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

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

In the Matter of the Est ate of T ravis B.

Kirchner, Deceased

,

Appellant

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 8

- 00 106

- C V

Appeal from the

Probate Court No. 1

of El Paso County , Texas

(TC# 201 4

- CPR01539 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant ’ s third motion for extension of time within which to

file the b rief until Ju ly 2

, 201 9

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO

F ILE THE APPELLANT ’ S B R IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Tony A guilar

, the Appella nt ’ s attorney, prepare the

Appellant ’ s brief and forward the same to this Court on or before Ju ly 2

, 201 9

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 4 th day of June

, 20 1 9

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
#### Henry Lee AUSTIN et al., Petitioners, v. Diane Janet WHITEHEAD, Respondent.

No. 40578.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 4, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 240 So.2d 826.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.
#### Jorge GARCIA, Appellant, v. Andrea GARCIA, Appellee.

No. 73-1116.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 22, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-40580

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MARTIN GRAY LOCKABY; BYRON DALE McLEOD,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

(3:93-CR-9-2)

_________________________________________________________________

December 14, 1999

Before JOLLY, EMILIO M. GARZA, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. See 47.6.

A F F I R M E D.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
EDWIN RITTER JONAS, III, Debtor, Appellant,
v. LINDA JONAS, Appellee. No. 13-35526 D.C. No. 9:12-cv-00128-DLC
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Dana L. Christensen, Chief District Judge, Presiding Submitted April 10, 2015 ** Seattle, Washington Before: HAWKINS, RAWLINSON, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges. Debtor Edwin Jonas (“Debtor”) appeals th e district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s dismissal of his bankrupt cy case with prejudice. We review such 

# FILED
APR 17 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).a dismissal for an abuse of discretion, Leavitt v. Soto (In re Leavitt) , 171 F.3d 1219, 1222-23 (9th Cir. 1999), and we affirm. The bankruptcy court acted within its discretion to dismiss the case for Debtor’s failure to comply with the express terms of the stipulation he negotiated in order to reconvert his case to Chapter 11. As the bankruptcy court found, “The Debtor failed to perform his obligation under the approved Stipulation. He failed to file a plan and disclosure statement by the deadline. Ontwo instances he failed to pay timely quarterly fees. For each of those failure s, under the negotiated Stipulation the case was subject to immediate dismissal with prejudice . . . .” See , e.g. , 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(J) (“failure to file a disclosure st atement, or to file or confirm a plan, within the time fixed by this title or by orde r of the Court” provides cause to dismiss case); Tennant v. Rojas (In re Tennant) , 318 B.R. 860, 869 (9th Cir. BAP 2004) (bankruptcy court has authority to dismiss case sua sponte for cause). Dismissal of the underlying bankruptcy cas e divested the court of jurisdiction over the adversary proceedings against Debtor’s ex-wife Linda, and thus Debtor’s argument that the bankruptcy court misapplied the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is not properly before us on appeal and will not be addressed. AFFIRMED.

2
**Exhibit 99.10**

 
|          | **R.K. MacLeod*,**B.S., P.Eng., *President*

**H.J. Helwerda*,**B.Sc., P.Eng., FEC, *Executive VP*

**D.J. Carsted*,**CD, B.Sc., P.Geol.*, VP, Geoscience*

**G.D. Robinson***, B.Sc., P.Eng., *VP, International*

**D.W.C. Ho*,**B.A.Sc., P.Eng., *VP, Unconventional*

**C.P. Six**, B.Sc., P.Eng., *VP, Engineering, Canada*

**B.F. Jose**, M.Sc., P.Geoph., *VP, Geoscience, International*

**K.P. McDonald,**B.Comm**,**CA, *CFO*

**M.R. Van de Veen,**QC, J.D., M.B.A., L.L.M.**,***General* |
|----------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| * * | *Counsel, Corporate Secretary*

* *

**Directors*                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |

 

Ref.: 4235.19453

 

March 18, 2015

 

Bellatrix Exploration Ltd.

1920, 800 5th Ave. S.W.

Calgary, AB   T2P 3T6

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS**

 

We refer to our report dated February 27, 2015 and effective as of December 31, 2014, evaluating the crude oil, natural gas and natural gas liquids reserves and the net present value of future net revenue attributable to certain of the oil and natural gas assets of Bellatrix Exploration Ltd. (“**Bellatrix**”) effective as at December 31, 2014 (the “**Report**”).

 

We hereby consent to the use and reference to our name and the Report, and the information derived from the Report, as described or incorporated by reference in: Bellatrix’s Annual Report on Form 40-F for the year ended December 31, 2014, filed or to be filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

 
|   | Sincerely,                            |
|--------|---------------------------------------|
|   |                                  |
|   | **SPROULE ASSOCIATES LIMITED**        |
|   |                                  |
|   | *Original Signed by Geoff Beatson*    |
|   |                                  |
|   | Geoff   Beatson, P.Eng., C.A.M.       |
|   | Sr.   Engineering Advisor and Partner |
|        |                                       |  |

Enclosure(s) GWB:ssr

 

 

----
### Notes **from Site Visit**  **to Walmart**

**Attended by:** Walmart Staff : Mike Stephenson and others RILA Staff: Ben Hobbs, Kelly Cole, Adam Siegel Others: staff from Advance Auto and Lowe’s EPA Staff : Kristin Fitzgerald, Jessica Young, Jamie Piziali, Richard Huggins, Tiffany

Kollar, Priscilla Halloran, Dave Nicholas, Jim O’Leary **Date:** January 18, 2012 EPA staff toured a Walmart store and pharmacy in Virginia . Non - pharmacy: Walmart uses color- coded bins to segregate their waste streams. They use a third party information system to aid in their hazardous waste determinations. Pharmacy: Walmart uses color - coded bins to segregate their waste streams. They use a third party for reverse distribution of its pharmaceuticals. The largest bottle we observed stocked in the pharmacy contained 500 pills.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A18A1934. LACOREY POWELL v. HEATH WILLIAMS et al.

This case originated as a dispossessory proceeding in magistrate court. The

magistrate court entered a judgment in favor of Defendant Lacorey Powell, and

Plaintiffs Heath and Jennifer Williams appealed to state court. After a bench trial, the

state court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. Powell filed a notice of appeal to this

Court. We, however, lack jurisdiction.

When a state court order involves a de novo appeal from a magistrate court

decision, an appellant is required to follow the discretionary appeal procedure. See

OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (11); Strachan v. Meritor Mtg. Corp. East, 216 Ga. App. 82 (453

SE2d 119) (1995). Powell’s failure to do so deprives us of jurisdiction over this

appeal. Accordingly, this case is hereby DISMISSED.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

July 03, 2018

07/03/2018
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63389-63390]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31306]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Joint Industry Program--Development of an 
Instrument for Corrosion Detection in Insulated Pipes Using a 
Magnetostrictive Sensor

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 8, 1997, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301, et seq. (``the Act''), Southwest Research 
Institute (``SwRI'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and with the Federal Trade Commission 
disclosing a change in its membership and performance date in its 
cooperative research project known as ``Joint Industry Program--
Development of an Instrument for Corrosion Detection in Insulated Pipes 
Using a Magnetostrictive Sensor,'' or ``JIP''. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, three new participants have joined the 
cooperative research project: CTI Alaska, Inc., Anchorage, AK; Gas 
Research Institute, Chicago, IL; and Mitsubishi Chemical Engineering 
Corporation, Tokyo, Japan. In addition, Southwest Research Institute, 
San Antonio, TX, has been a participant in JIP since the inception of 
the project, but was inadvertently not noted as such in the original 
and succeeding notifications. Also, participant Texaco, Inc., and 
Electric Power Research

[[Page 63390]]

Institute has withdrawn from participation in the project.
    The remaining participants in the Joint Industry Program have 
agreed to extend the original twelve (12) month period of performance 
and revise the project completion date to December 31, 1997.
    No other changes have been made in the planned research activities 
or the membership of the project. Membership in this group research 
project remains open and SwRI intends to file additional written 
notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On October 25, 1995, SwRI (Joint Industry Program, JIP) filed its 
original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 23, 1996 (61 FR 7020). 
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 15, 1996. 
A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) 
of the Act on April 23, 1996 (61 FR 17913).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 97-31306 Filed 11-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a Florida municipal corporation, Appellant, v. James Kenneth BOYDEN and Maryland National Insurance Company, a Maryland corporation, Appellees.

Nos. 69-714, 69-715.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 10, 1970.

*430Joseph A. Wanick, City Atty., and Ira M. Elegant, Asst. City Atty., for appellant.

Benjamin R. Alter and Lloyd S. Marks, Miami, for appellees.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

BARKDULL, Judge.

Appellant, plaintiff in the trial court, seeks review of an order vacating a final judgment which had estreated an appearance bond in the municipal court.

The record reveals that the appellee corporation had posted a $5,000.00 appearance bond to ensure the appearance of the ap-pellee, Boyden, in the municipal court of Miami Beach on December 18, 1967. When Boyden failed to make his appearance on said date, the trial judge ordered his bond estreated and, pursuant to the provisions of § 903.26, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., this estreature order was filed with the Clerk of the circuit court and an appropriate judgment thereon was ultimately entered in accordance with § 903.27, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Thereafter, without the fifteen-day period provided for in § 903.271, Fla.Stat., F.S.A., the surety moved to vacate the judgment, which motion was denied and properly so. See: State Fire & Casualty Company v. State, Fla. 1956, 88 So.2d 274; State for Use and Benefit of Dade County v. Frazier, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 288; State for Use and Benefit of Dade County v. Moran, Fla.App.1967, 199 So.2d 136. The surety then filed a motion pursuant to Rule 1.540(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, 31 F.S.A., contending that there was an equitable basis to relieve it from the final judgment of estreature. After hearing, the trial judge entered the order here under review, revoking the estreature and reestablishing the bond.

It is apparent from the record that the surety is unable, even at this date, to produce the body of Boyden to answer to the charges in the municipal court; that he is incarcerated in another jurisdiction, and subject to at least two other charges before he could answer to the charges pending in the municipal court of the appellant. We agree that, notwithstanding the fact that the surety failed to comply with the provisions of § 903.271, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. in seeking relief from the judgment of es-treature, it could avail itself of the provisions of Rule 1.540(b), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, but that the record in this case falls far short of that which would be necessary to authorize a trial judge to set aside a judgment of estreature entered pursuant to Ch. 903, Fla.Stat., F.S.A. Public Service Mutual Insurance Company v. State, Fla.App.1961, 135 So.2d 777; Florida Insurance Exchange v. State, Fla.App.1965, 178 So.2d 211; 8 C.J.S. Bail § 92 b.

Therefore, we reverse the order here under review and direct the trial court to reinstate the final judgment of estreature.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 236 (Tuesday, December 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 64821]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32137]



[[Page 64821]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP98-74-000]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

December 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 1, 1997, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), tendered for filing changes in its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth 
Revised Volume No. 1.
    Northern states that the filing revises the current Stranded 
Account No. 858 Surcharge and completes the Stranded Account No. 858-
Reverse Auction surcharge, which are designed to recover costs incurred 
by Northern related to its contracts with third-party pipelines. 
Therefore, Northern has filed Fortieth Revised Sheet Nos. 50 and 51 and 
the Thirty Eighth Revised Sheet No. 53 to be effective January 1, 1998.
    Northern states that copies of this filing were served upon the 
Company's customers and interested state commissions.
    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 Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. All 
protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken in this proceeding, but will not serve 
to make protestant a party to the proceedings. Any person wishing to 
become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing 
are on file with the Commission and are available for inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32137 Filed 12-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Alvin FENDERSON, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-50160.

D.C. No. CR-00-02764-MJL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 15, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Charles Alvin Fenderson appeals his conviction and sentence of twelve months and one day, following a conditional guilty plea to importing marijuana into the United States, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Fenderson contends that in light of *Ap-prendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 are facially unconstitutional. This contention is foreclosed by our decisions upholding these statutes despite *Apprendi. See United States v.*
      *801
      *Varela-Rivera,*279 F.3d 1174, 1175 n. 1 (9th Cir.2002), and *United States v. Mendoza-Paz,*286 F.3d 1104, 1109-10 (9th Cir. 2002).

Fenderson further contends that *Ap-prendi*requires the government to prove *mens rea*as to the type and amount of drug in order to sustain a conviction for unlawful importation of marijuana. We have recently rejected this argument in *United States v. Carranza,*289 F.3d 634, 644 (9th Cir.2002), and do so here.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63378-63379]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31311]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[NV-923-1990-00]


Mining Claims Under the General Mining Laws; Surface Management: 
Forms of Legal Financial Guarantees Allowable Under Nevada State Law

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) amended the surface 
management regulations at 43 CFR subpart 3809 on February 28, 1997 (62 
FR 9093). The amendment requires each BLM State Director to consult 
with the appropriate State authorities to determine which financial 
instruments in 43 CFR 3809.1-9(k) are allowable under State law. Nevada 
State law

[[Page 63379]]

allows surety bonds, cash, irrevocable letters of credit, certificates 
of deposit, and negotiable United States Government securities or bonds 
as forms of financial guarantees related to reclamation requirements.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This list is effective December 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia Dragon, Division of Minerals 
Management, BLM Nevada State Office, 850 Harvard Way, Reno, Nevada 
89502-2055, Telephone: 702-785-6458.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The BLM has consulted with the Department of 
Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental 
Protection to determine which of the financial instruments in 43 CFR 
subpart 3809.1-9(k) are allowable under Nevada State law to satisfy the 
financial assurance requirements related to mining reclamation 
requirements. In addition to surety bonds, cash, irrevocable letters of 
credit, certificates of deposit, and negotiable United States 
Government securities, other forms of financial assurance may be 
obtained through the State of Nevada to satisfy financial assurance 
requirements relating to mining reclamation in Nevada.

    Dated: November 3, 1997.
Robert V. Abbey,
State Director, Nevada.
[FR Doc. 97-31311 Filed 11-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-HC-P
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 226 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 226

   To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a single, 
    unique ZIP Code for Fairlawn, Virginia, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2021

 Mr. Griffith introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To direct the United States Postal Service to designate a single, 
    unique ZIP Code for Fairlawn, Virginia, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. ZIP CODE FOR FAIRLAWN, VIRGINIA.

    (a) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
            (1) the Commonwealth of Virginia is the only State in the 
        United States where all cities are independent from their 
        surrounding counties;
            (2) these independent cities are not politically a part of 
        the surrounding counties, even if they are located within their 
        borders;
            (3) in Virginia these independent cities are subject to 
        separate revenue collection and distribution practices related 
        to roads, resources, and sales tax than neighboring counties;
            (4) the sales tax collected from electronic commerce from 
        the unincorporated community of Fairlawn, Virginia, located in 
        Pulaski County, is often misallocated to the independent city 
        of Radford, Virginia, because they share the same ZIP Codes; 
        and
            (5) Fairlawn, Virginia, should be eligible to obtain a 
        separate and unique ZIP Code from the neighboring independent 
        city of Radford, Virginia, for tax purposes.
    (b) ZIP Code Designation.--Not later than 180 days after the date 
of the enactment of this Act, the United States Postal Service shall 
designate a single, unique ZIP Code applicable to Fairlawn, Virginia.
                                 <all>
```