alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jamison John DUPUY v. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY & CORRECTIONS.

No. 89-CC-1363.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Public Safety & Correct. Dept.;— Defendants); applying for supervisory *1227and/or remedial writs; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CW89 0721; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “I”, No. 342324.

Denied.

CALOGERO and COLE, JJ., would grant the writ.
State of California AIR RESOURCES BOARD EXECUTIVE ORDER S-07-002 Relating to Approval of the State Strategy for California's State I mplementation Plan

(SIP) for the Federal 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 Standards WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that no project which may have significant adverse environmental impacts may be adopted as originally proposed if feasible alternatives or mitigation measures are available to reduce or eliminate such impacts, unless specific overriding considerations are identified which outweigh the potential adverse consequences of any unmitigated impacts; WHEREAS, Board regulations provide that prior to taking final action on any proposal for which significant environmental issues have been raised, the decision maker shall approve 

### a written response to each such issue; WHEREAS, on September 27, 2007, the Air Resources Board (the Board or ARB) conducted a public hearing to consider approval of the State Strategy for California's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Federal 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 Standards a as a revision to the California SIP for; the proposed SIP revision is set forth in Attachment 1 to this Executive Order; WHEREAS, following the public hearing on September 27, 2007, the Board adopted Resolution 07-28, in which the Board initiated steps toward the final adoption of the proposed SIP revision; WHEREAS, 'Resolution 07-28 also directed the Executive Officer to prepare and approve written responses to all significant environmental issues that have been raised, and then to either: (1) return the proposed SIP revision to the Board for further consideration if he determines that this is warranted, or (2) take final action to approve the SIP revision with such modifications as may be appropriate in light of the issues raised, including appropriate modifrcations to insure that all feasibie mitigation measures or feasible alternatives that would substantially reduce any significant adverse environmental impacts have been incorporated into the final action; WHEREAS, no written or oral comments raising environmental issues were received during the comment period for the proposed SIP revision; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the recitals and findings.contained in Resolution 07-28 are incorporated by reference herein, including the findings pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act that are set forth on pages 4 and 5 of Resolution 07-28.

### -2-

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the proposed SIP revision, as set forth in Attachment 1 hereto, is hereby adopted. (T IS FURTHER ORDERED that the SIP revision shall be submitted to U.S. EPA for inclusion .in the SIP to be effective, for purposes of federal law, upon approval by U.S. EPA.

Executed this day of ~ , 2007, at Sacramento, Cafifornia.



### ~ 

### 9 es N. Goldstene :utive Officer

Attachments
<PAGE>   1
                                 EXHIBIT 24(a)



           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS


     We hereby consent to the references to our firm and our report and to the
use of our report in the Annual Report of Chieftain International, Inc. on Form
10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in Washington, D.C. pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.


                                        NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.

                                        By: /s/ Frederic D. Sewell
                                            ------------------------------
                                            Frederic D. Sewell
                                            President

Dallas, Texas
March 22, 2001
#### STATE ex rel. Darrell HARRIS v. Bruce LYNN, Secretary, Department of Public Safety and Corrections.

No. 89-KH-1054.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 30, 1989.

In re Harris, Darrell; — Plaintiff(s); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 81-3809.

Denied.
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 35

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and a

conditional adjournment of the House of Representatives.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MAY 26, 1999

Mr. LOTT submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was considered

and agreed to

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the

Senate and a conditional adjournment of the House of

Representatives.

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives

2 concurring), That when the Senate recesses or adjourns

3 at the close of business on Thursday, May 27, 1999, on

4 a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution

5 by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand recessed

6 or adjourned until noon on Monday, June 7, 1999, or until

7 such time on that day as may be specified by its Majority

8 Leader or his designee in the motion to recess or adjourn,

9 or until noon on the second day after Members are notified

10 to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent res-
2

SCON 35 ATS

1 olution, whichever occurs first; and that when the House

2 adjourns on the legislative day of Thursday, May 27,

3 1999, on a motion offered pursuant to this concurrent res4 olution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand

5 adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on Monday, June 7, 1999, for

6 morning-hour debate, or until noon on the second day

7 after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to sec8 tion 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.

9 SEC. 2. The Majority Leader of the Senate and the

10 Speaker of the House, acting jointly after consultation

11 with the Minority Leader of the Senate and the Minority

12 Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of the Sen13 ate and House, respectively, to reassemble whenever, in

14 their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Income Partners 1988-C, Ltd.'s balance sheet and statement of operations con-
tained in its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         43,226
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  95,864
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               139,090
<PP&E>                                         4,839,093
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,046,007)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 947,682
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          36,447
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     885,078
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   947,682
<SALES>                                        405,165
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               407,245
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  266,841<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                71,156
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            71,156
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   71,156
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation, 
depletion and amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and
interest expense.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO  RULES 13A-15(E) AND 15D-15(E) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT
   2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;
 4.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during
the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    [Reserved];c.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; andd.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuers internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuers most
recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuers fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuers board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the small business issuers ability to record, process, summarize and report
financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over
financial reporting.
  /s/ Richard J. MillerRichard J. MillerChief Financial Officer 23
# Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed August 23, 2023. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________ Nos. 3D23-343, 3D23-344, 3D23-345, 3D23-346 Lower Tribunal Nos. 14-355-A-K, 12-168-A-M, 19-108-A-K, 15-14-B-M

________________ 

### Whendid Estinfil, Appellant,
vs. 

### The State of Florida, Appellee.
Appeals conducted pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Mark H. Jones, Judge. Whendid Estinfil, in proper person. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, for appellee. Before SCALES, HENDON and GORDO, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed.
#### Kroshinski, Appellant, *v.*School District of the Borough of Dickson City et al.

*Practice, Supreme Court*— Appeals—Time *for talcing appeals.*

Au appeal from a decree dismissing a bill in equity for injunction will be quashed where the appeal was not taken until more than six months after the decree complained of was filed.

Argued Feb. 27, 1918.

Appeals, Nos. 48 and *49,*Jan. T., 1918, by plaintiff, from decrees of C. P. Lackawanna Co., March T., 1916,' Nos. 1 and 2, dismissing bills in equity for an injunction, in case of Adam Kroshinsld v. The School District of the Borough of Dickson City, and the Dickson Lumber Company.

Before Brown, C. J., Potter, Stewart^ Moschzisicer and Walling, JJ.

Affirmed.

Motion to continue preliminary injunction. Before Edwards, P. J.

*184The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.

The court on final hearing dissolved the injunction which it had issued and dismissed the bill. Plaintiff appealed.

*Errors assigned*were in dismissing exceptions to findings of fact and conclusions of law and the decree of the court.

*George Morrow,*for appellant.

*M. J. Martin,*with him *Elmer D. Adair,*for appellees.

April 22, 1918:

Per Curiam,

These two cases were disposed of together below, under agreement of counsel, and were so argued here. A final decree dismissing the bill in each case was filed June 6, 1916, more than six months before these appeals were taken, and they are, therefore, quashed, without prejudice to any right of the appellant in proceedings at law.
50532.

#### JOHNSON et al. v. GEORGIA DIAGNOSTIC & CLASSIFICATION CENTER.

Submitted April 7, 1975

Decided April 11, 1975.

*Swift, Currie, McGhee & Hiers, Charles L. Drew,*for appellant.

*Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Robert S. Stubbs, II, Executive Assistant Attorney General, Don A. Langham, Alfred L. Evans, Jr., W. Hensell Harris, Jr., Assistant Attorneys General,*for appellee.

Webb, Judge.

There being sufficient competent evidence in this workmen’s compensation case to support the award of the board in favor of the claimant, the superior court erred in not affirming the award under the "any evidence” rule.

*Judgment reversed.*

*Bell, C. J., and Marshall, J., concur.*
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-31056

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BRAD DECKER, SR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 99-CR-50101-3

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

June 7, 2001

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Counsel appointed to represent Brad Decker, Sr., has filed a

motion to withdraw and a brief as required by Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Decker has not filed a

response.

Our independent review of the brief and the appellate record

discloses no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is excused

from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
| (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. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                   |   |                                                                                                                                                               |
|------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   |   |                                                                                                                                                               |   |
| February      23, 2009 | By:    | /s/ Curt      Thornton                                                                                                                                        |   |
|                   |   | Curt      Thornton                                                                                                                                                 |   |
|                   |   | Chief      Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) and Chief Financial      Officer (Principal Financial Officer and Accounting Officer) and      Director |   |
|                   |   |                                                                                                                                                               |   |
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20A0093. JAMES BRANDLEY BEARDEN v. THE STATE.

James Brandley Bearden was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated

sodomy, two counts of incest, and four counts of sexual battery. Bearden filed a

motion for new trial, arguing, among other things, that the trial court’s admission of

prior act evidence under OCGA § 24-4-413 (a) to show propensity violated his right

to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The trial court denied the motion for new trial. Bearden filed this appeal. 

The Supreme Court “has exclusive jurisdiction over all cases involving

construction of the Constitution of the State of Georgia and of the United States and

all casesin which the constitutionality of a law, ordinance, or constitutional provision

has been called into question.” Atlanta Independent School System v. Lane, 266 Ga.

657, 657 (1) (469 SE2d 22) (1996) (citing Ga. Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par.

II (1)). Because the trial court rejected Bearden’s constitutionality argument, it

appears that jurisdiction over this appeal may lie in the Supreme Court. As the

Supreme Court has the ultimate responsibility for determining appellate jurisdiction, 

March 09, 2020
see Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis & Med. Clinic, 267 Ga. 177, 178 (476 SE2d 587)

(1996), this appeal is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition.

Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

03/09/2020
#### STATE ex rel. Leonard CRESSY v. Hon. Frank SHEA.

No. 87-KH-1334.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Cressy, Leonard; applying for remedial writ; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 263-820.

Prior report: La., 503 So.2d 1012.

Granted. The district court is ordered to comply within thirty days with this Court’s order of January 27, 1987 (No. 87-KH-0697).
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellant,

v.

AUSTIN BENNETT,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3030

[October 4, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Thomas Michael Lynch, V, Judge; L.T. Case Nos. 15-

009981-CF-10A and 16-014285-CF-10A.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Joseph D. 

Coronato, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, CIKLIN and CONNER, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 16839]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6823]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Change in Bank Control Notices; Acquisitions of Shares of a Bank 
or Bank Holding Company

    The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank 
Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and Sec.  225.41 of the Board's 
Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank 
holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the 
notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
    The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal 
Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for 
inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons 
may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for 
that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must 
be received not later than April 3, 2012.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City (Dennis Denney, Assistant 
Vice President) 1 Memorial Drive, Kansas City, Missouri 64198-0001:
    1. William Bradley Giblet and Lita Giblet, both of Hydro, Oklahoma, 
and Gaylon Vogt, Weatherford, Oklahoma, to acquire control of Ryan 
Bancshares, Inc., parent of The First State Bank, both in Ryan, 
Oklahoma.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, March 16, 
2012.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2012-6823 Filed 3-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
#### Omar CEPERO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 85-844.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Oct. 6, 1987.

*736Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender, and Karen M. Gottlieb, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., and Richard L. Kaplan, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and FERGUSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

A substantial violation of probation by the appellant on grounds of (1) possession of a firearm by a convicted felon and (2) possession of a firearm without the probation officer’s permission is supported by the evidence. It is agreed, however, that other grounds stated in the written order revoking probation were not proved or were dismissed by the court in oral pronouncement after hearing the evidence.

We remand to the trial court with directions to strike from the probation revocation order those parts which state that the appellant committed the violations which were not proven by the State. *Underwood v. State,*455 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984). Otherwise the judgment and thirty-month sentence imposed for probation violation are

AFFIRMED.