alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.2 [LETTERHEAD OF MILLER AND LENTS, LTD. APPEARS HERE] February 25, 2009 Hugoton Royalty Trust P.O. Box 830650 Dallas, TX 75283-0650 Re:

          Hugoton Royalty Trust 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K Gentlemen: The firm of Miller and Lents, Ltd., consents to the references to our firm in the form and context in which they appear and to the use of our report dated February 20, 2009, regarding the Hugoton Royalty Trust Proved Reserves and Future Net Revenue as of December 31, 2008, in the 2008 Annual Report on Form 10-K. We further consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-81849 on Form S-8 of XTO Energy Inc. Miller and Lents, Ltd., has no interests in the Hugoton Royalty Trust or in any affiliated companies or subsidiaries and is not to receive any such interest as payment for such reports and has no director, officer, or employee otherwise connected with Hugoton Royalty Trust. We are not employed by Hugoton Royalty Trust on a contingent basis. Yours very truly, MILLER AND LENTS, LTD. By

          /s/ James C. PearsonJames C. Pearson Chairman
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No.
333-60970, 333-16865, 333-20651 and 033-66034 on Form S-3 and in Registration
Statements No. 333-98581, 33-85940, 333-53566, 333-31067, 333-64910, 333-66770
and 333-81403 on Form S-8 of Swift Transportation Co., Inc. of our report dated
February 1, 2001 (relating to the 2000 consolidated financial statements of
M.S. Carriers, Inc. not presented separately therein) appearing in this Form
10-K.


                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Memphis, Tennessee
March 26, 2003
#### E. M. REIZEN, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA NATIONAL BANK AT GAINESVILLE, etc., Respondent.

No. 43190.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 24, 1973.

Certiorari dismissed. 269 So.2d 777.

CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Richard W. PHILLIPS, Respondent.

No. 42603.

Supreme Court of Florida.

April 4, 1973.

*33Samuel D. Phillips, Jr., West Palm Beach, and Norman A. Faulkner, Tallahassee, for The Florida Bar, complainant.

Richard W. Phillips, in pro. per.

PER CURIAM.

This is a Florida Bar disciplinary case in which Respondent, Richard W. Phillips, after due hearing, was found guilty by the Referee of certain misconduct, as reflected in the Referee’s report of July 6, 1972. In his report, the Referee noted that no appearance had been made by Respondent or by counsel representing him, and that all mailed notices of the hearing were returned with the notation: “Moved, left no address.” The Referee’s “Findings of Fact” read as follows:

> “After considering all the pleadings, exhibits and evidence before me, I find that:

> “1. During the month of October, 1970, one Samuel S. Robbins employed the Respondent to represent him in the City Court of Lakeland, Florida, and paid him $75.00, and the Respondent failed to carry out the contract of employment entered into with said client for his professional services.

> “2. On December 1, 1970, Respondent appeared in the Magistrate’s Court, Criminal Division, in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, in an inebriated or intoxicated condition while a jury trial was being conducted, which conduct resulted in the Trial Judge citing the Respondent for contempt of Court,”

The Referee recommended that for his violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility the

> “ . . . Respondent be given a public reprimand and suspended from the practice of law in Florida for a period of one year, and that his membership in The Florida Bar be likewise suspended until such time as the Respondent registers his proper mailing address with the Director of the Florida Bar within said period of one year, and in failure to do so that Respondent be disbarred.

The Respondent made no request for review by this Court. However, The Florida Bar has petitioned us to review the Referee’s recommendation of discipline on the ground that, although authorized, the penalty imposed is excessive.

Upon examination of the record in this cause and upon the recommendation of The Florida Bar, we find the Respondent in violation of Disciplinary Rule 7-101(A)(2), 7-106(C) (6) and Canons 1, 6, 7, and 9 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, 32 F.S.A. It is ordered that Respondent is suspended from the practice of law in Florida for three months and thereafter until rehabilitation has been established to the satisfaction of this Court, and Respondent has registered his proper

*34mailing address with the Executive Director of The Florida Bar and has paid the costs of these proceedings.

ERVIN, Acting C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ„ concur.
<PAGE>

                                   EXHIBIT 23

              CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



 We have issued our report dated January 28, 2000, accompanying the consolidated
 financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of K-Swiss Inc.
 on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999. We hereby consent to the
 incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of
 K-Swiss Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 33-36505, effective August 23, 1990, File
 No. 33-77258, effective April 4, 1994, File No. 33-95650, effective August 10,
 1995 and File No. 333-79641, effective May 28, 1999) and on Form S-3 (File No.
 333-37895, effective October 17, 1997 and File No. 333-60043, effective July
 28, 1998).


 /s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP



 Los Angeles, California
 January 28, 2000
DENY and Opinion Filed November 20, 2019 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01305-CV 

IN RE ERIC DRAKE, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 3 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-19-05212-C 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Carlyle 

Opinion by Justice Osborne 

Relator Eric Drake is a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order. See TEX. CIV. PRAC.

& REM. CODE ANN. § 11.101(a). Before the Court is relator’s pro se October 28, 2019 petition for 

writ of mandamus and November 12, 2019 amended writ of mandamus petition: (1) directing the 

trial court to vacate its October 15, 2019 order of dismissal, (2) directing the statutory county court 

local administrative law judge to vacate her October 15, 2019 order and October 23, 2019 amended 

order denying relator permission to file the lawsuit pursuant to section 11.102 of the civil practice 

and remedies code, (3) directing the district court local administrative judge to vacate his October 

28, 2019 order and (4) seeking additional relief. 

To be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must show that the trial court has clearly abused 

its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 

148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing the petition and 

mandamus record, we conclude relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief requested. 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and amended writ of 

mandamus petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) (the court must deny the petition if court 

determines relator is not entitled to relief sought). 

 

191305F.P05 

/Leslie Osborne/ 

LESLIE OSBORNE 

JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33943]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting of the Advisory 
Committee to the Director

    Pursuant to Public Law 92-463, notice is hereby given of a 
telephone conference call meeting of the Advisory Committee to the 
Director, National Cancer Institute, January 12, 1998, at the National 
Institutes of Health, Building 31, Room 11A10, 9000 Rockville Pike, 
Bethesda, MD 20892.
    The entire meeting will be open to the public from 10:00 a.m. to 
11:00 a.m. Attendance by the public is limited to space available. 
Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance such as sign 
language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should 
notify the Contact Person listed below.

    Name of Committee: Advisory Committee to the Director.
    Contact Person: Susan J. Waldrop, Executive Secretary, Federal 
Building, Room 312, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-1458.
    Date of Meeting: January 12, 1998.
    Place of Meeting: National Institutes of Health, Building 31, 
Room 11A10, 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20892.
    Open: 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.
    Agenda: To update the Committee on the progress of the NCI 
working groups.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the review and funding cycle.
(CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAM NUMBERS: 93.393, 
Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 93.394, Cancer Detection and 
Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer Treatment Research; 93.396, 
Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer Centers Support; 93.398, 
Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer Control.)

    Dated: December 22, 1997.
LaVeen Ponds,
Acting Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-33943 Filed 12-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
Document

Exhibit 10.1

TENTH AMENDMENT TO THE
PROTHENA CORPORATION PLC
2020 EMPLOYMENT INDUCEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN


This Tenth Amendment (this “Tenth Amendment”) to the Prothena Corporation plc 2020 Employment Inducement Incentive Plan (“2020 EIIP”), was made and adopted by the Board of Directors (“Board”) of Prothena Corporation plc, a public limited company organized under the laws of Ireland (the “Company”), on September 1, 2021 (the “Amendment Date”).


RECITALS


WHEREAS, the Company maintains the 2020 EIIP; and


WHEREAS, the Board believes it is in the best interests of the Company and its shareholders to amend the 2020 EIIP to increase the number of ordinary shares authorized for issuance under the 2020 EIIP.


NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the 2020 EIIP is hereby amended as follows, effective as of the Amendment Date:


AMENDMENT


1.Section 2.28 of the 2020 EIIP is hereby amended and restated in its entirety as follows:


“2.28 “Overall Share Limit” means 1,245,000 Shares.”


2.This Tenth Amendment shall be and hereby is incorporated into and forms a part of the 2020 EIIP, and except as expressly provided herein, all terms and conditions of the 2020 EIIP shall remain in full force and effect.
#### Robert L. BONNETT, Jr., Appellant, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, INC., Appellee.

No. 02-1502.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted July 23, 2002.

Decided Aug. 9, 2002.

Before McMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and FAGG, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Robert L. Bonnett, Jr., appeals from the District Court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit against Anheuser Busch, Inc. (ABI). Having carefully reviewed the record, *see Lawrence v. Cooper Communities, Inc.,*132 F.3d 447, 449-50 (8th Cir.1998) (standard of review), we affirm.

We agree with the District Court that Bonnett’s complaint was time-barred. ABI terminated Bonnett on July 1, 1998, and his Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)/Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR) charge was dated June 28, 1999. Further, the EEOC sent Bonnett a right-to-sue letter in November 1999, and he did not file the instant complaint until May 2001. *See*42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(l), (f)(1) (1994) (requiring that Title VII claims be filed with EEOC within 300 days of alleged unlawful employment practice; if charge is dismissed by EEOC, aggrieved party may bring civil action within ninety days after notice of dismissal is given); 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (1994) (adopting procedures under § 2000e-5 for ADA claims). The evidence Bonnett offered in resisting summary judgment did not create a triable issue on the timeliness of his charge, *see Moody v. St. Charles County,*23 F.3d 1410, 1412 (8th Cir.1994) (requiring party seeking to defeat summary judgment motion to substantiate allegations with suffi-*35dent probative evidence, not just with speculation or conjecture), or on the timeliness of his complaint, *see Kerr v. Charles F. Vatterott & Co.,*184 F.3d 938, 947 (8th Cir.1999) (explaining that there is general rebuttable presumption that properly mailed document is received); and we find no basis for the application of equitable tolling, *see Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown,*466 U.S. 147, 151, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984) (per curiam) (holding that plaintiff “who fails to act diligently cannot invoke equitable principles to excuse that lack of diligence”).

Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

1

. The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
#### V. V. RADIONOFF, Trustee In Bankruptcy for Tommy Thompson, Inc., Appellant, v. GUARANTY NATIONAL BANK, a National Banking corporation, Appellee.

No. 73-1260.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 11, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Louis Weissing, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6890

CLARENCE MERICA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus DONALD W. FARLEY; ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA; WILLIAM MEADOWS, Lieutenant; FIRST SERGEANT WALTON; ROCKINGHAM-HARRISON REGIONAL JAIL,Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CA-98-345-R) Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 20, 1998 Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence Merica, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Clarence Merica appeals from the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1998) complaint. The district court’s dismissal without prejudice is not appealable. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers’ Local Union 392 , 10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). A dismissal withoutprejudice is a final order only if “‘no amendment [in the complaint] could cure the defects in the plaintiff’s case.’” Id. at 1067 (quoting Coniston Corp. v. Village of Hoffman Estates , 844 F.2d 461, 463 (7th Cir. 1988)). In ascertaining whether a dismissal without prejudice is reviewable in this court, the court must determine “whether the plaintiff could save his action by merely amending his complaint.” Domino Sugar , 10 F.3d at 1066-67. In this case, Merica may move in the district court to reopen his case and to file an amended complaint specifically alleging facts sufficient to state a claim under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983. Therefore, the dismissal order is not appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit
4.71


 


Summary
of the Public Deed of Purchase and Sale of Real Property, entered into on December 14, 2020, in connection with Fazenda Bananal
IX.


 


Parties:
Agrifirma Agro Ltda. (formerly known as Agrifirma Brasil S.A), as Seller; and Ires Ricardo Basso, as Buyer.


 


Purpose: The
sale of a total area of 373,3226 hectares from Fazenda Bananal IX, for the total price,
in Brazilian national currency (Reais), of R$3,305,100.00, which was paid upfront on November
11, 2020.
#### Sheryl Hutchins ANDRIES v. James L. ANDRIES.

No. 47196.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 17, 1973.

H. Lanier B. Foote, Lee B. Agnew, Sr., Jackson, for appellant.

McLaurin & Nicols, Brandon, for ap-pellee.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and PATTERSON, SMITH, ROBERTSON and SUGG, JJ.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Rankin County; L. B. Porter, Chancellor.

Affirmed.
#### Walter CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-2700.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 15, 1977.

Richard L. Jorandby, Public Defender, and Craig S. Barnard, Asst. Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard P. Zaretsky, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

*1119DAUKSCH, Judge.

In review of this guilty plea we find the court did not follow the mandates of *Williams v. State,*316 So.2d 267 (Fla.1975); *State v. Lyles,*316 So.2d 277 (Fla.1975), and *Boykin v. Alabama,*395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969). This cause is remanded to the trial court for hearing to determine if a factual basis exists for the charge against the Appellant. If so, then the Judgment is affirmed. If not, then the Appellant should be permitted to withdraw his plea and go to trial.

REMANDED with directions.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and CROSS, J., concur.
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2571 

AN ACT 

To include Portugal in the list of foreign states whose nationals are eligible for admission into the United States 

as E–1 and E–2 nonimmigrants if United States nationals are treated similarly by the Government of Portugal 

and to otherwise modify the eligibility criteria for E 

visas. 
2 

•HR 2571 EH

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 TITLES. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Advancing Mutual In5 terests and Growing Our Success Act’’ or the ‘‘AMIGOS 

6 Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. NONIMMIGRANT TRADERS AND INVESTORS. 

8 For purposes of clauses (i) and (ii) of section 

9 101(a)(15)(E) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 

10 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)), Portugal shall be considered to 

11 be a foreign state described in such section if the Govern12 ment of Portugal provides similar nonimmigrant status to 

13 nationals of the United States. 

14 SEC. 3. MODIFICATION OF ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR E 

15 VISAS. 

16 Section 101(a)(15)(E) of the Immigration and Na17 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(E)) is amended— 

18 (1) in the matter preceding clause (i)— 

19 (A) by inserting ‘‘(or, in the case of an 

20 alien who acquired the relevant nationality 

21 through a financial investment and who has not 

22 previously been granted status under this sub23 paragraph, the foreign state of which the alien 

24 is a national and in which the alien has been 

25 domiciled for a continuous period of not less 
3 

•HR 2571 EH

1 than 3 years at any point before applying for 

2 a nonimmigrant visa under this subparagraph)’’ 

3 before ‘‘, and the spouse’’; and 

4 (B) by striking ‘‘him’’ and inserting ‘‘such 

5 alien’’; and 

6 (2) by striking ‘‘he’’ each place such term ap7 pears and inserting ‘‘the alien’’. 

8 SEC. 4. DETERMINATION OF BUDGETARY EFFECTS. 

9 The budgetary effects of this Act, for the purpose of 

10 complying with the Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act of 2010, 

11 shall be determined by reference to the latest statement 

12 titled ‘‘Budgetary Effects of PAYGO Legislation’’ for this 

13 Act, submitted for printing in the Congressional Record 

14 by the Chairman of the House Budget Committee, pro15 vided that such statement has been submitted prior to the 

16 vote on passage. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 23, 2021. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2571 

AN ACT 

To include Portugal in the list of foreign states 

visas. otherwise modify the eligibility criteria for E similarly by the Government of Portugal and to immigrants if United States nationals are treated the United States as E–1 and E–2 nonwhose nationals are eligible for admission into
1

The HONORABLE THOMAS M. SHANAHAN, United States District

Judge for the District of Nebraska.

___________

No. 95-4045

___________

Noe Martinez-Raga, *

 *

Appellant, *

 * Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

 * District of Nebraska.

Immigration and Naturalization *

Service, District Director, * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellee. *

___________

 Submitted: August 6, 1996

 Filed: August 20, 1996

___________

Before BOWMAN, MAGILL, and LOKEN, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Noe Martinez-Raga appeals from the district court's1

 order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition for lack of

jurisdiction. After careful review of the record and the parties'

briefs, we conclude the judgment of the district court was correct.

We do not consider Martinez-Raga's argument that he is eligible for

a waiver under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(h), as he has not exhausted his

administrative remedies. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.
2

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS OF ARCADIAN CORPORATION INCLUDED IN FORM 10-K/A FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1995, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         253,188<F1>
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  111,374
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,878
<INVENTORY>                                    136,767
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               506,020
<PP&E>                                         823,316
<DEPRECIATION>                                 216,906
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,270,654
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          185,808
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    214,195
<COMMON>                                           305
<OTHER-SE>                                     221,919
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,270,654
<SALES>                                      1,266,887
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,266,887
<CGS>                                          909,338
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  909,338
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   948
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              67,217
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                155,074
<INCOME-TAX>                                    66,824
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             88,250
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    88,250
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.06
<FN>
<F1>CASH INCLUDES $50 MILLION OF RESTRICTED RESERVES.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>