alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Joe Nathan GAUT.

No. 60748.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1977.

In re: Joe Nathan Gaut applying for certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writ granted.

SUMMERS, J.,

dissents from the grant of this writ. The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a Writ of Certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Gayle K. Hamilton, Judge of the First (1st) Judicial District, Court for the Parish of Caddo, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 28th day of November, 1977, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through counsel shall show cause, in this court, on a day to be fixed by this Court, why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-15-00063-CV

In the Interest of Z.R.M., Child

From the 38th Judicial District Court, Medina County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-11-22140-CV

The Honorable Cathy Morris, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI, JUSTICE BARNARD, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial 

court is AFFIRMED. No costs are assessed against appellant.

SIGNED July 8, 2015.

_____________________________

Karen Angelini, Justice
#### James TABRON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-896.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 28, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Osceola County; Roger A. Barker, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC., Appellant, v. HUMBOLT EXPORT IMPORT COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 73-1468.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 19, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6493

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

WILLIAM PATRICK MILLER, a/k/a Scoop,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CR-98-7-MU)

Submitted: June 12, 2001 Decided: June 21, 2001

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Patrick Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C.F. Shappert,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

William Patrick Miller appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under Fed. R. Crim. P. 33, in which he

sought a new trial based upon newly discovered evidence. We have

reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no

abuse of discretion. United States v. Christy, 3 F.3d 765, 768 (4th

Cir. 1993) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Miller, No.

CR-98-7-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Feb. 15, 2001; entered Feb. 16, 2001).

Miller also asserts for the first time on appeal that he is

entitled to a new trial on drug quantity in light of the Supreme

Court’s decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).

We reject his claim because there is no error, plain or otherwise,

given that Miller received a 235-month sentence. See United States

v. White, 238 F.3d 537, 542 (4th Cir. 2001) (noting that statutory

maximum is twenty years when drug quantity is not charged as element of offense and found by jury beyond a reasonable doubt), cert.

denied, U.S. , 2001 WL 487738 (U.S. June 4, 2001) (No. 00-

9732). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7908 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7908

  To designate the El Paso Community Healing Garden National Memorial 
  located at 6900 Delta Drive, El Paso, Texas and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 31, 2020

   Ms. Escobar (for herself, Mr. Carson of Indiana, Ms. Norton, Mr. 
Gonzalez of Texas, Mr. Espaillat, Mr. Vela, Mr. Garcia of Illinois, Mr. 
 Castro of Texas, Ms. Garcia of Texas, Mr. Malinowski, Mrs. Murphy of 
Florida, Mr. Meeks, Ms. Velazquez, Ms. Mucarsel-Powell, Mr. Thompson of 
    California, Mr. Lynch, Mr. Cisneros, Mr. Welch, Mr. Veasey, Ms. 
 Schakowsky, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. McNerney, Mr. Cicilline, Mrs. Hayes, Mr. 
 McEachin, Ms. Moore, Mr. Gomez, Ms. Wild, Mr. Stanton, Mr. Cardenas, 
   Ms. Lofgren, Ms. Meng, Mr. Lowenthal, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Himes, Ms. 
  Pressley, Mr. Raskin, Ms. Lee of California, Ms. DeGette, Mr. David 
Scott of Georgia, Ms. Clark of Massachusetts, Ms. Haaland, Mr. Danny K. 
 Davis of Illinois, Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Ms. Roybal-Allard, and Mr. 
  McGovern) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To designate the El Paso Community Healing Garden National Memorial 
  located at 6900 Delta Drive, El Paso, Texas 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. DESIGNATION OF EL PASO COMMUNITY HEALING GARDEN NATIONAL 
              MEMORIAL.

    (a) In General.--The Healing Garden located at 6900 Delta Drive, El 
Paso, Texas is designated as the ``El Paso Community Healing Garden 
National Memorial''.
    (b) Effect of Designation.--The national memorial designated by 
this section is not a unit of the National Park System and the 
designation of the El Paso Community Healing Garden National Memorial 
shall not require or authorize Federal funds to be expended for any 
purpose related to that national memorial.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in:

      (i)    Registration Statement No. 2-98602  (1985  Stock
             Option Plan) on Form S-8;

      (ii)   Registration  Statement  No.   33-36586   (1990
             Fleming Stock Option Plan) on Form S-8;

      (iii)  Registration   Statement   No.   33-56241
             (Dividend  Reinvestment and Stock  Purchase  Plan)  on
             Form S-3;

      (iv)   Registration  Statement  No.  333-11317   (1996
             Fleming Incentive Stock Option Plan) on Form S-8;

      (v)    Registration  Statement  No.  333-35703  (Senior
             Subordinated Notes) on Form S-4;

      (vi)   Registration Statement No. 333-28219  (Associate
             Stock Purchase Plan) on Form S-8;

      (vii)  Registration Statement No. 333-80445  (1999
             Stock Incentive Plan) on Form S-8;

      (viii) Registration Statement No. 333-89375 (Consolidated
             Savings Plus and Stock Ownership Plan) on Form S-8;

      (ix)   Registration Statement No. 333-40670 (2000 Stock
             Incentive Plan) on Form S-8; and

      (x)    Registration Statement No. 333-40660 (Dividend
             Reinvestment and Stock Purchase Plan) on Form S-3

of  our  report  dated  February 14, 2001  (except  for  the
information under long-term debt and contingencies  included
in  the  notes  to consolidated financial statements  as  to
which  the date is March 22, 2001), appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of Fleming Companies, Inc. for the  year
ended December 30, 2000.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
March 22, 2001
R eco rd o f Di scussion Docket No. 

## r: AA- Dir e ctorate Iden tifier: -A D With wh o m outside the FAA has this AD action been discu sse d (i.e., Design Approva l Holder, manufacture r , ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)?

ORGANlZAT lON PE RSON CONTA CTE D DATE TOP I CS DISC USSED 

## · u ........ .:1

**.~v-N** fu-..rr? 

## re

**.f~JJ** 

# va_v; l'hl.::::. 

### 3 / 11/tlo 

### a.h& 7M. VCNY'IDV 

## s 1-h I AJ r..:> 

### J.. I **c.;,.~** 

### ,

**~ ~Ptf\<1**  

### 0 O ther/Ad diti ona l Inf or

mati on:
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Bobby M. STOGNER.

No. 61318.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 5, 1978.*

Richard P. Massony, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., John M. Mam-oulides, Dist. Atty., Harry Hardin, Asst. Dist. Atty., Abbott J. Reeves, Director, Research and Appeals Division, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

*

 DIXON and CALOGERO, JJ., would grant a rehearing.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
UNITED STATES
                       SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                             WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549


     ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    FORM 6-K

                        REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER
                       PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-16 OR 15D-16
                     OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

                           FOR THE MONTH OF MAY, 2014

                       COMMISSION FILE NUMBER: 000-29832
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                            CHELSEA OIL AND GAS LTD.
                (TRANSLATION OF REGISTRANT'S NAME INTO ENGLISH)

       -----------------------------------------------------------------
                              3200, 500 4TH AVENUE
                                CALGARY, ALBERTA
                                 CANADA T2P 2V6
                             (ADDRESS OF PRINCIPAL
                               EXECUTIVE OFFICES)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant files or will file annual reports
under cover Form 20-F or Form 40-F.

                       Form 20-F [X]      Form 40-F [_]

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b) (1): [_]

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is submitting the Form 6-K in paper as
permitted by Regulation S-T Rule 101(b) (7): [_]

Indicate by check mark whether by furnishing the information contained in this
Form, the registrant is also thereby furnishing the information to the
Commission pursuant to Rule 12g3-2(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                                  Yes[_]      No[X]

If "Yes" is marked, indicate below the file number assigned to the registrant in
connection with Rule 12g3-2(b): 82-

<PAGE>
                                   SIGNATURE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the
registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the
undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.

                                        CHELSEA OIL & GAS LTD.


Date: May 30, 2014                      By:  /s/ Jesse Meidl
                                             ----------------
                                             Name:  Jesse Meidl
                                             Title:  Chief Executive Officer







<PAGE>

                                 EXHIBIT INDEX

 EXHIBIT

99.1      Press release dated May 30, 2014


99.2      Unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial statements for the
          three month period ended March 31, 2014 and 2013

99.3      Management Discussion and Analysis for the three month period ended
          March 31, 2014 and 2013
#### Martin FLAKS, Petitioner, v. STATE-WIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, etc., Respondent.

No. 39680.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 23, 1970.

Certiorari dismissed. 233 So.2d 400.
EXHIBIT 21.1

THE PMI GROUP, INC.  SUBSIDIARIES



|                                                                   |  |                              
|------------------------------------------------------------------ |  | -----------------------------
|Subsidiary Name                                                    |  | Jurisdiction of Incorporation
|PMI Mortgage Insurance Co.                                         |  | Arizona                      
|PMI Capital Corporation                                            |  | Delaware                     
|Residential Guaranty Co.                                           |  | Arizona                      
|PMI Mortgage Guaranty Co.                                          |  | Arizona                      
|Residential Insurance Co.                                          |  | Arizona                      
|TPG Insurance Co.                                                  |  | Vermont                      
|TPG Segregated Portfolio Company                                   |  | Cayman                       
|PMI Mortgage Insurance Australia (Holdings) Pty Limited            |  | Australia                    
|PMI Mortgage Insurance Ltd                                         |  | Australia                    
|PMI Indemnity Limited                                              |  | Australia                    
|TPG Reinsurance Company Limited                                    |  | Ireland                      
|PMI Mortgage Insurance Company Limited                             |  | Ireland                      
|PMI Insurance Services Limited                                     |  | United Kingdom               
|PMI Plaza LLC                                                      |  | Delaware                     
|RAM Holdings Ltd (unconsolidated, partially owned)                 |  | Bermuda                      
|RAM Holdings II Ltd (unconsolidated, partially owned)              |  | Bermuda                      
|CMG Mortgage Insurance Company (unconsolidated, partially owned)   |  | Wisconsin                    
|CMG Mortgage Reinsurance Company (unconsolidated, partially owned) |  | Wisconsin                    
|CMG Mortgage Assurance Company (unconsolidated, partially owned)   |  | Wisconsin                    
|FGIC Corporation (unconsolidated, partially owned)                 |  | Delaware
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                          51,240
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   75,431
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,076
<INVENTORY>                                     70,011
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               208,417
<PP&E>                                         287,210
<DEPRECIATION>                                 142,037
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 464,665
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           94,653
<BONDS>                                         83,256
<COMMON>                                        20,635
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     227,135
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   464,665
<SALES>                                        142,230
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               144,598
<CGS>                                          102,627
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  102,627
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,643
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    80
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,369
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,920
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,550
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,563
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (1,083)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,480
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
#### METER MAID INDUSTRIES, INC., a corporation, Appellant, v. Eugene GLUCK, Appellee.

No. 70-339.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 16, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

FREDERICK A. GREGORY

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 1439

[ September 10, 2020 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.800 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Indian River County ; Dan L. Vaughn

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 312016CF000613A and 312015CF000918

.

Frederick A. Gregory, Florida City, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Aff irmed.

L EVINE

, C.J., C ONNER and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's unaudited condensed statements of income, condensed balance sheets and
condensed statements of cash flows and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements contained within the Company's Form 10-Q for the
three and six months ended July 31, 1999.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,927
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   74,550
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,920
<INVENTORY>                                     60,606
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               150,657
<PP&E>                                         218,154
<DEPRECIATION>                                 111,298
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 353,828
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           59,964
<BONDS>                                          3,400
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        43,832
<OTHER-SE>                                      72,080
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   353,828
<SALES>                                        238,658
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               238,658
<CGS>                                          162,334
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  216,583
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (1,878)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    94
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,067
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,886
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,919
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             12,967
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    12,967
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.71
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.70


</TABLE>
263 La. 369

#### STATE of Louisiana v. William L. WESTBROOK.

No. 52943.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 16, 1972.

In re: William L. Westbrook applying for writs of certiorari.

Application denied; no error of law in the judgment complained of.
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-49549, No. 333-59855, No. 333-30561, No. 333-
89908 and No. 333-64477) and Form S-3 (No. 333-44559, No. 333-30473, and No.
333-45463) of our report dated January 22, 1998 (except for Note 10 which is
as of March 28, 1998) appearing on page 40 of P-Com, Inc.'s Annual Report on
Form 10K, as amended, for the year ended December 31, 1997.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


San Jose, California
June 17, 1999
#### King *v.*King, Appellant.

Submitted May 1, 1934.

Before Trexler, P. J., Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadtfeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*286
      *John J. Haberstroh,*and with him *John A. Hoober,*for appellant.

*Harvey A. Gross,*for appellee.

July 13, 1934:

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

This was an action of divorce brought by a husband against his wife, on the ground of wilful and malicious desertion. It was tried before a jury, who rendered a verdict in favor of the libellant. The duty resting upon this court in appeals in divorce cases heard before a master, to review the testimony and decide on our own judgment whether it sustains, by clear and satisfactory proof, the complaint of the libellant (Nacrelli v. Nacrelli, 288 Pa. 1, 5, 136 A. 228; Nacrelli v. Nacrelli, 87 Pa. Superior Ct. 162, 164; Humphreys v. Humphreys, 85 Pa. Superior Ct. 488, 491; Stewart v. Stewart, 88 Pa. Superior Ct. 1, 2; Auerbach v. Auerbach, 98 Pa. Superior Ct. 369, 371), does not attach where there has been a jury trial and the issues of fact have been submitted to and decided by the jury: Middleton v. Middleton, 187 Pa. 612, 615, 41 A. 291; Burns v. Burns, 84 Pa. Superior Ct. 489, 490; Humphreys v. Humphreys, supra. These decisions, and many others, recognize this distinction, and restrict the duty of this court to review the facts and decide the ease on its merits to actions heard before a master, or by a court without a jury, and expressly except cases “where there has been an issue and jury trial.”

The present case, therefore, comes within the latter category, and our duty here is only to examine the testimony and see if there is evidence to support the verdict.

We have done this, and without going into details, are satisfied that evidence was produced by the libellant which required a submission of the case to the jury, and which, if believed, would sustain a finding by the jury that the respondent had deserted the libel*287lant, within the legal meaning of that term as used in our divorce code. See Middleton v. Middleton, supra. Whether we would have reached the same conclusion as the jury, if we had been the triers of fact, is beside the point.

The assignments of error are overruled and the decree is affirmed.
#### Floyd MORGAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-658.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 24, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.