alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
----

|   | (a)    | the annual report on Form 10-K of Northumberland Resources Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|   | (b)    | information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Northumberland Resources Inc.                                             |

| /s/ Peter Hewitt                                                                                                          |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Peter HewittChief Financial Officer, Secretary and Director(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer) |   |
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF**

**CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**OF ANTERO RESOURCES LLC**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Antero Resources LLC for the year ended December 31, 2010, I, Glen C. Warren, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Antero Resources LLC, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       This Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       The information contained in this Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Antero Resources LLC for the periods presented therein.

 
| Date: April 11, 2012                      |   |
|-------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                      |   |
| /s/ Glen C. Warren, Jr.              |   |
| Glen C. Warren, Jr.                  |   |
| *President and Chief   Financial Officer* |   |

 

----
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

HARTO PATIH PANGOLOI SIAHAAN,

 Petitioner,

 v.

ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,

 Respondent.

No. 09-73672

Agency No. A099-578-942

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted June 26, 2012** 

Before: SCHROEDER, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. 

Harto Patih Pangoloi Siahaan, a native and citizen of Indonesia, petitions for

review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) order dismissing his appeal

from an immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum,

withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture

FILED

JUL 10 2012

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-73672

(“CAT”). We have jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial

evidence the agency’s factual findings, Wakkary v. Holder, 558 F.3d 1049, 1056

(9th Cir. 2009), and we deny the petition for review.

Even if Siahaan’s asylum application was timely-filed, substantial evidence

supports the BIA’s finding that Siahaan’s experiences do not rise to the level of

persecution. See Halim v. Holder, 590 F.3d 971, 975-76 (9th Cir. 2009) (incidents

of harassment did not constitute persecution). Further, we reject Siahaan’s request

for remand because, even under a disfavored group analysis, the record does not

compel the conclusion that Siahaan established sufficient individualized risk of

harm to show a well-founded fear of persecution. See id. at 977-80; see also

Hakeem v. INS, 273 F.3d 812, 816 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, his asylum claim

fails.

Because Siahaan did not meet the lower burden of proof for asylum, his

claim for withholding of removal necessarily fails. See Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453

F.3d 1182, 1190 (9th Cir. 2006).

Finally, substantial evidence supports the BIA’s denial of CAT relief

because Siahaan failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured if

returned to Indonesia. See Wakkary, 558 F.3d at 1067-68.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
#### Howard RICHARDS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-562.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

June 20, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 1, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Treasury approves Maryland’s plan to invest $2 million of CPF funding in 

broadband infrastructure projects that will provide high-quality internet to 

locations that lack access to adequate service.

Capital Projects Fund Award Fact Sheet

Maryland

 

▪ Program Summary: $2 million for Broadband Infrastructure (1% of CPF allocation)

▪ Locations to Be Served: 1,732 (estimated)

▪ Program Description: The Maryland Connected Communities

Grant Program (MD-GAP) is a competitive program that aims to

close existing gaps in broadband service throughout the state.

The program will fund projects designed to expand or build

community networks that prioritize rural areas and those with

concentrations of individuals that face greater barriers to

internet access.

‒ This program is designed to provide internet service with speeds of 100/100 Mbps upon project 

completion.

‒ Internet service providers utilizing investments funded by CPF will be required to participate in 

the FCC’s Affordable Connectivity Program (ACP) – a $30 per month subsidy for low-income 

families. 

▪ Key State Contact: The Maryland Office of Statewide Broadband (OSB)

Maryland’s Capital Projects Fund Program Overview

As reported by Maryland, 

estimates show that 

investments made using the 

Capital Projects Fund will 

serve ~3% of locations still 

lacking high-speed internet 

access in the state.

For More Information: 

For Media Inquiries: 

For General Inquiries:

Please visit www.treasury.gov/CPF

Please contact the U.S. Treasury Press Office at (202) 622-2960

Please email CapitalProjectsFund@treasury.gov for additional information
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63322]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31189]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-124-000]


Philadelphia Gas Works; Notice of Issuance of Order

November 21, 1997.
    Philadelphia Gas Works (PGW) submitted for filing a rate schedule 
under which PGW will engage in wholesale electric power and energy 
transactions as a marketer. PGW also requested waiver of various 
Commission regulations. In particular, PGW requested that the 
Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability by PGW.
    On November 19, 1997, pursuant to delegated authority, the 
Director, Division of Rate Applications, Office of Electric Power 
Regulation, granted requests for blanket approval under part 34, 
subject to the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by PGW 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 211 and 
214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 
and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, PGW is authorized 
to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a 
guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of 
another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some 
lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of PGW's issuances of securities or assumptions of 
liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is December 19, 1997. Copies 
of the full text of the order are available from the Commission's 
Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20426.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-31189 Filed 11-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
M A N D A T E

TO THE 24TH DISTRICT COURT of DE WITT COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 18th day of 

December, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Natalie G. Tise and Scott M. Witte, 

Both Individually and As Independent 

Executors of the Estate of James R. 

Witte, Deceased,

Appellants,

v.

Thelma Louise Witte and James R. 

Witte

Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-14-00296-CV (Tr.Ct.No. 12-07-22,348)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

the party incurring the same.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

December 18, 2014.



WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals 

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly 

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal 

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 30th day of January, 2015.

Dorian E. Ramirez, CLERK
#### Sammie Lee JACKSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-513.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 10, 1978.

Sammie Lee Jackson, in pro per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and BARK-DULL and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Sammie Lee Jackson, appeals the summary denial of his motion to vacate his conviction for robbery and aggravated assault on the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Upon receipt of a motion to vacate judgment and sentence, the trial court must examine the record and if the record conclusively demonstrates that the movant is not entitled to relief, the motion may be denied without a hearing. *State v. Weeks,*166 So.2d 892 (Fla.1964); *State v. Barton,*194 So.2d 241 (Fla.1967); *Brumley v. State,*224 So.2d 447 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). Absent a showing that the trial was a mockery or a farce or that defense counsel was necessarily incompetent, a defendant is not entitled to post conviction relief on the claim of inadequate representation by trial counsel. *McCrae v. State,*313 So.2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); *Potts v. State,*242 So.2d 729 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); *Meinsen v. State,*240 So.2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970). A review of the record absolutely refutes defendant’s contention that he was inadequately repre*941sented or his trial was a mockery or a farce. As a matter of fact, at the defendant’s insistence that the public defender’s office could not do the job, the court appointed private counsel as a special public defender. In addition, one of the grounds raised to demonstrate ineffective assistance of counsel was the introduction of a certain photograph of the defendant from which the victim initially identified him. However, we note that the issue was raised in defendant’s direct appeal and disposed adversely to his position. See *Jackson v. State,*338 So.2d 231 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).

Affirmed.
255 La. 913

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Noba STANLEY.

No. 50519.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 1970.

In re: Noba Stanley applying for writs of certiorari and mandamus.

Writ refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e co urt has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 30412 C onfer enc e Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. CE DR I C DE S M OND M CC AI N D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 2: 06- C R

- 20024- 1
B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d JO L L Yan d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * The Fed e r alPubl i c D e fe nde ra ppo i nt e d t o r e pr e s e nt Cedr i c D e s m o nd M cC a i n h a s m ov ed for l ea ve to w i th d ra w an d h a s f i l ed a b ri ef i n acco rd a n ce w i th A n d er s v. Ca lif

o rn ia , 386 U
. S. 738 ( 19 67 )
. M c Cai n has notf i l e d a r e s po ns e . O ur i nde pe nde ntr e vi e w o f t he r e c o r d a nd c o uns e l ’ s b r i e f di s c l o s e s no no nf

r i vo l o us is s u e fo ra p p e a l
. A c c o r d in g ly , co u n s e l’ s m o tio n fo rle a v e to w ith d r a w is G RA N TE D , c o uns e l i s e xc us e d f r o m f ur t he r r e s po ns i bi l i t i e s he r e i n , an d the A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D
. S ee 5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2. United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D April 30, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk
#### Stephen A. STRICKLAND, Appellant, v. AMERICAN FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-339.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 7, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Milton George GOLDMAN, Appellant, v. Rosalie Ann GOLDMAN, Appellee.

No. 73-1441.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 19, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 26, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A2 0 D0 06 3 . DANI EL A. SEYMOUR, I II et a l. v

. RAY M. W RI GHT, I NC.

Pl ai n t i ff Dan i el A. Sey m o u r, III seek s d i scret i o nary rev i ew of t h e t ri al co urt ’ s

o rd er d en y i n g th e m o t i o n fo r s u m m ary j u d gm en t fi l ed by Sey m o u r an d th ree o t h er

p art i es . Ho wev er, we l ack ju ri s d i ct i o n

. Becau s e t hi s act io n rem ai n s p en d i n g b el o w , Sey m ou r was req u i red t o u s e t h e

i n t erl o cu t o ry a p peal p ro ced u res

– i n cl u d in g o b tai n i n g a cert i fi cat e o f i m m ed i at e

rev i ew fro m t h e t ri al co u rt

– t o ap peal th e d en i al o f th e m ot i o n f o r s u m m ary ju d g m en t

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (b ); Lu mb er men ’s U n d er wr i t i n g Al l i a nce v. At l

. W o o d

In d u s. , 2 0 7 Ga. Ap p

. 3 9 2, 3 9 2 (4 2 7 SE2 d 8 6 1 ) (1 99 3 ). If a cert i fi cat e o f i m m ed i at e

rev i ew i s n o t en t ered wi t h i n t en d ay s o f en t ry o f th e o rd er at i s su e, t h e p art y s eek i n g

rev i ew m u s t w ai t u n t i l t h e fi nal ju d g m en t t o ap p eal

. See OCGA § 5 -6 -3 4 (b ); W i l ch er

v. Co n f ed er a t e Pa cka g i n g

, In c. , 2 8 7 Ga. Ap p

. 4 5 1

, 4 5 2 (1 ) (6 5 1 SE2 d 79 0 ) (2 0 0 7 )

(“ A cert ifi cat e o f i m

m ed i at e rev i ew o f a co u rt o rd er m u s t be s i g ned b y t he t ri al ju d g e

an d fi l ed wi t h t he cl erk o f t h e t ri al co u rt wi t h i n t en d ay s o f t h e en t ry o f t h e

i n t erl o cu t o ry

o rd er s ou g h t t o b e ap p eal ed .”).

Sey m o u r’ s fai lu re t o fo l lo w t h e req u i red ap pel l at e p ro ced u re d ep ri v es u s o f September 12, 2019ju ri s d i ct i o n o v er t hi s ap p l i cat i o n , wh ich i s hereb y DISM ISSED. See Ba il ey v. Ba i l ey ,

2 6 6 Ga. 8 3 2

, 8 3 3 (4 7 1 SE2 d 2 13 ) (1 9 9 6).

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s o f t h e S t a t e o

f G e o r g ia

C le r k ’ s O f f i c e

, A t la n t a

,

_

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t i f y th a t t h e a b o v e i s a t r u e e x t r a c t f r o m

t h e m i n u t e s o

f t h e C o u r t o

f A p p e a l s o f G e o r g i a

. W i tn e s s m y s i g n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o

f s a i d c o u r t

h e r e t o a f f i x e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r l a s t a b o v e w r i t t e n

.

, C l e r k

. 09/12/2019
#### Willie Ray THOMPSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-796.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 9, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2246 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to prohibit military honors at the 

funeral, burial, or inurnment of an individual convicted of a felony 

committed on January 6, 2021, in or on the United States Capitol 

Buildings and Grounds. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 26, 2021 

Mr. PAYNE (for himself, Mr. BROWN, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, and Mr. 

MCNERNEY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 10, United States Code, to prohibit military 

honors at the funeral, burial, or inurnment of an individual convicted of a felony committed on January 6, 

2021, in or on the United States Capitol Buildings and 

Grounds. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘No Honor for Treason 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2246 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF MILITARY HONORS AT THE FU2 NERAL, BURIAL, OR INURNMENT OF AN INDI3 VIDUAL CONVICTED OF A FELONY COM4 MITTED ON JANUARY 6, 2021, IN OR ON THE 

5 UNITED STATES CAPITOL BUILDINGS AND 

6 GROUNDS. 

7 Section 985(a) of title 10, United States Code, is 

8 amended— 

9 (1) by redesignating paragraph (2) as para10 graph (3); and 

11 (2) by inserting after paragraph (1) the fol12 lowing new paragraph (2): 

13 ‘‘(2) A person who has been convicted of a fel14 ony committed— 

15 ‘‘(A) on January 6, 2021; and 

16 ‘‘(B) in or on the United States Capitol 

17 Buildings and Grounds (as defined and de18 scribed in sections 5101 and 5102 of title 

19 40).’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### Albert MAMMARELLI, Petitioner, v. FOOD FAIR STORES, INCORPORATED, et al., Respondents.

No. 40968.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 1, 1971.

Rehearing Denied July 6, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PR OTE CTION AGEN C Y WASHI N G TON , D . C . 204 60

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIAT I ON 

### MEMORAN D UM Subject: From: To: Summar y of Stakeholder Mee tings Carissa Cyran Dockets EP/\- IIQ-O AR-20 13-0602, EPA-HQ-OAR-20 13-0603. and E P A-HQOAR
- 20 13 -0495 This m e m o randum summari z e s meeting s with s takeholders during the week of January 26. 2015. On J anuary 26 , Associate A s s ista nt Administrator for Climate and Se nior Co un se l for Air and Radiation Jo s eph Goffman met with representatives from UBS Inve s tment Re s earch. List of attendee s attached. On January 27. Associate A ss istant Admini s trator for Climate and Senior Coun s el for Air and R adiation Jo s eph Goffman met with representat ives from Prairie State Generating Campus. On January 28. Associate A ss istant Admini s trator for Climate and Senior Coun s el for Air and Radiation J o s eph Goffman met with repre s entati ves from energy s ervice companies. Sign -i n sheet attached. On January 28, Associate Assistant Adm ini s trator for Climate a nd Sen ior Coun s el for Ai r a nd Radiati o n Joseph Goffman met with representatives f rom Great March for C lim ate Act ion. Sign-in s hee t a ttached. On January 30 . Acting A ss is tant Admini s trato r lor Air and Radiation Janet Mc C abe and Associate A ss istant Admini s trator for Clima te and Senior Couns e l for Air and Radiation Joseph Goffman met with representatives ti·om Edi s on Electric ln s titute. S ign -in s hee t attached . On J anuary 3 0, Act in g A ss is tant Adm ini strat o r for Air and Radiation J anet McCabe and Associat e Ass is tant Adm i ni s trator for Climate and Senior C o un s el for Air and Radiation Joseph Goffman met with repre sentative s from Drax Biomass International.

Internet Address (URL) · hltp //www epa gov R ecy c led / Re c y c labl e · Pnnted w1th Vegetable 011 Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer Process Chlonne Free Recycled Paper

### Date: 

### January 2 6 ,2015 Meeting : 

### Mee ting with repre s entati ves from U BS Inve s tm e nt Research Rule(s) Di sc u sse d : C PP Written Materia l : No



## Organization First Na me Last Na me USB In vestment Research Ju lien Dumoulin-Smith USB Investment Research Pankaj Srivastav

### Date: January 28, 2015 Meeting: tll(d) w/Chris Hessler Rule(s) Discussed: 1/[ 

# (J) Written Materials? Yes ® 

### Nam e



## 1 !, 

# \,.,'oe 

# !5 r >o V\ 

### Org anization Phone N umb e r



## 'Jo<**~.2f6** 

## fOf 

# 6 J I

### Date: January 28 , 2015 Meeting: G roupofM arc h e r sfromlow aJ #f..troJJ 

# ..Jk c •



## "t-tf-r~ Rule(s) Discussed: \\\



## l~ **J** W ritten Materials?



## Yes **~** Na m e O rga ni za ti o n Ph o ne N umber

### Date:



# ~rJ 

# a:}

**~** Cct 

# f 3 blrrv) Meeting:



## Y'r/(~ **~~rrA ~**  

# f:F:J Rule(s) Discussed: 

# J J

/ ( 

# d_) Written Materials? 

# Y es® Name Organization Phone Numb er



## 3l3 -2 

## 3.> -8B80 )I) 

### -2. )1)- 'ftl..f
#### Sandra KOCHA, Appellant, v. Stuart Edwin KOCHA, Appellee.

No. 76-2486.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 12, 1977.

*691Eleanor Levingston Schockett, Miami, for appellant.

Michael B. Davis of Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder & Carson, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the record and briefs, we determine that the trial court erred in summarily dismissing appellant’s petition for modification of child support without an evidentiary hearing. We further determine that the trial court abused its discretion in entering a protective order prohibiting appellant’s discovery of her former husband’s financial status.

In reference to alimony, however, appellant in her amendment to reply brief says:

> The Wife will concede, for the purposes of the continuing action between the parties, that the Property Settlement Agreement entered into between the parties, as it related to the award of alimony only, is not subject to modification.

The trial court’s dismissal of the petition for modification of alimony is affirmed.

REVERSED in part, AFFIRMED in part, and REMANDED.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur.

CROSS, J., concurs in part and dissents in part, with opinion.

CROSS, Judge,

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

Except that part of the opinion affirming dismissal of the petition for modification of alimony, I concur.

I dissent as to affirmance of dismissal of the petition for modification of alimony based on counsel’s concession, and would reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing on the petition for modification of alimony.