alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 212 (Monday, November 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 59369]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28978]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[NV-030-98-1020-00-24-1 A]


Sierra Front/Northwest Great Basin Resource Advisory Council--
Notice of Meeting Locations and Times

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Resource Advisory Council Meeting Locations and Times.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act 
and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA) the Department of 
the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Council meetings will be 
held as indicated below. The agenda includes a business meeting, public 
comment period and a tour of the Walker River Basin.
    All meetings are open to the public. The public may present written 
comments to the council. Each formal council meeting will have a time 
allocated for hearing public comments. The public comment period for 
the council meeting is listed below. Depending on the number of persons 
wishing to comment, and time available, the time for individual oral 
comments may be limited. Individuals who plan to attend and need 
further information about the meetings, or need special assistance such 
as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, 
should contact Joan Sweetland, Carson City District Office, 5665 Morgan 
Mill Road, Carson City, NV 89701 (702) 885-6107.

DATE, TIMES: The dates are November 20 and 21, 1997. Depart BLM Carson 
City Office, 5665 Morgan Mill Road, Carson City at 7:00 a.m. November 
20, and begin tour of Walker River Basin. Arrive Hawthorne, Nevada, 
5:00 p.m. At 6:00 p.m. the Council will have dinner at the El Capitan, 
Hawthorne, followed by the meeting at 6:30 p.m. The Agenda will include 
a business meeting, approval of the Minutes of the previous meeting, 
remarks by State Director Robert Abbey, discussion of the proposed 
Black Rock Desert Management Plan. The public comment period will be at 
8:30 p.m., with adjournment for the evening at 9:00 p.m. At 8:00 a.m. 
the council will depart Hawthorne to continue tour of Walker River 
Basin and will return to Carson City at 5:00 p.m.
    All council meetings and tours are open to the public, but the 
public is responsible for their own transportation, food and lodgings.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John Singlaub, Carson City District Manager, 5665 Morgan Mill Road, 
Carson City, Nevada 89701 (702) 885-6000.

    Dated: October 22, 1997.
John O. Singlaub,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 97-28978 Filed 10-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-HC-M
Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of opinions that have

no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of wellsettled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________

No. 95-20154

(Summary Calendar)

_______________

ESEQUIEL RODRIGUEZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division,

Respondent-Appellee.

_______________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Texas

(CA-H-89-4083)

_______________________________________________

November 14, 1995 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Petitioner Esequiel Rodriguez appeals from the district

court's order denying his motion for a temporary restraining order.

We dismiss the appeal as frivolous.

Rodriguez was convicted of attempted murder in a Texas state

court and sentenced to life imprisonment. The district court

granted Rodriguez's federal petition for habeas corpus, set aside-2-

his sentence, and remanded to the state court for resentencing.

Respondent Wayne Scott filed a timely notice of appeal. Asserting

that the State of Texas has no right of appeal in habeas corpus

cases, Rodriguez filed a motion for a temporary restraining order

to prevent Scott from appealing the district court's gran t of

habeas relief. The district court denied Rodriguez's motion, and

Rodriguez filed a timely notice of appeal.

We regularly entertain appeals in federal habeas cases where

the state is the appellant. See, e.g., Cupit v. Whitley , 28 F.3d

532 (5th Cir. 1994) (vacating district court's grant of habeas

relief upon appeal by State of Louisiana). In fact, such appeals

are specifically contemplated by F ED

. R. A PP

. P. 22(b), which

excuses a state or its representative, wh en appealing in federal

habeas cases, from the certificate of probable cause requirement.

The state court cases cited by Rodriguez, concerning a state's

right of appeal in state habeas proceedings, are not applicable to

federal habeas proceedings, which are governed by federal law.

Because this appeal is without arguable merit, it is DISMISSED

as frivolous. 5 T H C IR

. R. 42.2. Further, we warn Rodriguez that

any additional frivolous appeals filed by him or on his behalf may

be met with appropriate sanction, in accordance with F E D

. R. A PP

.

P. 38.
**Exhibit 12.1 **

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Peter N. Cowley, certify that:

 

1.      I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F ofLoncor Resources Inc.;

 

2.      Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.      Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.      The issuer’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the issuerand have:

 

(a)      Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

(b)      Designedsuch internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed underour supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financialstatements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;

 

(c)      Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions aboutthe effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and

 

(d)      Disclosedin this report any change in the issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period coveredby the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting; and

 

5.      The issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the issuer’s auditors andthe audit committee of the issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)      Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting whichare reasonably likely to adversely affect the issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and

 

(b)      Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting.
#### Carolyn Dike NELMS, Appellant, v. James Q. NELMS, Appellee.

No. 73-429.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District,

Nov. 9, 1973.

Gordon V. Frederick, Sanford, for appellant.

Ned N. Julian, Jr., Sanford, for appellee.

DOWNEY, Judge.

This is an interlocutory appeal from an order of the trial court refusing to dissolve the marriage of the parties and ordering them to seek marriage counselling.

The wife filed her petition to dissolve the marriage because it was irretrievably broken. The husband answered admitting said allegation. The parties entered into an agreement providing for child support, possession of the home by wife and children, and other incidental matters. At final hearing the wife testified the marriage was irretrievably broken because she no longer loved her husband and could not live with him. Further inquiry developed that he had physically abused her during the marriage and that he paid little or no attention to their children; that they had spent untold hours discussing their problems, always without success; that she had suffered mental and physical abuse from him she would never forget; that he had sued her once before for divorce. The trial judge then interrogated the husband who stated essentially that at one time he had tried to get her to seek counselling without success; that in view of her steadfast position for some five months that the marriage was broken, he did not feel they could put it back together. The chancellor then announced he would require them to seek counselling in the hope the marriage might be saved. From such a judgment ordering counselling and withholding a determination as to a termination of the marriage, the wife appealed and the husband joined with her in the appeal.

 It seems clear now that failure to contest the allegation that the marriage is irretrievably broken, or a stipulation that it is so broken, does not suffice. The chancellor must make that finding based upon the evidence adduced. Ryan v. Ryan, Fla. 1973, 277 So.2d 266; Riley v. Riley, Fla.App. 1972, 271 So.2d 181. If the evidence demonstrates the marriage is broken beyond repair he must dissolve the marriage, Carrigan v. Carrigan, Fourth D.C.A., 283 *51So.2d 574, opinion filed October 12, 1973, commendable as may be his efforts to effectuate a reconciliation.

Based upon the pleadings and evidence in the court below, it is our view that the chancellor abused his discretion in refusing to dissolve the marriage. Accordingly, the order appealed from is reversed with directions to enter a final judgment dissolving the marriage.

WALDEN and MAGER, JJ., concur.
No. 9661.

#### Shepherd, Admr., *v.*Noland, Exr., et al.

(Decided January 29, 1907.)

Error to Circuit Court of Madison County.

*Messrs. Murray & Emery,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. G. W. Wilson,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Crew and Spear, Jj., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 26 (Friday, February 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 5815]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3040]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP97-242-000]


Overthrust Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

February 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on January 30, 1997, Overthrust Pipeline Company 
(Overthrust) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, the 
following tariff sheets to be effective March 1, 1997:

Original Volume No. 1

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 3

First Revised Volume No. 1-A

First Revised Sheet No. 2

    Overthrust states that the proposed tariff sheets revise the 
Preliminary Statement in Volume Nos. 1 and 1-A of its tariff by 
removing references to Columbia Gulf Transmission Company.
    Overthrust states further that a copy of this filing has been 
served upon its customers and the Wyoming Public Service Commission.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such 
motions or protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of 
the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Copies of this 
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3040 Filed 2-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit (n)(1)

**DWS INVESTMENT TRUST**

**AMENDED AND RESTATED**

**MULTI-DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM PLAN**

 

WHEREAS, DWS Investment Trust adopting this Amended and Restated Multi-Distribution System Plan (the “Fund,” and each underlying portfolio of the Fund, a “Series”) is an open-end investment management company registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”);

 

WHEREAS, Deutsche Investment Management Americas Inc. (“DIMA”) serves as investment adviser and DWS Investments Distributors, Inc. (“DIDI”) serves as principal underwriter for the Fund;

 

WHEREAS, the Fund has established an Amended and Restated Multi-Distribution System enabling each Series, as more fully reflected in its prospectuses, to offer investors the option of purchasing shares of the Series with one or more of the following classes of shares: (a) with a front-end sales load (which may vary among Series) and Rule 12b-1 Plan providing for a service fee (“Class A shares”); (b) without a front-end sales load, but subject to a contingent deferred sales charge (“CDSC”) (which may vary among Series) and a Rule 12b-1 plan providing for a distribution fee and a service fee (“Class B shares”); (c) without a front-end sales load, but subject to a CDSC (which may vary among Series) and a Rule 12b-1 Plan providing for a distribution fee and a service fee (“Class C shares”); (d) solely to participants in certain retirement plans,without a front-end load or a CDSC, but subject to a Rule 12b-1 Plan providing for a distribution fee and a service fee (“Class R shares”); (e) solely to certain investors, without a front-end sales load, a CDSC, a distribution fee or a service fee (“Class S shares”); and (f) solely to eligible institutions and other eligible investors, without a front-end sales load, a CDSC, or a Rule 12b-1 plan providing for a distribution fee or service fee, but for certain funds with a service plan providing for a service fee (“Institutional Class shares”);

 

WHEREAS, a Fund or a Series may offer or issue some or all of the classes listed above; 

 

WHEREAS, Rule 18f-3 under the 1940 Act permits open-end management investment companies to issue multiple classes of voting stock representing interests in the same portfolio notwithstanding Sections 18(f)(1) and 18(i) under the 1940 Act if, among other things, such investment companies adopt a written plan setting forth the separate arrangement and expense allocation of each class and any related conversion features or exchange privileges;

 

NOW, THEREFORE, the Fund, wishing to issue multiple classes of shares in accordance with Rule 18f-3 under the 1940 Act, hereby adopts this Amended and Restated Multi-Distribution System Plan, as follows, on behalf of the Series:

 

1.        Each class of shares will represent interests in the same portfolio of investments of the Series, and be identical in all respects to each other class, except as set forth below.  The only differences among the various classes of shares of the Series will relate solely to: (a) different distribution fee payments or service fee payments associated with any Rule 12b-1 Plan 

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-4047

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DIQUELLE SWEET,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Wilmington. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (7:18-cr-00042-D-2)

Submitted: March 9, 2022 Decided: March 16, 2022

Before WILKINSON and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Deborrah L. Newton, NEWTON LAW, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellant. David A. Bragdon, Kristine L. Fritz, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United 

States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Diquelle Sweet seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence. The Government has 

moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely. In criminal cases, a defendant’s notice of appeal 

must be filed within 14 days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With 

or without a motion, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause, the district court 

may grant an extension of up to 30 days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4).

Although the appeal period in a criminal case is not a jurisdictional provision, but 

rather a claim-processing rule, United States v. Urutyan, 564 F.3d 679, 685 (4th Cir. 2009),

“we must dismiss” the appeal “[w]hen the Government promptly invokes the rule in 

response to a late-filed criminal appeal,” United States v. Oliver, 878 F.3d 120, 123 (4th 

Cir. 2017). When the Government moves to dismiss the appeal within the time required 

by Local Rule 27(f),* this court will grant the motion. United States v. Hyman, 884 F.3d 

496, 500 (4th Cir. 2018).

The district court entered judgment on August 17, 2018. Sweet filed the notice of 

appeal, at the earliest, on February 3, 2021. Because Sweet failed to file a timely notice of 

appeal or to obtain an extension of the appeal period, and the Government has promptly 

invoked the appeal’s untimeliness, we grant the Government’s motion to dismiss and 

dismiss the appeal as untimely. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

* Local Rule 27(f)(2) requires that motions to dismiss be filed within the time 

allowed for filing a response brief. Here, the Government complied with that rule.
3

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument 

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Order entered November 2, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 00653

- CV

DEBORAH HUMPHREY, Appellant

V.

DAVID YANCEY AND NATIONWIDE SLATE , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 13

- 07257



### O RDER

We GRANT appellee Nationwide Slate’s October 30, 2015 unopposed motion for

extension to file brief and ORDER the brief be filed no later November 13, 2015

.

/s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTICE
Dismissed and Memor andum Opinion filed September 25 , 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00694

- CR

EDDIE LEE HARRIS , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 179th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court C ause No. 1435603



### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant entered a guilty plea to theft of property valued between $1,500 and $20,000 . In accordance with the terms of a plea bargain agreement with the State, the trial court sentenced appellant on July 23, 2014, to c onfinement for three years in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal. We dismiss the appeal.
The trial court entered a certification of the defendant’s right to appeal in
which the court certified that this is a plea bargain case, and the defendant has no2

right of appeal. See T ex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2). The trial court’s certification is included in the record on appeal. See T ex. R. App. P. 25.2(d). The record supports
the trial cou rt’s certification. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610, 615 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Christopher and Busby

. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

.
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2013-0119 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2011-SW-034-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
IN TM SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O.0 NEVADA 

CHRISTINE JERMYN, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

PROGRESS RESIDENTIAI, 

I3ORROWER 4 LLC, 

Respondent. 

No. 84976 

FiSd Frft_ 

Y. 6.7.0.

AUG 1 6 21122 

EL ri_ABVII-3 A. BROWN 

C,LERK ûrS'.. 7;1ME COURT 

DEPUTY CLERK 

OR.DER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This appeal. was docketed on July 7, 2022, without payment of 

the requisite filing fee. See N.RAP 3(0. The filing fee was due when the 

notice of appeal was filed. Accordingly, on july 7, 2022, this court issued a 

notice directing appellant to pay the required filing fee or demonstrate 

compliance with NRAP 24 within 14 days. The notice advised that failure 

to comply would result in the dismissal of this appeal. On August 8, 2022, 

the notice was returned to this court as undeliverable and unable to be 

forwarded. To date, appellant has not paid the required filing fee. 

Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. See NRAP 3(a)(2). 

It is so ORDERE.D. 

C1.4.ERE OF THE SUPREME COURT 

ELIZABETH A. BROWN 

BY: 

cc: Hon. Tara D. Clark Newberry, District Judge 

Christine jermyn 

Law Offices of Scott M.. Clark, P.C. 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 

047 

L('