alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
 
                                                                   EXHIBIT 23.2

                [LETTERHEAD OF LEE KEELING AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
                      PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS APPEARS HERE]




           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
           ---------------------------------------------------------


        We hereby consent to the inclusion of our oil and gas reserve report for
the oil and gas reserves of LaTex Resources, Inc. (the "Company") as of July 31,
1996, and to all references to our firm included or made as part of the
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended July 31,1996.


                                      LEE KEELING AND ASSOCIATES, INC.



                                      By:/s/ Kenneth Renberg
                                         -------------------------------------
                                         Kenneth Renberg  Vice President
# C_2022472EN.01003502.xml

| 12.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 472/35 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 472/35

---

Judgment of the General Court of 5 October 2022 — Múka v Commission

(Case T-214/21) (1)

(Access to documents - Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 - Documents relating to State aid control procedures - Refusal to grant access - Third indent of Article 4(2) of Regulation No 1049/2001 - Exception relating to the protection of the purpose of inspections, investigations and audits - General presumption of non-disclosure - Overriding public interest)

(2022/C 472/39)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Ondřej Múka (Prague, Czech Republic) (represented by: P. Kočí, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: C. Ehrbar and K. Herrmann, acting as Agents)

Re:

By his action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant asks the General Court, first, to annul (i) the letter of the European Commission of 27 October 2020 rejecting his initial application of 17 September 2020 requesting access to documents which it had exchanged with the Czech Republic and (ii) Decision C(2021) 1320 final of 21 February 2021 rejecting his confirmatory application of 12 November 2020 requesting access to those documents, and, second, to order the Commission to provide him with all the documents and information referred to in his application of 17 September 2020.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Ondřej Múka to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Ondřej Múka to bear his own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission.

---

(1)  OJ C 242, 21.6.2021.

---
[No. 419-41835-3.

Division Three.

October 15, 1971.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Jerry E. Bandfield, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Grant County, No. 3292, Felix Rea, J., entered January 8, 1971. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

PATRICK NEAL MAYE, JR.,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 254 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5th day of December, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                          $1,456
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,717
<ALLOWANCES>                                       284
<INVENTORY>                                      2,320
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,372
<PP&E>                                           6,812
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,892
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  14,568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,570
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           762
<OTHER-SE>                                      16,859
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    14,568
<SALES>                                          5,265
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,265
<CGS>                                            1,554
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,763
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,519
<INCOME-TAX>                                       562
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                957
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       957
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    $1.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### Joe Nathan BREWSTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee,

No. 77-508.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 16, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Wayne Chalu, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Robert J. Landry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant’s probation supervisor filed an affidavit charging appellant with violating conditions (a) and (h) of his probation. At the hearing on the affidavit, the trial court found that appellant had violated condition (a) of his probation and revoked the probation. We affirm that revocation, but we agree with appellant that there are imperfections in the order revoking probation and in the subsequent sentence.

In the first place, owing to an apparent clerical error, the order revoking probation recites that appellant violated not only condition (a) but also condition (h). Since at the hearing the court only found that appellant had violated condition (a), it should now remove any reference to condition (h) from its order.

The present sentence fails to specify the amount of credit time as Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975) requires. *Brooks*v. *State,*349 So.2d 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Moreover, the phrase “at hard labor” in the sentence is improper. *Brooks v. State, supra.*

We remand the case for the court to make the corrections which this opinion mandates. Appellant need not be present at that time.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and GRIMES and RYDER, JJ., concur.
#### Willis Bill LOURIMORE v. STATE.

No. 38358.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

AMANDA FRIER,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 13-10469

D.C. No. 2:12-cr-00372-GMN

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 10, 2014** 

Before: PREGERSON, LEAVY, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

Amanda Frier appeals from the district court’s judgment and challenges the

46-month sentence imposed following her guilty-plea conviction for possession of

a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and

924(a)(2). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

MAR 13 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

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

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

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

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Frier first contends that the district court did not consider her mitigating

arguments. The record belies this contention. Frier next contends that the sentence

is substantively unreasonable in light of her history and characteristics. The

district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing Frier’s sentence. See Gall v.

United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007). The low-end Guidelines sentence is

substantively reasonable in light of the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) sentencing factors and

the totality of the circumstances, including Frier’s criminal history and the need to

protect the public. See id. 

AFFIRMED.

2 13-10469
260 La. 704

#### Louis TALLO et al. v. Harry H. JOHNSON et al.

No. 52083.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 11, 1972.

In re: Louis Tallo and Rosalie V. Tallo applying for Certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Tangipahoa. 255 So.2d 446.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, the result is correct.
# C_2022119EN.01004502.xml

| 14.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 119/45 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 119/45

---

Order of the General Court of 14 December 2021 — McCord v Commission

(Cases T-161/21 and T-161/21 AJ I) (1)

(Action for annulment - Action for failure to act - Draft Commission regulation making the exportation of certain products outside the European Union subject to the production of an export authorisation - Commission proposal to make the exportation of COVID-19 vaccines to Northern Ireland subject to the production of an export authorisation pursuant to Article 16 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland to the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community - Absence of a published policy of the circumstances in which the European Union will trigger Article 16 of that protocol - Manifest inadmissibility in part - Action in part manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

(2022/C 119/63)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Raymond Irvine McCord (Belfast, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland) (represented by: C. O’Hare, Solicitor)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: H. Krämer and F. Ronkes Agerbeek, acting as Agents)

Re:

Application, first, under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of the draft Commission regulation of 29 January 2021 intended, inter alia, to make the exportation of COVID-19 vaccines to Northern Ireland subject to the production of an export authorisation pursuant to Article 16 of the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland to the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (OJ 2020 L 29, p. 7), and of the Commission’s decision not to have published a policy on the circumstances in which it will trigger Article 16 of that protocol and, secondly, application under Article 265 TFEU for a declaration that the Commission unlawfully failed to adopt and publish such a policy.

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible and manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The action is dismissed as manifestly inadmissible and manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 2. | The application for legal aid is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The application for legal aid is dismissed.

| 3. | Mr Raymond Irvine McCord shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Mr Raymond Irvine McCord shall pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 252, 28.6.2021.

---
```

                                                                     Exhibit 4.2

                     AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE RIGHTS AGREEMENT
                                     between
                          SIERRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC.
                                       and
                 CONTINENTAL STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY

                            Dated as of June 14, 1994

This  Amendment,  made this 10th day of August , 2000,  has been executed by the
authorized  representative of Sierra Health Services,  Inc. and Wells Fargo Bank
Minnesota, N.A.

     WHEREAS,  Sierra Health Services,  Inc. (the "Corporation")  entered into a
Rights Agreement (the  "Agreement")  with its Transfer Agent,  Continental Stock
Transfer & Trust Company ("Continental") on June 14, 1994, and

     WHEREAS,  the  Corporation  changed  Transfer  Agents from  Continental  to
Norwest Bank Minnesota, N.A. ("Norwest") on August 23, 1999, and

     WHEREAS,  Norwest  changed  its name to Wells  Fargo Bank  Minnesota,  N.A.
("Wells Fargo") on July 8, 2000, and

     WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Corporation appointed Wells Fargo as
its successor agent under the Rights Agreement on August 10, 2000, and

     WHEREAS, Wells Fargo's principal office is in the state of Minnesota.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  BE IT RESOLVED,  That effective August 10, 2000, the name
Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company be removed from the Agreement and
be replaced with the name Wells Fargo Bank Minnesota, N.A.

     FURTHER  RESOLVED,  That  Section 21 of the Rights  Agreement be amended as
follows:

     Delete   the   5th   sentence   and   replace   it  with   the   following:
     --------------------------------------------------------------------------

     "Any successor Rights Agent,  whether appointed by the Company or by such a
     court,  shall be (a) a corporation  organized,  doing  business and in good
     standing  under the laws of the  United  States or of any  state,  having a
     principal office in the State of New York,  Minnesota,  or Nevada,  that is
     authorized by law to exercise corporate trust and stock transfer powers and
     is subject to supervision or examination by federal or state  authority and
     that has at the time of its appointment as Rights Agent a combined  capital
     and surplus  adequate in the judgment of the  Requisite  Majority to assure
     the performance of its duties hereunder and the protection of the interests
     of the Company and the holders of Rights or beneficial  interests  therein,
     or (b) an  Affiliate  of a  corporation  described  in  clause  (a) of this
     sentence."

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF,  this Amendment No. 1 is effective the date first above
written.

SIERRA HEALTH SERVICES, INC.                     WELLS FARGO BANK MINNESOTA,
                                                 N.A.

By:                                              By:
    -------------------------                    ----------------------------
```
# C_2021513EN.01001502.xml

| 20.12.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 513/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.12.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 513/15

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) lodged on 19 August 2021 — DB v Austrian Airlines AG

(Case C-510/21)

(2021/C 513/23)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Oberster Gerichtshof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: DB

Defendant: Austrian Airlines AG

Questions referred

| 1. | Is first aid which is administered on board an aircraft following an accident within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 (1) and which leads to further bodily injury to the passenger which can be distinguished from the actual consequences of the accident to be regarded, together with the triggering event, as a single accident? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Is first aid which is administered on board an aircraft following an accident within the meaning of Article 17(1) of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, signed by the European Community on 9 December 1999 and approved on its behalf by Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 (1) and which leads to further bodily injury to the passenger which can be distinguished from the actual consequences of the accident to be regarded, together with the triggering event, as a single accident?

| 2. | If Question 1 is answered in the negative:
  Does Article 29 of that convention preclude a claim for compensation for damage caused by the administration of first aid where that claim is brought within the limitation period under national law but outside the period for bringing actions which is laid down in Article 35 of the convention? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If Question 1 is answered in the negative:

Does Article 29 of that convention preclude a claim for compensation for damage caused by the administration of first aid where that claim is brought within the limitation period under national law but outside the period for bringing actions which is laid down in Article 35 of the convention?

---

(1)  Council Decision 2001/539/EC of 5 April 2001 on the conclusion by the European Community of the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air (the Montreal Convention) (OJ 2001 L 194, p. 38).

---
No. 12-14-00325-CR

TIMOTHY CORTEZ CHOICE § IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

 Appellant §

§

vs. § 12TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

§

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee

§

§ AT TYLER, TEXAS

MOTION FOR ACCEPTANCE OF LATE BRIEF

TO THE HONORABLE COURT:

Now comes Austin Reeve Jackson, counsel for Appellant in the above entitled and 

numbered cause, and makes this Motion, and for good cause shows the following:

I.

Appellant’s brief in this matter was due on 28 April 2015 and is being filed 

concurrently with this motion. No prior extensions have been requested.

II.

While working on this case counsel has also been working on approximately 50

open appellate cases in this and other courts to which he has been appointed by Smith 

County. This has included investigating motions for new trials (looking for and talking 

with potential witnesses, jail and office visits with new appellate appointments, trial court 

appearances for the same), requests for and reviews of reporter’s and clerk’s records, 

research, briefing, review of opinions, investigation of potential PDR issues, etc. While 

not all of these seventy or so cases have required significant attention from counsel 

during this time, many of them have which ahs resulted form counsel having been able to 

devote the full attention necessary to this case prior to today’s date. 

ACCEPTED

12-14-00325-CR

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS

5/8/2015 12:23:51 PM

CATHY LUSK

CLERK

 FILED IN 12th COURT OF APPEALS TYLER, TEXAS 5/8/2015 12:23:51 PM CATHY S. LUSK Clerk
Further, while working on this brief, counsel has also been preparing for and 

attending plea and trial settings in multiple cases in state and federal courts. 

Because of this, counsel was delayed in completing his brief in this matter.

II.

No prior extensions have been requested and it is respectfully prayed that, in the 

interest of justice, the Court accept the brief filed with this motion.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, undersigned counsel respectfully 

prays that, in accordance with the applicable law, the Court grant this Motion and accept 

his brief in this matter. 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Austin Reeve Jackson

Texas Bar No. 24046139

112 East Line, Suite 310

Tyler, TX 75702

Telephone: (903) 595-6070

Facsimile: (866) 387-0152

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document 

was served on counsel for the State by facsimile concurrently with its filing. 

/s/Austin Reeve Jackson
#### STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY, a corporation, Appellant, v. J. Carlyle AUSLEY, Jr., Appellee.

Nos. P-471, P-472.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 15, 1972.

Reliearings Denied March 14, 1972.

Andrew G. Pattillo, Jr., of Pattillo, Mac-Kay & McKeever, Ocala, for appellant.

John M. Green, Jr., of Green, Simmons & Green, Ocala, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellant in two consolidated appeals having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from hérein is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### Henry COOK, Jr., Appellant, v. Robert ENGLAND, individually as Agent and Employee, and Sears, Roebuck and Company, a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Florida as Principal and Employer, jointly and severally, Appellees.

No. 71-1010.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 14, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
# C_2022128EN.01002301.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/23 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/23

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Novelis Deutschland v EUIPO — CU.CO. (grill dish)

(Case T-173/21) (1)

(Community design - Invalidity proceedings - Registered Community design representing a grill dish - Earlier national design - Ground for invalidity - No individual character - Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 6/2002)

(2022/C 128/33)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Novelis Deutschland GmbH (Göttingen, Germany) (represented by: U. Herberth, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: E. Markakis, acting as Agent)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: Cuki Cofresco Srl (CU.CO.) (Volpiano, Italy) (represented by: L. Saglietti and E. Bianco, lawyers)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 1 February 2021 (Case R 1856/2019-3), relating to invalidity proceedings between Cuki Cofresco and Novelis Deutschland.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Novelis Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Novelis Deutschland GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217, 7.6.2021.

---
#### Rose DEEB, a/k/a Rose Deeb Kitchen, Appellant, v. DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATION, STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee.

No. GG-14.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Dec. 20, 1977.

*1272Wilfred C. Vara and E. C. Deeno Kitchen and C. Everett Boyd of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs, Odom & Kitchen, Tallahassee, for appellant.

F. E. Steinmeyer, III, Alan E. DeSerio, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Although we do not find the trial giving rise to the final judgment here appealed to be free of error, the record reveals that (apparently as trial strategy by experienced attorneys which we do not criticize) the errors were not preserved for review here. Accordingly, the judgment appealed is affirmed and the appellant’s motion for attorney’s fees incident to this appeal is denied.

AFFIRMED.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MILLS, JJ., concur.