alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 23.2




                  Consent of Independent Petroleum Engineers




    As independent petroleum engineers, we hereby consent to the incorporation
by reference in the registration statements (No. 33-46959, No. 33-57348 and
No. 333-34617) on Forms S-8, and the registration statements (No. 33-90296
and No. 333-11021) on Forms S-3 of Parallel Petroleum Corporation of our
estimates of reserves, included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Parallel
Petroleum Corporation for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1997, and to all
references to our firm.



                                   /s/ JOE C. NEAL & ASSOCIATES


Midland, Texas
March 19, 1998
EXHIBIT 32.2

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Golden  Enterprises,  Inc.
(the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the second quarter ended November 28, 2008, as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  on the date  hereof  (the
"Report"), I, Patty Townsend,  Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  906  of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report 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 the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations
          of the Company.

Dated:   January 15, 2009



/s/ Patty Townsend
------------------
Patty Townsend
Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Golden Enterprises, Inc. and will be retained by Golden Enterprises,
Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission, or its staff, upon
request.





                                       23
#### McNair *v.*State.

(Division A.

Dec. 10, 1934.)

[157 So. 908.

No. 31459.]

Leonard B. Melvin, of Laurel, for appellant.

*359Wm. H. Maynard, Assistant Attorney-General, for the state.

*360Cook, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to-life imprisonment in the state penitentiary; and, from this conviction and sentence, this appeal was prosecuted.

The deceased, Jesse Mason, was shot in his home; and shortly thereafter he was carried to the South Mississippi Charity Hospital, where he died thirty-three days Jater. The evidence as to the identity of the person who-fired the fatal shot is conflicting; but, in view of the conclusion we have reached upon one assignment of error, a detailed statement of this evidence would serve no useful purpose.

The appellant offered as a dying declaration a statement made by the wounded man to Dr. R. H. Cranford a few hours before he died. After a full preliminary examination as to its competency, this declaration was excluded, and the appellant asigns as error the action of the court in so doing. Throughout the time the deceased was confined in the South Mississippi Charity Hospital, he was under the care and treatment of Dr. Cranford, superintendent and chief surgeon of the hospital. Dr. Cranford testified that he had known the deceased for years, and had been his physician for ten or fifteen years, that, during the entire thirty-three days that he was confined in the hospital, he was in a serious condition, and that he talked to him often about his condition and about the shooting. He further testified that a few hours before death of the deceased he stated to him, “Jesse, we have lost — we are going to lose,” and that the deceased replied, “Yes, I am going.” He further testified that the deceased then said that he did not want the law to punish *361T. D. McNair, that he was not guilty, and that it was a Jenkins negro who shot him. The doctor further testified that when the deceased said, “Tes, I am going,” he was conscious of the fact that he was dying, and that by these words he meant he was going to die.

If Dr. Cranford’s statement that the deceased was conscious of the fact that he was dying be treated as a mere expression of opinion by the witness, still we think it is manifest from the declarations of the deceased, and all attendant circumstances, that he was then under a sense of immediate and impending death, and that this dying declaration should have been admitted in evidence. These declarations of the deceased were material and very favorable to appellant’s defense, and we think the exclusion thereof constituted reversible error. Green v. State, 89 Miss. 331, 42 So. 797.

Reversed and remanded.
#### Charles HARRIS, Petitioner, v. CAPITOL CONCRETE COMPANY et al., Respondents.

No. 43885.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 15, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

McCAIN, J., dissents.
H. Res. 286

In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

October 28, 1993.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule

XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 334) to provide for the recognition of the

Lumbee Tribe of Cheraw Indians of North Carolina, and for

other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill

for failure to comply with clause 2(l)(2)(B) of rule XI are

waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall

not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the

chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on

Natural Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. Each section shall be considered as read. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise

and report the bill to the House with such amendments as

may have been adopted. The previous question shall be con-
2

HRES 286 EH

sidered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to

final passage without intervening motion except one motion

to recommit.

Attest:

Clerk.
No. 10905.

#### Carrothers *v.*Mizener et al.

Decided February 16, 1909.

Error to Circuit *471Court of Ottawa county.

*Mr. Scott Stahl,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. William Gordon,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Summers, Davis and Price, JJ., concur.
SERVED APRIL 5~ 2010 


U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 


OFFICE OF HEARINGS 


WASHINGTON, DC 


IN THE MATTER OF 

RECURRENT TRAINING CENTER, INC. 

FAA DOCKET No. CP09GL0008 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

DMS No. FAA-2009-0971 

ORDER ON MOTIONS 

Respondent Recurrent Training Center, Inc. (hereinafter "Respondent") on March 

23,2010, filed a Motion for Decision, arguing that the parties' submissions and 

governing law establish that no genuine issue of fact exists and that it is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law. On March 30, Complainant Federal Aviation 

Administration (hereinafter "Complainant") countered Respondent's motion and filed its 

own Motion for Decision. 

. Having read and considered the parties' respective motions, it is hereby ordered 

as follows: 

1) 	 The hearing, currently scheduled to begin on April 27, is continued until 

further order; 

2) 	 The parties shall file an agreed-upon Statement of Facts no later than April 23, 

2010; 

3) 	 Complainant shall file an Opening Brief no later than May 7, 2010; 
2 

4) 	 Respondent shall file a Reply Brief no later than May 21, 2010; 

5) 	 Complainant, should it choose to do so, shall file a Response to Respondent's 

Reply Brief no later than May 28, 2010. 

..... 

6) 	 Briefs shall discuss all relevant matters; however, the undersigned reserves the 

right to convene a hearing on issues in dispute, including the amount of any 

civil penalty to be imposed. 

SO ORDERED. 

ichard C. GOOdW"'lr--­

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
FAA Docket No. CP09GL0008 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

SERVICE LIST 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: 	 Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2WI0001 

ONE COpy 

Charles R. Barnett, III, Respondent's Counsel 

1664 Moorland Lane 

Crystal Lake, IL 60014-2985 

TEL: 815-356-8647 

FAX: 815-356-7042 

Briana Morgan, Complainant's Counsel 

Great Lakes Region, AGL-7M 

Federal Aviation Administration 

2300 East Devon Avenue 

Des Plaines, IL 60018-4696 

TEL: 847-294-7313 

FAX: 847-294-7498 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

East Building Ground Floor 

Room E12-320 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-2139 Attorney-Advisor 

202-366-5121 Legal Assistant 


FAX: 202-366-7536 


Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W;, Wilbur Wright Building~Suite 2WlOOO, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-,430. 

I
# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

September 24, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00312

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF K.S.G.H. AND K.R.H.

From the 150th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2019

- PA

- 02157 Honorable Charles E. Montemayor , Judge Presiding



### ORDER

This is an accelerated appeal from an order terminating Appellant B.H.’s parental rights. On August 19, 2021, we issued an order explaining that from our review of the clerk’s record, it appeared Appellant B.H.’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. The clerk’s record shows the Order of Termination was signed by the trial court on June 12, 20 21. Because this is an accelerated appeal, the notice of appeal was due on July 2, 2021. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.1(b);

T EX

. F AM

. C ODE § 263.405. The clerk’s record reflects that Appellant B.H. did not file a notice of appeal until July 28, 2021. Thus, we or dered Appellant B.H. to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

In response, Appellant B.H. has filed written proof that he e

- filed his notice of appeal with the trial court clerk on June 28, 2021, but his notice of ap peal was improperly rejected by the trial court clerk. Appellant B.H.’s notice of appeal was thus timely filed, and we have jurisdiction over this appeal. See Jamar v. Patterson , 868 S.W.2d 318, 319 (Tex. 1993).

We reinstate appellate deadlines. The clerk ’s records and reporter’s records have been filed. We ORDER Appellant B.H. to file his brief on or before October 14, 2021.

_____ ____________________________ Liz a A. Rodriguez , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 24th day of September, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
IV

House Calendar No. 243

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 568

[Report No. 103–839]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the

bill (S. 21) to designate certain lands in the California Desert as wilderness, to establish Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and Mojave National Parks,

and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 5, 1994

Mr. BEILENSON, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to

accompany the bill (S. 21) to designate certain lands

in the California Desert as wilderness, to establish Death

Valley, Joshua Tree, and Mojave National Parks, and

for other purposes.

1 Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this res2 olution the House shall consider the conference report to

3 accompany the bill (S. 21) to designate certain lands in

4 the California Desert as wilderness, to establish Death

5 Valley, Joshua Tree, and Mojave National Parks, and for
2

HRES 568 RH

1 other purposes. All points of order against the conference

2 report and against its consideration are waived. The con3 ference report shall be considered as read. The previous

4 question shall be considered as ordered on the conference

5 report to final adoption without intervening motion except

6 one motion to recommit.

House Calendar No. 243

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. RES. 568

[Report No. 103–839]

RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference reMojave National Parks, and for other purposes. ness, to establish Death Valley, Joshua Tree, and certain lands in the California Desert as wilder- port to accompany the bill (S. 21) to designate

OCTOBER 5, 1994

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be

printed
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice
131076 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 131076 COA: 264123 Wayne CC: 01-003932 CHRISTINE HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the March 16, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, a nd it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
#### Nuan Wal CHOY, Petitioner, v. PEKIN RESTAURANT, LaSalle National Insurance Company and the Florida Industrial Commission, Respondents.

No. 38836.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 24, 1969.

Peter S. Schwedocfc of the Law Offices of Howard N. Pelzner, Miami, for petitioner.

Rose & Marlow, Miami, Patrick H. Mears and J. Franklin 'Garner, Tallahassee, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

By petition for writ of certiorari we have for review an order of the Florida Industrial Commission bearing date June 26, 1969.

We find that oral argument would serve no useful purpose and it is therefore dispensed with pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.10, subd. e, 32 F.S.A.

Our consideration of the petition, record and briefs leads us to conclude that there has been no deviation from the essential requirements of law.

Accordingly, the petitions for certiorari and attorney’s fee are hereby denied.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON and ADKINS, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated balance sheet of Global Marine Inc. and subsidiaries
as of 9-30-00 and the related condensed consolidated statement of income for
the nine months ended 9-30-00, and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          62,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  138,800
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,700
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               225,300
<PP&E>                                       2,465,300
<DEPRECIATION>                                 539,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,320,400
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          161,200
<BONDS>                                        898,600
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        17,600
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,210,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,320,400
<SALES>                                         13,500
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               707,400
<CGS>                                            5,700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  563,100
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              49,600
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                102,500
<INCOME-TAX>                                    29,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             73,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    73,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                     0.42
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.41






</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                         464,478
<SECURITIES>                                 1,069,783
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,124,202
<ALLOWANCES>                                   120,000
<INVENTORY>                                  4,453,932
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            18,190,417
<PP&E>                                      83,156,475
<DEPRECIATION>                              62,265,803
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              41,965,587
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,022,126
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     9,219,195
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,104,203
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                41,965,587
<SALES>                                     31,578,250
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            31,690,046
<CGS>                                       14,577,141
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               30,812,096
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 9,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                877,950
<INCOME-TAX>                                   325,349
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            552,601
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   552,601
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .05


</TABLE>
# C_2021320EN.01002801.xml

| 9.8.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 320/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.8.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 320/28

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Belgium) lodged on 21 May 2021 — Monument Vandekerckhove NV v Stad Gent, other parties: Denys NV, Aelterman BVBA

(Case C-316/21)

(2021/C 320/27)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Raad van State

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Monument Vandekerckhove NV

Defendant: Stad Gent

Interveners: Denys NV, Aelterman BVBA

Questions referred

| 1. | Must the second paragraph of Article 63(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, taken on its own and in conjunction with the scope of the principles of European law, namely equality, non-discrimination and transparency in public procurement, be interpreted as meaning that, if the contracting authority ascertains that an entity on whose capacity an economic operator relies does not fulfil the selection criteria, it is obliged to request that entity’s replacement or that it has the option to request such replacement if the economic operator wishes to be selected? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must the second paragraph of Article 63(1) of Directive 2014/24/EU (1) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 February 2014 on public procurement and repealing Directive 2004/18/EC, taken on its own and in conjunction with the scope of the principles of European law, namely equality, non-discrimination and transparency in public procurement, be interpreted as meaning that, if the contracting authority ascertains that an entity on whose capacity an economic operator relies does not fulfil the selection criteria, it is obliged to request that entity’s replacement or that it has the option to request such replacement if the economic operator wishes to be selected?

| 2. | Are there circumstances in which, on the basis of the principles of equality, non-discrimination and transparency, and also depending on the conduct of the award procedure, the contracting authority is not, or is no longer, obliged, or is not, or is no longer, permitted to insist on replacement? |
| --- | --- |

2.

Are there circumstances in which, on the basis of the principles of equality, non-discrimination and transparency, and also depending on the conduct of the award procedure, the contracting authority is not, or is no longer, obliged, or is not, or is no longer, permitted to insist on replacement?

---

(1)  OJ 2014 L 94, p. 65.

---
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publi cation in the New Mexico Reports. Please see 1 Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please 2 also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other 3 deviations from the official paper version file d by the Court of Appeals and does not include the 4 filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 CONSUELO LUCERO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellant, 8 v. NO. 29,859 9 DAVID TRUJILLO, SAFECO INSURANCE 10 COMPANY OF AMERICA, and PROGRESSIVE 11 HALCYON INSURANCE COMPANY, 12 Defendants-Appellees. 13

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY 14 Ted Baca, District Judge 15
Law Office of Geoffrey R. Romero 16 Geoffrey R. Romero 17 Albuquerque, NM 18 Garcia & Vargas, LLC 19 Ray M. Vargas, II 20 David P. Garcia 21 Santa Fe, NM 22 for Appellant 23 Modrall, Sperling, Roehl, Harris & Sisk, P.A. 24 Douglas G. Schneebeck 252 Albuquerque, NM 1 for Appellees 23 MEMORANDUM OPINION 1 BUSTAMANTE, Judge. 2 Insured appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Insurer. We 3 proposed to reverse based on our recent decision in Romero v. Progressive 4 Northwestern Ins. Co. , No. 28,720, slip op. (N.M. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2009). In 5 response, Insurer asks that we stay the cas e until the petition for writ of certiorari filed 6 in Romero is decided by our Supreme Court. We point out, however, that Romero is 7 the latest pronouncement from this Court, and although certiorari has been filed and 8 may be granted, the Supreme Court has not reversed or overruled this Court’s decision 9 in Romero . Until the Supreme Court does so, Romero remains controlling precedent 10 on which our courts are entitled to rely. See Arco Materials, Inc. v. Taxation & 11 Revenue Dep’t , 118 N.M. 12, 14, 878 P.2d 330, 332 (Ct. App. 1994), rev’d on other 12 grounds by Blaze Constr. Co. v. Taxation & Revenue Dep’t , 118 N.M. 647, 884 P.2d 13 803 (Ct. App. 1994). 14 For the reasons explained in our calendar notice, we reverse the district court’s 15 order granting summary judgment in favor of Insurer, and remand for further 16 proceedings. 174 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1

2 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge 3 WE CONCUR: 4

5 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 6

7 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 8