alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 550.214 What geological and geophysical (G&G) information must accompany the EP? The following G&G information must accompany your EP: ( a ) *Geological description.* A geological description of the prospect(s).
( b ) *Structure contour maps.* Current structure contour maps (depth-based, expressed in feet subsea) drawn on the top of each prospective hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir showing the locations of proposed wells.
( c ) *Two-dimensional (2-D) or three-dimensional (3-D) seismic lines.* Copies of migrated and annotated 2-D or 3-D seismic lines (with depth scale) intersecting at or near your proposed well locations. You are not required to conduct both 2-D and 3-D seismic surveys if you choose to conduct only one type of survey. If you have conducted both types of surveys, the Regional Supervisor may instruct you to submit the results of both surveys. You must interpret and display this information. Because of its volume, provide this information as an enclosure to only one proprietary copy of your EP.
( d ) *Geological cross-sections.* Interpreted geological cross-sections showing the location and depth of each proposed well.
( e ) *Shallow hazards report.* A shallow hazards report based on information obtained from a high-resolution geophysical survey, or a reference to such report if you have already submitted it to the Regional Supervisor.
( f ) *Shallow hazards assessment.* For each proposed well, an assessment of any seafloor and subsurface geological and manmade features and conditions that may adversely affect your proposed drilling operations.
( g ) *High-resolution seismic lines.* A copy of the high-resolution survey line closest to each of your proposed well locations. Because of its volume, provide this information as an enclosure to only one proprietary copy of your EP. You are not required to provide this information if the surface location of your proposed well has been approved in a previously submitted EP, DPP, or DOCD.
( h ) *Stratigraphic column.* A generalized biostratigraphic/lithostratigraphic column from the surface to the total depth of the prospect.
( i ) *Time-versus-depth chart.* A seismic travel time-versus-depth chart based on the appropriate velocity analysis in the area of interpretation and specifying the geodetic datum.
( j ) *Geochemical information.* A copy of any geochemical reports you used or generated.
( k ) *Future G&G activities.* A brief description of the types of G&G explorations and development G&G activities you may conduct for lease or unit purposes after your EP is approved.
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 19 - 00349 - CV IN THE ESTATE OF WANDA GAIL BETTS LAYFIELD, DECEASED

On Appeal from the County Court 1 Navarro County, Texas Trial Court No. P18839, Honorable Amanda D. Putman , Presiding



### December 20 , 2019 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and DOSS , JJ. Appellant Ricky Layfield filed a notice of appeal , pro se, from the trial court’s j udgment d eclaring h eirship and o rder appointing appellee Christian Betts as administrator of the estate of Wanda Gail Betts Layfield. Ricky also appeals from the “Proof of Death and Other Facts” filed by Christian in the trial court . We dismiss the purported appeal for want of jurisdiction.

1 Originally appealed to the Tenth Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. T EX . G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . § 73.001 (West 2013).2

Wanda died in 2018. In January of 2019, Christian filed an application to determine heirship and an application for letters of administration . The trial court held a h earing on the application s in March of 2019. Following the hearing, Ricky filed a motion for new trial. The trial court did not rule on Christian’s application s until August 30, 2019, when the court signed the judgment declaring heirship and order issuing l ette rs of administration. Ricky timely filed this appeal . How ever, o n October 1 8 , 2019, the trial court granted Ricky’s motion for new trial on both applications within its plenary power . T EX . R. C IV . P . 329b(a), (c), (e). We have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a final judgment or from an interlocutory order made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har - Con Corp ., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Stary v. DeBord , 967 S.W.2d 352, 352 – 53 (Tex. 1998) (per curia m). When a trial court grants a motion for new trial, the court’s original judgment or order is vacated and the case proceeds as if there had been no trial. Markowitz v. Markowitz , 118 S.W.3d 82, 88 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2003, pet. denied) . Thus, an order granting a new trial deprives an appellate court of jurisdiction over an appeal. In re K.F ., No. 07 - 08 - 00102 - CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 2068, at *2 (Tex. App. — Amarillo Mar. 19, 2008, no pet.) (mem. op.) ( citing Boris v. Boris , 642 S .W.2d 855, 856 (Tex. App. — Fort Worth 1982, no writ)). B y letter of October 29, 2019, we notified the parties that it did not appear we had jurisdiction over the appeal because the trial court granted a new trial . The letter also advised that the “Proof of Death and Other Facts” filed by Christian was not a judgment or order of the trial court. We directed the parties to show how we ha d jurisdiction over3

the appeal by November 8, or the appeal would be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Neither party responded to our letter . Based on our review of the record, we conclude we are without jurisdiction to review the appeal and dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.3(a). Per Curiam
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-81,283-02

EX PARTE JIMMY H. GREEN, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. 10CR3171 IN THE 122 DISTRICT COURT ND

FROM GALVESTON COUNTY

Per curiam.

O P I N I O N

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of driving while

intoxicated and sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. The First Court of Appeals affirmed

his conviction. Green v. State, No. 01-12-00029-CR (Tex. App.–Houston November 21, 2012). 

Applicant contends that his appellate counsel rendered ineffective assistance because counsel

failed to timely notify Applicant that he had a right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review.

Appellate counsel filed an affidavit with the trial court. Based on that affidavit and the
2

attached letter from counsel, this Court finds that counsel did not properly inform Applicant that he

had a right to file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Ex parte Wilson, 956 S.W.2d 25 (Tex.

Crim. App. 1997). 

We find, therefore, that Applicant is entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time petition

for discretionary review of the judgment of the First Court of Appeals in Cause No. 01-12-00029-CR

that affirmed his conviction in Cause No. 10CR3171 from the 122 District Court of Galveston nd

County. Applicant shall file his petition for discretionary review with this Court within 30 days of

the date on which this Court’s mandate issues. Applicant’s remaining claims are dismissed. Ex

Parte Torres, 943 S.W.2d 469 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997).

Delivered: July 23, 2014

Do not publish
§ 203.79 How do I appeal BSEE's decisions related to royalty relief for a deepwater lease or a development or expansion project? ( a ) Once we have designated your lease as part of a field and notified you and other affected operators of the designation, you can request reconsideration by sending the BSEE Director a letter within 15 days that also states your reasons. The BSEE Director's response is the final agency action.
( b ) Our decisions on your application for relief from paying royalty under § 203.67 and the royalty-suspension volumes under § 203.69 are final agency actions.
( c ) If you cannot start construction by the deadline in § 203.76(b) for reasons beyond your control (e.g., strike at the fabrication yard), you may request an extension up to 1 year by writing the BSEE Director and stating your reasons. The BSEE Director's response is the final agency action.
( d ) We will notify you of all final agency actions by certified mail, return receipt requested. Final agency actions are not subject to appeal to the Interior Board of Land Appeals under 30 CFR part 290 and 43 CFR part 4. They are judicially reviewable under section 10(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 702) *only* if you file an action within 30 days of the date you receive our decision.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001022174
<NAME> CLASS A
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                      18,899,816
<SECURITIES>                                13,050,129
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            51,702,886
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              51,702,886
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,385,281
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  50,317,605
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                51,702,886
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,333,154
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,917,771
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                415,383
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            415,383
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   415,383
<EPS-BASIC>                                       9.93
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     9.93


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Arthur J. Burt, Respondent, v W. M. Girvan, Inc., et al., Appellants. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

Appeals from decisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, filed November 24, 1976 and June 23, 1977. The board found that as a result of an industrial accident on May 6, 1974, the claimant had an over-all partial disability equal to 50% loss of earning capacity and that 50% of that disability was causally related to the industrial accident in question. Pursuant to that determination, an award was made at the rate of $56.86 per week. The average weekly wage of the claimant of $341.12 is undisputed. The 50% degree of over-all disability is undisputed. The determination that 50% of that disability, or 25% of the total disability, was causally related to the accidental injury is also undisputed. The sole issue before this court is the correct computation of the rate of compensation. Pursuant to the pertinent statutes, the board determined that with a 50% total disability, the claimant would be entitled to 50% of two thirds of $341.12 (his average weekly wage) or the sum of $113.71 (Workmen’s Compensation Law, §§ 14, 15, subd 5; § 15, subd 5-a). Since the carrier was only liable for one half of the 50% disability, the board found that the carrier was liable for one half of $113.71, and made the award of $56.86 per week. The carrier, on the *1109other hand, contends that if it, the carrier, were responsible for all of claimant’s disability, it would be responsible for $113.71. Since that sum exceeds the maximum rate of compensation of $80, the carrier would be required to pay $80. Since the carrier is only responsible for one half of claimant’s disability, it should pay one half of $80 or $40. We agree with the carrier’s contention and manner of computation. The court has previously considered this argument in *Matter of Burch v General Elec. Co.*(33 AD2d 613), in which it was stated: "Since two thirds of claimant’s average weekly wage of $144.75 was greater than $55 per week, [the maximum at that time] in the event of full liability on carrier’s part claimant would be entitled to said weekly maximum. But since appellant carrier’s liability was reduced in the proportion that causation should properly be assigned to the pre-existing condition, it is to be charged with only 50% of said weekly maximum liability, or $27.50 per week”. "The minimum compensation, like maximum liability, is to be reduced in the proportion that causation is assignable to the noncompensable injury” *(Matter of Pappas v Memorial Sloan Kettering Inst.,*37 AD2d 887; see *Matter of Murillo v Ogden Corp.,*51 AD2d 1085). Decisions reversed, with costs to appellants against the Workmen’s Compensation Board, and matter remitted for further proceedings not inconsistent herewith. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
Order entered July 30, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 15
- 00782
- CV FRISCO SQUARE DEVELO PERS, L.L.C., Appellant
V. GEARBOX SOFTWARE, L. L.C., Appellee On Appeal from the 429th Judicial District Court Collin Coun ty, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 429
- 02307
- 2015 

### O RDER
We GRANT appellant’s July 28, 2015 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appellant shall file a brief by AUGUST 20, 2015 . We caution appellant that no further extension of time w ill be granted in this accelerated absent extraordinary circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2070

HIEDA KEELER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DR. LAWRENCE CHANG; PARISER DERMATOLOGY; DR. DENNIS CRUFF; 

HAMPTON SENTARA SURGERY SPECIALISTS; HAMPTON SENTARA 

CAREPLEX; DR. BERNIE SKINNER; TIDEWATER DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen,

District Judge. (4:15-cv-00019-AWA-TEM)

Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 17, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hieda A. Keeler, Appellant Pro Se. Rodney Seth Dillman, 

HANCOCK, DANIEL, JOHNSON & NAGLE, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia; 

Dorinda Parkola Burton, Michael Todd Gerber, POOLE MAHONEY, PC, 

Virginia Beach, Virginia; Isaac Abraham McBeth, RAWLS, MCNELIS & 

MITCHELL, PC, Richmond, Virginia; Joseph Tedford McFadden, Jr.,

RAWLS, MCNELIS & MITCHELL, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Hieda A. Keeler appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. On appeal, we 

confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s 

brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Keeler’s informal brief 

does not challenge the basis for the district court’s 

disposition, Keeler has forfeited appellate review of the 

court’s order. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s 

judgment. 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
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.2

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


MAI Systems Corporation
Lake Forest, California


We hereby consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (Nos. 33-92194, 333-72412, 333-72414 and 333-72418) and Form S-3
(No. 333-57454) of MAI Systems Corporation (the "Company") of our report dated
April 14, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements which appears
in the Annual Report to Stockholders, which is incorporated in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our
report dated April 14, 2003 relating to the financial statement schedule, which
appears in this Form 10-K.


                              /s/ BDO Seidman LLP


Costa Mesa, California
April 23, 2003
### Bauxite in areas adjacent to and between the Springvale and Andersonville districts, Georgia

By: Alfred Dexter ZappLorin D. Clark

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1199H

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### § 57.11012 Protection for openings around travelways.

Openings above, below, or near travelways through which persons or materials may fall shall be protected by railings, barriers, or covers. Where it is impractical to install such protective devices, adequate warning signals shall be installed.
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1489

In re: ALEXANDER WHITE , Petitioner

.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus . ( 5:16

- hc

- 02188

- BO )

Submitted : August 23, 2018 Decided: August 27, 2018

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD , Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Alexander White , Petitioner Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Alexander White petition s for a writ of mandamus , seeking an order directing the district court to vacate its order dismissing White’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition . We
conclude that White is not entitled to mandamus relief.
Mandamus relief is a drasti c remedy and should be used only in extraordinary
circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976) ; United States v.
Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003) . Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a cl ear right to the relief sought. In re Norfolk S. Ry. Co. , 756
F. 3 d 282, 294 (4th Cir. 2014 )

. Mandamus may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007). The relief sought by White is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequ ately presented in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
PETITION DENIED
### SUBCHAPTER I—GENERAL PROVISIONS

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

A new organic act, or basic charter of civil government, for the people of the Virgin Islands of the United States, was passed in 1954. Act July 22, 1954, ch. 558, 68 Stat. 497, known as the Revised Organic Act of the Virgin Islands, is set out as section 1541 et seq. of this title. Section 8(c) of the Revised Organic Act, set out as section 1574(c) of this title, provides that laws of the United States, set out generally in this chapter, as well as local laws and ordinances, including provisions of the Organic Act of the Virgin Islands of the United States, act June 22, 1936, ch. 699, 49 Stat. 1807, section 1405 et seq. of this title, in force on July 22, 1954, and not inconsistent with act July 22, 1954, are to remain in force and effect until otherwise changed.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Additional Provisions

For additional provisions, constituting a revision of the Organic Act of the Virgin Islands of the United States, see section 1541 et seq. of this title.

#### Delegate to Congress From Virgin Islands

Provisions respecting representation in Congress by a Delegate from Virgin Islands to the House of Representatives, see section 1711 et seq. of this title.
#### § 56.7805 Smoking and open flames.

Persons shall not smoke and open flames shall not be used in the vicinity of the oxygen storage and supply lines. Signs warning against smoking and open flames shall be posted in these areas.
#### § 56.6701 Tamping and loading pole requirements.

Tamping and loading poles shall be of wood or other nonconductive, nonsparking material. Couplings for poles shall be nonsparking.
§ 47.72 Cost for copies. ( a ) The operator must provide the first copy and each revision of the HazCom material without cost.
( b ) Fees for a subsequent copy of the HazCom material must be non-discriminatory and reasonable.
§ 18.61 Final inspection of complete machine. ( a ) A completely assembled new machine or a substantially modified design of a previously approved one shall be inspected by a qualified representative(s) of MSHA. When such inspection discloses any unsafe condition or any feature not in strict conformance with the requirements of this part it shall be corrected before an approval of the machine will be issued. A final inspection will be conducted at the site of manufacture, rebuilding, or other locations at the option of MSHA.
( b ) Complete machines shall be inspected for: ( 1 ) Compliance with the requirements of this part with respect to joints, lead entrances, and other pertinent features.
( 2 ) Wiring between components, adequacy of mechanical protection for cables, adequacy of clamping of cables, positioning of cables, particularly with respect to proximity to hydraulic components.
( 3 ) Adequacy of protection against damage to headlights, push buttons, and any other vulnerable component.
( 4 ) Settings of overload- and short-circuit protective devices.
( 5 ) Adequacy of means for connecting and protecting portable cable.