alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S A N T O S E S C O B A R -T O R R E S , a. k. a. S ant os E sc ob ar , P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 12- 72841 A ge nc yN o. A 089- 859- 595 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

a n O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A ugus t1, 2013 ** B efo re: G R A B E R , W A R D L A W , an dP A E Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S a nt os E s c obar - T orr e s , ana t i ve a nd c i t i z e n of E l S a l va dor , pe t i t i ons f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ (“ B IA ”) order di sm i ss i ng hi s app ea l fr om an i m m i grat i on j ud ge’ s dec i si on denyi ng w i thh ol di ng of re m ov aland rel i ef un der the C on vent i on A gai nstT orture ( “ C A T ”) . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 8 

# FI LED AU G 20 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 72841 2 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o rs ub s tan tia l e v id e n c e , Zehat ye v. G on zales , 453 F . 3d 1182, 1184- 85 ( 9th C i r . 2006) , a nd w e de nythe pe t i t i on f or r e v i e w. S ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e s upport s the B I A ’ s de c i s i on tha tthe r e i s a n abs e nc e of c ha nge d ore xtr a or di naryc i r c um s t anc e s t o e xc us e the unt i m e l yf i l i ng of P e titio n e r ’s a s y lu m ap p lic a tio n . See 8 C . F . R . § 1 20 8. 4(a) (4)- (5). S ubs t ant i a l e vi de nc e a l s o s upport s the B I A ’ s f i ndi ng tha tthe r e i s no ne xus b e tw e e n P e titio n e r ’s f

e aro f f u tu r e h arm a n dap r o te c te dg r o u n d . Se e D e lgadoO rt i z v . H older , 6 0 0 F .3 d1 1 4 8 , 1 1 5 1 - 5 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 0 ) ; Zet i no v. H older , 622 F . 3d 10 07 , 10 16 (9th C i r. 20 10 ). F i n al l y, sub st an t i al ev i d en ce sup p o rt s th e d en i al o f C A T rel i ef, b ecau se P et i t i on erfa i l ed t o est abl i sh thati ti s m ore l i kel y than n otthathe w ou l d b e t ortured if h e r e tu rn s to E l S a lv a d o r . See Si laya v. Mukasey , 52 4 F . 3d 10 66 , 10 73 (9th C i r. 20 08 ). PETI TI O N FO R R EVI EW D EN I ED .
AVAQMD Rule 1134 

D-3

Final Staff Report, 03/17/10
Exhibit
23.1






RONALD R.
CHADWICK, P.C.


Certified
Public Accountant


2851
South Parker Road, Suite 720


Aurora,
Colorado  80014


Telephone
(303)306-1967


Fax
(303)306-1944














CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM








I consent to the incorporation of my
report dated April 14, 2008 with respect to the financial statements of Croff
Enterprises, Inc. included in the Company's 2007 Form 10-K.








RONALD
R. CHADWICK, P.C.


Aurora,
Colorado


April 30,
2008                                                                                                       
Ronald R. Chadwick,
P.C.
# C_2013092EN.01000302.xml

| 28.3.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 92/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.3.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 92/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6859 — Mitsubishi Corporation/Isuzu Motors/Isuzu Motors India Private Limited)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 92/03

On 20 March 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6859. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6859. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
#### John C. WOMACK, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-51.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 12, 1973.

Paul Antinori, Jr., of Antinori, Cohen & Thury, P. A., Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Nelson E. Bailey, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Stephen R. Koons, Legal Intern, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

OWEN, Chief Judge.

Appellant was convicted of two counts of perjury in a judicial proceeding, from which he brings this direct appeal.

Appellant’s first point is disposi-tive of the case. He contends, and we agree, that the trial court erred in failing to grant his motion for judgment of acquittal, or directed verdict, made at the close of the State’s case in chief, on the grounds that the evidence was not sufficient to justify submission of the cause to the jury. To convict of the crime of per*574jury the offense must be proved by the oaths of two witnesses, or by the oath of one witness and by other independent and corroborating circumstances which is deemed of equal weight with another witness. Rader v. State, Fla.1951, 52 So.2d 105; Keir v. State, 1943, 152 Fla. 389, 11 So.2d 886; Tindall v. State, 1930, 99 Fla. 1132, 128 So. 494; Yarbrough v. State, 1920, 79 Fla. 256, 83 So. 873; Wells v. State, Fla.App.1972, 270 So.2d 399; Duval v. State, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 789. As to each count, the State’s evidence consisted solely of the testimony of a single witness unaccompanied by independent and corroborating circumstances bearing on the alleged false testimony.

The judgment and sentence as to each count are severally reversed and this cause remanded with instructions to discharge the defendant, appellant herein.

Reversed.

WALDEN and CROSS, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          35,677
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,479
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               131,629
<PP&E>                                         383,813
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,019,458
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          144,917
<BONDS>                                        336,174
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          110,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           366
<OTHER-SE>                                     335,419
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,019,458
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               183,223
<CGS>                                          191,448
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,919
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (19,379)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (2,802)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (16,577)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  1,002
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (17,579)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.49)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.49)


</TABLE>
CORZON INC



                 Filing Type: 10QSB
                 Description: Quarterly Report
                 Filing Date: Nov 20, 2000
                  Period End: Oct 1, 2000


            Primary Exchange: Over the Counter Includes OTC
                              and OTCBB
                      Ticker: CRZN





                          SIGNATURES

     In accordance  with the  requirements  of the Exchange
Act, the  registrant caused this report to be signed on its
behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.


                                 CORZON, INC.


Date: December 6, 2000         By: /s/ Lawrence Shatsoff
                                 -------------------------
                                 Name:  Lawrence Shatsoff
                                 Title: President
<PAGE>
Exhibit 10.1(g)







March 25, 2002

Mr. C.E Bryant, Jr., President
Continental Conveyer and Equipment Company
Winfield, Alabama

Mr. Doug Markham, President
Goodman Conveyor Company
Belton, South Carolina

Re:  Amendment

Gentlemen:

Please be advised that we are amending the Advances to Foreign Subsidiaries
covenant for the Sixth Amendment to the Credit Facility dated March 28, 2000. As
of 12/31/01, Advances to Foreign Subsidiaries are limited to $8,400,000.
Advances to Foreign Subsidiaries will be reduced to $8,200,000 as of 3/31/02 and
$8,000,000 as of 6/30/02 and $7,750,000 as of 12/31/02.

To confirm the above understanding and agreement of the Borrowers to the
amendment of the loan covenant set forth above, please sign one or more copies
of this letter on behalf of the Borrowers and return signed copies to my
attention.

Should you have any additional questions please do not hesitate to call me.

Sincerely,

Bank One, NA

----------------
Rudolf G. Bentlage
First Vice President





<PAGE>



Confirmed and Agreed:



Continental Conveyor & Equipment Company

-------------------
C.E.Bryant, Jr., President


Goodman Conveyor Company

-------------------------
Doug Markham, President
# C_2012064EN.01001201.xml

| 3.3.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/12 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/12

---

Call for proposals under the work programme of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking

2012/C 64/10

Notice is hereby given of the launch of a call for proposals under the work programme of the ENIAC Joint Undertaking.

Proposals are invited for the following call: ENIAC-2012-1

ENIAC-2012-1

Call documentation including deadline and budget is given in the call text, which is published on the following website:

http://www.eniac.eu/web/calls/ENIACJU_Call6_2012-1.php

---
# C_2012399EN.01000101.xml

| 22.12.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 399/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.12.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 399/1

---

2012/C 399/01

Last publication of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Official Journal of the European Union

Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 389, 15.12.2012

OJ C 389, 15.12.2012

Past publications

Past publications

OJ C 379, 8.12.2012

OJ C 373, 1.12.2012

OJ C 366, 24.11.2012

OJ C 355, 17.11.2012

OJ C 343, 10.11.2012

OJ C 331, 27.10.2012

These texts are available on:

EUR-Lex: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

June 25, 2013

t0617 

# Order

Clerk June 25, 2013

146829

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

P laintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 146829

COA: 309559

Clinton CC: 11

- 008750

- FH

LISA MARIE OLGER,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 15, 2013

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Louis Charles JAMES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1040.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 15, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2013151EN.01000301.xml

| 30.5.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 151/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.5.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 151/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6888 — Otsuka/Mitsui/Claris)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 151/03

On 17 May 2013, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6888. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32013M6888. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
EXHIBIT 32.0

| (1)   | The      Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended February 7, 2009 (the “Form      10-K”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934;    and |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The      information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and the results of operations of the      Company. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                            |   |   |                                                                            |   |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| /s/Renato      Cataldo                          |   |   | /s/Dale      Heins                                                              |   |
| Renato      Cataldo                             |   |   | Dale      Heins                                                                 |   |
| President      and Chief      Executive Officer |   |   | Senior      Vice President, Finance, Chief      Financial Officer and Treasurer |   |
#### ST. JOE PAPER COMPANY, a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Tom I. BROWN, H. G. Easterwood, Jack Levins, Fred O. Drake, Jr., and Jack Whiddon, constituting the Board of County Commissioners of Leon County, Florida, and ex officio, the Board of Equalization of said County, John Brown, as Tax Assessor of Leon County, Florida, Roy E. Lett, as Tax Collector of Leon County, Florida, Fred O. Dickinson, Jr., as Comptroller of the State of Florida, and Florida Power Corporation, a Florida corporation, Appellees.

Nos. 1-392, 1-393.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

March 28, 1967.

Isler & Welch, Panama City, and Starry & Thompson, Tallahassee, for appellant.

J. Klein Wigginton, of Parker, Foster & Madigan, F. E. Steinmeyer, III, Ausley, Ausley, McMullen, O’Bryan, Michaels & McGehee, and Charles D. McClure, Tallahassee, for appellees.

ON PETITION TO APPEAR AMICUS CURIAE

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner alleges that he is counsel in two cases now pending before this court involving issues similar to those in the instant case. Being desirous of making available to this court the benefit of his many years experience in ad valorem tax litigation in the courts of this state, petitioner asks leave for permission to appear *58herein as a friend of the court pursuant to Florida Appellate Rule 3.7(k), 31 F.S.A.

Appellee has filed extensive objections to petitioner’s appearance, contending the absence of requisite similarity between issues in the instant case and that in which petitioner is counsel. A minute point-by-point comparison of the issues in this case with those in petitioner’s cases is unnecessary to the disposition of this petition. It is sufficient to say that the underlying principles of law governing those cases and this, while not identical, are not totally dissimilar. All of these cases deal generally with assessment of real property for ad valorem taxation purposes.

In examining the cases pending here in which petitioner is counsel, we note he has filed exhaustive and well prepared briefs and reply briefs therein. Such briefs are available to be examined by the court and will doubtless be of service in our independent research of the law governing the instant case.

While the assistance of experienced and eminent counsel is always illuminating when the court is confronted with increasingly complex problems in ad valorem tax assessment cases, the court is of the view that the petitioner’s briefs filed in his two cases here pending will more than serve the purpose of enlightening the court on petitioner’s arguments and authorities in the premises.

The petition is denied.

RAWLS, C. J., and SPECTOR and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### Robert Louis BROWN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-83.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 14, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
# C_2013037EN.01000202.xml

| 9.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 37/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 37/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case COMP/M.6790 — Mittal Investments/Certain UK Assets of Anglo American and Lafarge)

(Text with EEA relevance)

2013/C 37/03

On 14 December 2012, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the common market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004. The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6790. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm) under document number 32012M6790. EUR-Lex is the on-line access to the European law.

---
## TRIEAT~ORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS AUSTIN~I.TEXAE

Ronor8blo

Dave Ho&ill, Jr. Cmaty Attorney ShelbyCounty Csrfer,Taxa8 D6ar Sir: Opi~ioa No. O-6213 Re: Sale of beer to prisomra of war i8 a dzy area, l%d related queation8. Your mqusst for am opinion reads a8 Pollorr: "Shelby County is a 'dry oounty' bavin~g voted dry rnder the local optioi law of 1906. Durirgthe earlier prt of tbir year, the U. S. Govenmnt, looatad

a prisoner

of war campwithin the coruty. Reomtly, there has booamuoh displtoin the coumtyas to whether or mot bear oould legally be broughtirto this oamp md there oonmmed by the soldier8 of the U. 8. Andy ud the prisomro of kr. Baoause of this diapnte

b&woe8 the U. 6. offf~ers

amd the offiaiale

of ths mu&y, I hereby oertifythe following question of law to your offimr 

## 9.

“ 2.
9.

“ 4. ’

**US6** Is it lawfulfor hoer to be broughtixbo a prisoner of war oamp, auoh amp beiag looatedin a dry ooulty, ad tbero oo~smwd w ooldiers

and prisonen of war? IB the emmt you answer queaticm080 'yqr*, thr in it lawfulfor suoh beer to be *ought into tbia oamp b,ooxmuon earrisr? IS it lawfulfor liquor, aa dofinedin 'our

per1 coda,Art. 66642, $0 be broughtimto suoh prisoner of rr oamp either B their own vehiolesor by man08 oarrisr*? Rhat effect,if any,will the faot that such beor is 3.2 boor barn up011 questiomr

1 ud 21"
bf the The Vaitod Stat.8havirg 

## l o@rod laad i8 ShellyCountyfor the gemoml govemt a8 a osnp for houalmg, **bari%** for and yardlag prlsaera of u‘haa the uaquastiomd power to makb auoh uma oftho proper$?

a8 may be authoriswd by tie Aot8 of Co~grom or by offioers oftln govexaumt acting in purruaaoe of suohAots. If itk datennimdbypropor offloors

that the cale of beer iu a ~~oessary or doeirablo

maeuro for the otmfort,

norentio8 or morals of mob prlsoaek8 ati the penopel thoreon, the Stats is withoutporer to iaferf'ors with iC, ffea Wwugb looatedti a dry area. We e~oloreour opinion No. O-4458 wbioh dirourso8 the authoritim amd reaches

the same oaclusiox ia am **ualagoun** situation. Joimsoa V. YellowCab TrantitCO., 88 k~w Ed. 663.Hon. Dave Molkill,Jr., page 2 (O-6213)

Following

the reasoaiag

of our forum opihor sad that of tha 6up~1110

c0UX-k Of the WtOd 8tate8, WO Nib, (1) that boor my lawfully b broughtixtothe campy (2)+hat sinooitis lawful,a oonnuon arribr may tramporb suah boor to distinatior; (3) Chpbvehiolesof the governmat my traatport mob beers md (4) the fact that it is 3.2 beor makes no differonoe. Umlassprohibited By Aot of Comgress,tha Nle would bs applioable

to all liquors,

regardlessof

alooholio

oontsnt. Very t Nly yours ATTORBBY

GENERALOFTEXA6 By /a/ Xlbert Hooper EHcdbregr
AF'PRCVED

OCT 6, 1944 /6/ CarlOP

Ashley FIBSTLSSISTAW ATTORNEY

GEBEBAL EllmrtRooper &mistsnt

APPROVND OpiaiorCcmdttso By B.U.2. Chairmu