - FOIA Reports
              - Proposed FOIA Rules
            - Reports & Budget Submissions               - Strategic Plans
              - Budget and Annual Performance Reports
              - Buy American Reports
              - Performance Accountability Reports
              - Sustainability Report
              - Reports to Congress
              - Contingency Plan
              - Reports to the President
            - Cases on Review               - Cases Currently on Review Before the Commission
              - Commission Decisions On Appeal
            - Contact Us

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-                   Secretary of Labor v. Big Ridge, Inc., Docket Nos. LAKE 2009-377, et al.              

#   Secretary of Labor v. Big Ridge, Inc., Docket Nos. LAKE 2009-377, et al.

meeting_022113.pdf

meeting_022113.mp3

##### Footer Links

-  EEO Policies 
-  No Fear Act Notice 
-  Employee Ethical Conduct 
-  Equal Access to Justice Act 
-  Motions to Approve Settlement 
-  Non-Discrimination 
-  Reasonable Accommodation Procedures 
-  Privacy Act 
-  Sunshine Act Regulations 
-  USA.gov 
-  FMSHRC Privacy Policy 
-  Vulnerability Disclosure Policy 

### The Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

#### 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW,Suite 520NWashington, DC 20004-1710Phone: 771-210-1887 TTY/TDD (202)434-4000 ext. 293E-mail: fmshrc@fmshrc.gov
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

January 30, 2017

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Wednesday, February 15, 2017

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will hear oral argument in the matter Secretary of 

Labor v. Canyon Fuel Company, LLC, Docket Nos. WEST 2015-

635, et al. (Issues include whether the Judge erred in concluding 

that the operator had violated standards governing the safety of 

alternative escapeways.)

Any person attending this oral argument who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

PHONE NUMBER

FOR LISTENING TO

ARGUMENT: 1-(866) 867-4769

Passcode: 129-339

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT




We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
33-24527, No. 33-65002, No. 33-65004, No. 33-58657 and No. 333-04169 of
Quiksilver, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report, dated December 19, 1997, appearing
in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Quiksilver, Inc. for the year ended
October 31, 1997.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Costa Mesa, California
January 26, 1998










                                       36
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           6,141
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  488,423
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     22,668
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               571,148
<PP&E>                                         496,123
<DEPRECIATION>                                  71,840
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,107,148
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,692,840
<BONDS>                                        155,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,515,203
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,255,895)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,107,148
<SALES>                                        991,569
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               991,569
<CGS>                                          802,849
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,190,801
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                92,676
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              92,676
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (979,814)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (979,814)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (979,814)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)
        

</TABLE>
```

[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 7, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 9337]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3197]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisition of Shares of Bank or 
Bank Holding Companies

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec. 225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company. 
The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth 
in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 181(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than February 22, 2001.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta (Cynthia C. Goodwin, Vice 
President) 104 Marietta Street, NW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-2713:
    1. Donald Howard Kay, Jr.; Martha Andrews Kay; Kyle Andrews Kay; 
and Rance Howard Kay, all of Ocala, Florida, to retain voting shares of 
ONB Financial Services, Inc., Ocala, Florida, and thereby indirectly 
retain voting shares of Ocala National Bank, Ocala, Florida.
    B. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (D. Michael Manies, 
Assistant Vice President) 925 Grand Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 
64198-0001:
    1. Glasnapp Family Limited Partnership I, Mission Hills, Kansas; to 
acquire voting shares of Bannister Bancshares, Inc., Kansas City, 
Missouri, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Bannister 
Bank & Trust, Kansas City, Missouri.

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 2, 2001.
Robert deV. Frierson
Associate Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 01-3197 Filed 2-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-M
```
#### Teresa FORD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee, and Miriam Fleming; Terry Ramsey; United States Army Corps of Engineers; Avis Budget Group, Inc.; Avis Rent a Car System, LLC; Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC, Defendants.

No. 15-1729.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Dec. 29, 2015.

Decided: Jan. 28, 2016.

David Pishko, Law Office of David Pish-ko, P.A., Winston-Salem, North Carolina, for Appellant. Jill Westmoreland Rose, Acting United States Attorney, Gill P. Beck, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Teresa Ford appeals the district court’s order entering judgment after a bench trial in favor of Appellee on Ford’s claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2761-2680 (2012). We have reviewed the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Ford v. United States,*No. 5:12-cv-00152-RLV-DSC, 2015 WL 2342391 (W.D.N.C. May 14, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          31,901
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         104,831
<DEPRECIATION>                                  74,148
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,067,316
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          188,511
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,732
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,862,073
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,067,316
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                10,893
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  137,439
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (126,546)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (126,546)
<DISCONTINUED>                                  12,959
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (113,587)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .01
        

</TABLE>