alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Mark Allen McDaniel, Appellant

No. 06

- 11

- 00171

- CR v.
The State of Texas, Appellee Appeal from the 336th District Court of Fannin County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. CR

- 10

- 23446 ). Opinion delivere d by Justice Moseley, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice Carter participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court

below

. We affirm the judgment of the trial co urt

. We note that the appellant, Mark Allen McDaniel, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED DE CEMBER 18, 2012 BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
Filed 10/10/13 P. v. Gaston CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHAREE GASTON,

Defendant and Appellant. B245854

(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA090315)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superi or Court of Los Angeles County. James Pierce, Judge. Affirmed.

Penners Bergen and Ann Bergen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.2 Appellant Charee Gaston appeals from a j udgment of conviction after a jury found him guilty on count one of second degree robber y. Counts two and three were dismissed. Appellant had suffered four pr ior prison convictions. The tr ial court sentenced appellant to seven years in state prison, awarded pres entence conduct credits, and imposed fees and fines. His appointed counse l filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 ( Wende )

, raising no issues. We notified appella nt he could file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the da te his counsel filed the Wende brief. Appellant has not filed a supplemental brief. We affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS While victim Romero was sitting in hi s truck at a 76 gas station he was approached by appellant who offered to sell him a laptop. Romero refused stating he could not afford one. Appellant then asked Romero for some change . Romero gave him some pennies and nickels. Appellant said that was not enough and told Romero, “you better give me your money. If you don’t give me money, I’m going to shoot you.” At that point Romero felt scared . He thought he was going to get killed. He thought appellant was on drugs and not thinki ng right by the way he was moving. Appellant then told Romero to get out of his vehicle, go inside the gas station and get money out of the ATM. As Romero was going into the ga s station he told appellant he had money to give him. He gave appella nt $120. Appellant took the money and left. Victim Romero identified appellant at trial.

DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent appellant on this appeal. After review of the record, appellant’s counsel filed an opening br ief requesting this court review the record independently pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at page 441. We have examined the

entire record and are satisfied that no arguable issues exis t. Moreover, we are fully satisfied that appellant’s counsel has fulfilled her responsibilities under Wende. ( Wende,

supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 441).3 DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

FLIER, J.

WE CONCUR:

RUBIN, Acting P. J.

GRIMES, J.
{In Archive} Conference call follow-up

Shaheerah Kelly to: pflynn 11/17/2006 02:14 PM

Cc: Ann Lyons

From: Shaheerah Kelly/R9/USEPA/US

To: pflynn@rnrc.net, 

Cc: Ann Lyons/R9/USEPA/US@EPA

Archive: This message is being viewed in an archive.

Hi.

Below is the concern I mentioned on the conference call yesterday regarding using the Vazquez-Beggs 

Correlation for estimating emissions from the tanks:

Here's a link to a document called Preferred and Alternative Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from 

Oil and Gas Field Production and Processing Operations: 

http://www.owr.ehnr.state.nc.us/ref/17/ttn/volume02/ii10.pdf

Page 10.5-10 of the above document describes the Vazquez-Beggs Correlation. The document states 

that the correlation is valid only within a set ranges of values and the ranges are listed. 

The attached document contains emissions information provided to EPA for the Aneth Unit (page 1 is for 

tank battery 21 and page 2 is for the recycle facility tank battery). It looks like the following site-specific 

parameters are outside of the ranges for the Vazquez-Beggs Correlation: (1) a specific gravity of 1.38 is 

used for tabk battery 21 and the Recycle Facility tank battery; (2) a GOR of 9.08 scf/bbl for tank battery 

21. Based on this, it looks like the Vazquez-Beggs Correlation might not be appropriate. 

It would be very helpful if you could provide updated information regarding the site-specific parameters for 

the tanks to show that the correlation can be used.

Thanks.

Shaheerah Kelly

U S EPA Region 9

75 Hawthorne Street

San Francisco, CA 94105

Phone: 415-947-4156

Fax: 415-947-3579
9 Q AP13 Ct CZ C3 AD T VP UP MdWt. SG CSC GD GOR E Lf Lf Lf 

Wd My dsves. Cm*M Cm'Rnl com'anl ID.w h F pq pa of Gm alr-t ROWIP ~CU ll ~f51Y *Lr+t blr Ipy blPl am* 

L?" Z1 1959 715033 41 7 0 131 76 1 '117 25 431 0 075 CO 19 33 7 40 139074 123589 0 10381 908392 95 33715 5 16.8578 5 84881 

VRU 

HAPS 

tolot w..m 3wwm Tornl3boam 1 G 558 by 

NMVOC 231700Tbh 

NHVDt TO ldlR17 tpy 

HZS Rnle 0 00D00 lblhr 

0 lbY 
VASQUEZ-BEG= CORRE, - FWH 

API >30 API >30 AP1 XI0 

a Q APD CI c2 c3 A T VP UP MOI.W~. SO cso 00 GOR e u LI L( PMd bWy degreas ctrm[anl cosstanr cwslant Wru F pzlg pa of Om altXl no lyub mcu R scf,bbl fArekl Wr W DmM 

anem 

dead 011 I013 56 359949 41 7 0 01 71 1 137 23 931 0 075 80 80 94 7 40 1 36074 1 35808 0 10381 34 Oat 95 65346 6 32 6733 7.45966 

YRV 

Flash Enddms GpecEatsd HOW -1 

Cak E~I(IP~ E*lo= COVP Mole% McdeWT.UdWT. W TT Lhbr 'WY 

Tohl Wesm 7 4537 Mw Tolal meam 32 673 @j 

FIMVO3 4 44041 32 Ih'h 

HMVOC 19.6701 tpy 

HZ5 Rate 0.OODOI) Ib~hr 

0 rpY
#### EX PARTE DUNCAN.

(Decided April 17, 1913.

Rehearing denied May 18, 1913.)

Original petition in Court of Appeals.

Denson & Denson, and Evins & Jack, for appellant. McKinley, McQueen, Hawkins & Snow, and A. G. & E. D. Smith, for appellee.

Pelham, J. —

-Petition dismissed on authority of *Ex parte*Dew, 7 Ala. App. 437, 62 South. 261.
## I N T H E C O U R T O F C R I M I N A L A P P E A L S O F T E X A S NO. WR-90,466-01

EX P ARTE P AUL WILSO N, Applicant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 1514567-A IN THE 180 DISTRICT COURT T H F ROM HARRIS COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisi o n s o f Ar t icle 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant pleade d g uilty and was convicted of ag g ravated assault of a family member and sentenc ed to five y ear s’ imprisonment. He did not appea l his conviction. Applicant contends that his trial counsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance by not producing a statement from the complainant which showed that he d i d n o t co m mit the offe nse and by not informing him that he would have to se rve ha lf the sentenc e bef ore be ing e ligible f

or par ole. Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Strickland v. W

ashington ,2

466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson , 993 S.W .2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court shall order trial coun s el t o respond to Applicant’s claim of i neff ective assistance of counsel. The trial court may

use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)

. I f t he trial court elects t o hold a hear ing, it shall deter mine whether Applicant is indige nt. I f Applicant is indige nt and wishes to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall ap p o i nt an attorney to repre sent Applicant a t the hear ing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make finding s of fac t an d conclusions of law as to whether the perf ormanc e of Applicant’s trial counsel was defic ient and, if so , wh et her counsel’s defic ient perf ormanc e prejudice d Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other finding s of fact and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s claim for habea s corpus re lief. This application will be held in abey ance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be re s o l v ed wi t h in 90 day s of this order

. A supplemental transcr ipt containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hear ing or deposition, along with the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court withi n 120 day s of the date of this order. Any extensions of time must be re quested by

the trial cour

t and shall be obtaine d from this Court.

Filed: Oc tober 30, 2019 Do not publish
# C_2022143EN.01000801.xml

| 31.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 143/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/8

---

Threshold values referred to in Directives 2014/23/EU, 2014/24/EU, 2014/25/EU and 2009/81/EC, expressed in the national currencies of the EFTA States

(2022/C 143/05)

| Thresholds in EUR | Thresholds in NOK | Thresholds in CHF | Thresholds in ISK |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 80 000 | 835 914 | 86 501 | 12 023 995 |
| 140 000 | 1 462 850 | 151 377 | 21 041 991 |
| 215 000 | 2 246 520 | 232 472 | 32 314 487 |
| 431 000 | 4 503 489 | 466 025 | 64 779 274 |
| 750 000 | 7 836 697 | 810 949 | 112 724 954 |
| 1 000 000 | 10 448 930 | 1 081 265 | 150 299 939 |
| 5 382 000 | 56 236 143 | 5 819 373 | 808 914 275 |

Thresholds in EUR

Thresholds in NOK

Thresholds in CHF

Thresholds in ISK

80 000

835 914

86 501

12 023 995

140 000

1 462 850

151 377

21 041 991

215 000

2 246 520

232 472

32 314 487

431 000

4 503 489

466 025

64 779 274

750 000

7 836 697

810 949

112 724 954

1 000 000

10 448 930

1 081 265

150 299 939

5 382 000

56 236 143

5 819 373

808 914 275

---
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22640 Filed:10/13/22 Entered:10/18/22 16:26:03 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 4
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22640 Filed:10/13/22 Entered:10/18/22 16:26:03 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 4
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22640 Filed:10/13/22 Entered:10/18/22 16:26:03 Desc: Main

Document Page 3 of 4
Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22640 Filed:10/13/22 Entered:10/18/22 16:26:03 Desc: Main

Document Page 4 of 4
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.40



                       AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO OPTION AGREEMENT

        This Amendment No. 2 to Option Agreement, dated as of March __, 1998, is
entered into by and between Decora Industries, Inc., a Delaware corporation
("Optionor"), and Nathan Hevrony ("Optionee").

                                 R E C I T A L S

        A. Optionor has entered into an option agreements dated August 15, 1994
(the "Option Agreement"), which was amended as of August 8, 1996, copies of
which are attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference.

        B. Optionor now desires to further amend the Option Agreement in
consideration of the Optionee's accomplishments on behalf of Optionor during the
last several years, including the acquisition of its Hornschuch subsidiary and
the pending acquisition of assets from Rubbermaid.

        NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:

        Section 2.A of the Option Agreement is hereby amended to read as
follows:

        A. From the date hereof to August 14, 2001, Optionee shall have the
        right and option to purchase, at $1.50 per share, and Optionor shall
        have the obligation to issue to Optionee, 400,000 shares of the
        Optionor's common stock and shall vest as follows: 150,000 such options
        shall vest if at any time during the option period the average closing
        Stock price is $2.00 per share or greater for 30 consecutive days,
        250,000 shall vest if at anytime during the option period the average
        closing Stock price is $3.00 per share or greater for 30 consecutive
        days until May 31, 2001. Such number of shares and exercise price shall
        be on a pre-split basis and will be adjusted accordingly for the one for
        five reverse split which was effective on or about December 29, 1997.

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 2 to
Option Agreement as of the date first written above.


OPTIONOR                                     OPTIONEE

DECORA INDUSTRIES, INC.                      NATHAN HEVRONY
a Delaware corporation

By:                                          /s/ NATHAN HEVRONY
   --------------------------------          -----------------------------------

Its:
    -------------------------------
p090198c.eng

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 09-0198 0199

Focus Ready Draft 2/23/2009

ENGINEER: Arnold \ AG

PV (kg/yr): 

SUBMITTER: 

 

 

 

 

 

MSDS: Yes Label: No

Gen Eqpt: approved sut protective glasses or goggles / rubber or

plastic gloves and protective clothing to prevent skin contact /

local or general exhaust or ventilation system is recommended

Respirator: approved dust protective mask

Health Effects: may cause eye irritation / may be mildly

irritating to skin / may cause irritation to respiratory tract /

may irritate gastrointestinal tract / high concentration of

dusts may be irritating to eyes, skin, mucous membranes, and

respiratory tract

TLV/PEL:

Respirable Particulates 3.0 mg/m^3 TLV-TWA ACGIH (1996)

Inhalable Particulates 10.0 mg/m^3 TLV-TWA ACGIH (1996)

Inhalable Dusts 0.5 mg/m^3 Japanese Association of Industrial

Health (1996)

Total Dusts 2.0 mg/m^3 Japan Association of Industrial Health

(1996)

 

 

Page 1
p090198c.eng

 

 

 

 

SAT (concerns) (02/13/2009):

Related Cases and Related Cases and Misc SAT Info:

 

Migration to groundwater: Unknown

PBT rating: P3BT2 PBT: P3, BU, T2

Health: 2 Dermal, Drinking Water, Inhalation

Eco: 1 No releases to Water

OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE RATING: 2-3A

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

Generated by the 06/07/2005 version of ChemSTEER. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INITIAL REVIEW ENGINEERING REPORT 

PMN: 09-0198 0199

Page 2
p090198c.eng

Use: 

Number of Sites/ Location: 1

Unknown Site

Days/yr: 240

 

ENVIRONMENTAL RELEASES ESTIMATE SUMMARY

IRER Note: The daily releases listed for any source below may

coincide with daily releases from the other sources to the same

medium.

Water or Air or Incineration or Landfill

Output 2: 3.1E-1 kg/site-day over 240 days/yr from 1 site

or 7.5E+1 kg/yr

 

 

Incineration

Output 2: 6.2E-1 kg/site-day over 240 days/yr from 1 site

or 1.5E+2 kg/yr

Incineration

Output 2: 6.2E-1 kg/site-day over 240 days/yr from 1 site

or 1.5E+2 kg/yr

Page 3
p090198c.eng

RELEASE TOTAL

3.8E+2 kg/yr - all sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 4
<PAGE>   1
   
                                  EXHIBIT 23


                       Consent of Independent Auditors


            We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8 Registration No. 33-93480) pertaining to the 1989 Stock
Option Plan, as amended (the "Option Plan"); the 1995 Employee Stock Purchase
Plan; and 306,000 shares issuable under certain options granted outside the
Option Plan in February 1995 and the Registration Statement (Form S-8
Registration No. 333-15529) pertaining to the 1996 Non-Employee Directors Stock
Option Plan and the 1996 Stock Plan of our report dated February 25, 1997, with
respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of ECCS, Inc.
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1996.




                                                ERNST & YOUNG LLP
Princeton, New Jersey
March 26, 1997
#### Matter of the Application of Franklin B. Lord, for the Revocation and Cancellation of Liquor Tax Certificate No. 11,536, Issued to Patrick Coughlin.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

July, 1900.)

Liquor Tax Law — Consents cannot be filed nunc pro tunc.

The Liquor Tax Law requires the necessary consents of the owners of dwellings to be filed before a certificate is issued, and the court has no power, after a citizen has applied to have the certificate revoked, to permit the holder thereof to file such consents *nunc pro tunc.*

Application for an order revoking and cancelling a liquor tax certificate.

Lord, Day & Lord, for petitioner.

Lindsay *&*Griffin, for respondent.

O’Gorman, J.

The liquor Tax Law makes distinct provision for the filing of the necessary consents before the issue of the certificate. No right is reserved to this court to order the filing of consents thereafter. The filing of papers *nunc pro tunc*is a practice peculiar to the conduct of judicial proceedings, but where a right to a certificate is dependent upon the applicant’s prior compliance with certain statutory requirements the court possesses no authority in a summary application of this character to relieve an applicant from the consequences of his neglect to observe those requirements. While the act provides for certain proceedings to vacate or cancel a certificate, and to review the action of an officer who'refuses to issue a license, the proceeding now before the court is of an entirely different character, and does not seem to be within the contemplation of the liquor Tax Law. Even if the power invoked does reside in the court, its exercise would not be proper under the circumstances disclosed.

Application denied.
#### § 627.2 Definitions.

For the purposes of this part, the following definitions apply:

*Act* means the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended.

*Conservator* means the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation acting in its capacity as the conservator of a Farm Credit institution.

*Farm Credit institution(s) or institution(s)* means all Farm Credit banks, associations, service corporations chartered under title IV of the Act, and the Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding Corporation. These two terms do not include any bridge System bank chartered by FCA, in accordance with section 5.61C(h)(2) of the Act.

*FCSIC* means the Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation.

*Receiver* means FCSIC acting in its capacity as the receiver of a Farm Credit institution.
<PAGE>
                    [PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES ASA LETTERHEAD]


                                                                 Exhibit 99.1

May 22, 2002


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

Re:  Arthur Andersen LLP

The consolidated financial statements of Petroleum Geo-Services ASA as of and
for the year ended December 31, 2001 included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F
for the year ended December 31, 2001 have been audited by Arthur Andersen LLP
("Andersen"). Andersen has represented to us that the audit of such consolidated
financial statements was subject to Andersen's quality control system for the
U.S. accounting and audit practice to provide reasonable assurance that the
engagement was conducted in compliance with professional standards, and that
there was appropriate continuity of Andersen personnel working on the audit,
availability of national office consultation and availability of personnel at
foreign affiliates of Andersen to conduct the relevant portions of the audit.

PETROLEUM GEO-SERVICES ASA



By:      /s/   WILLIAM E. HARLAN
    ----------------------------------------
      William E. Harlan
      Vice President, Chief Accounting
      and Administrative Officer
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
WENDALL HALL, DOC #379682, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2948 ) MS. REYNOLDS, mental health ) counselor; and CAPTAIN BUSH, ) ) Respondents. ) ) Opinion filed February 20, 2019. Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Circuit Court for Charlotte County; Lisa S. Porter, Judge. Wendall Hall, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Kenneth V. Wilson, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Respondent Captain Bush. No appearance for remaining Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

We dismiss the petition for writ of certiorari as it relates to the portion of the order setting aside the clerk's default and denying Mr. Hall's motion for default- 2 -

judgment. See Dawkins, Inc. v. Huff, 836 So. 2d 1062, 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) ("[W]e must dismiss this appeal. An order on a motion to set aside a clerk's default is not an appealable, non-final order under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.130(a)(3). Absent extraordinary circumstances, such an order is also not reviewable by certiorari, as certiorari should not be used to circumvent the appellate rule which limits interlocutory review of non-final orders." (citation and footnote omitted)); Rodriguez v. Young Am. Corp., 717 So. 2d 621, 621 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998) ("Because the appellants seek review of an order setting aside the entry of a default as opposed to a default judgment, we sua sponte dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction."). Having carefully reviewed the record as to Mr. Hall's remaining arguments, we deny the petition for writ of certiorari as the trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law.

Dismissed in part; denied in part.

VILLANTI, LUCAS, and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.