alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT (24) 3
                                POWER OF ATTORNEY


The  undersigned,  as  Controller  of Central  and South West  Corporation  (the
"Corporation"), hereby makes, constitutes and appoints E. R. Brooks and Glenn D.
Rosilier, and each of them severally,  his true and lawful  attorney-in-fact and
agents,  each with full power and authority (acting alone and without the other)
to  execute  in the  name  and on  behalf  of the  undersigned,  in any  and all
capacities,  the  Corporation's  Annual Report on Form 10-K for 1998 and any and
all amendments  thereto,  to be filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended,  and any other documents and instruments  incidental thereto, and to
file the  same,  with all  exhibits  thereto  and all  documents  in  connection
therewith, with the Securities and Exchange Commission,  hereby granting to such
attorney-in-fact,  and agents,  and each of them,  full power and  authority  of
substitution  and  revocation in the premises and full power and authority to do
and perform each and every act and thing  requisite  and necessary to be done in
and about the premises, as fully for all intents and purposes as the undersigned
might or could do in person and hereby  ratifying and  confirming  all that such
attorney-in-fact and agent, or any of them, may do or cause to be done by virtue
of this Power of Attorney.

IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  I have hereunto  executed this Power of Attorney this 20th
day of January, 1999.


                                       /s/ L.B. Connors
                                           Lawrence B. Connors
                                           Controller


Subscribed and sworn to before me this 20th day of January, 1999.

                                       /s/ Judy A. Hall
                                           Notary Public

My Commission Expires:       7-20-1999
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50146

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALMA MARQUEZ-VALTIERRA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:13-CR-1840-1

Before REAVLEY, SMITH, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent Alma Marquez-Valtierra has moved 

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Marquez-Valtierra has filed a response. The record is not 

sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of MarquezValtierra’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel; we therefore decline to 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-50146 Document: 00513014113 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
No. 14-50146

consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. See United States 

v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 123 (2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record 

reflected therein, as well as Marquez-Valtierra’s response. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

appellate review. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, 

counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS 

DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 14-50146 Document: 00513014113 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2015
No. 07-15-00066-CR

Luis Angel Aguilera

 Appellant

v.

The State of Texas

 Appellee

§

§

§

§

From the 47th District Court

 of Potter County

April 20, 2015

Opinion Per Curiam

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated April 20, 2015, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that this appeal be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

It is further ordered that appellant pay all costs in this behalf expended for which

let execution issue.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o

FILE COPY
Order filed April 21, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00188-CV

____________

RICARDO TIJERNIA, Appellant

V.

ROBERT WYSONG AND HOUSTON INTERNATIONAL AIRCRAFT 

SUPPORT, INC., Appellees

On Appeal from the 189th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2011-14628

O R D E R

The notice of appeal in this case was filed February 18, 2015. To date, the 

filing fee of $195.00 has not been paid. No evidence that appellant has established 

indigence has been filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 20.1. Therefore, the court issues the 

following order. 

Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $195.00 to the 

clerk of this court on or before May 6, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. If appellant 
fails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal will be 

dismissed.

PER CURIAM
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

July 18, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00441

- CV

IN RE CITY OF ALICE

Original Mandamus Proceeding

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus on July 11, 2017. Relator has now filed a

motion to dismiss this proceeding, advising this court that the issues raised by the mandamus

proceeding have become moot. Relator’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. This original

man damus proceeding is DISMISSED AS MOOT. The court’s opinion will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on July 18, 2017

.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 18th day of July, 2017

.

___________________________________ Luz Estrada

Chief Deputy Clerk
#### Rita M. Yaroschak, Appellant, v Suffern Window Cleaning Company, Inc., Doing Business as Prestige Building Maintenance, Respondent. (And a Third-Party Action.)

Yesawich Jr., J.

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) (1) from an order of the Supreme Court (Bergerman, J.), entered March 23, 1990 in Rockland County, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2) from the judgment entered thereon.

Plaintiff, an employee of Eastchester Savings Bank, slipped *888and fell on the bank’s vault floor. She then initiated this action against defendant, the company which performed the bank’s maintenance work, for breach of warranty and negligence. Supreme Court granted defendant’s summary judgment motion. Plaintiff appeals.

Inasmuch as the judgment adversely affected plaintiff’s interests, defendant’s suggestion that plaintiff cannot appeal because she was not an aggrieved party *(see,*CPLR 5511) is specious *(see, Keremelis v Albany Pearl Taxi,*274 App Div 360, 362; *see generally,*7 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Prac ¶ 5511.05).

With respect to the merits, we find that Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint. Defendant’s proof demonstrated that it never waxed or polished the vault’s tile floor, but merely cleaned and buffed it. Plaintiff and the nonparty witnesses all swore in their depositions that there was no substance or residue on the floor at the time of the accident, and no defect in the tile was alleged. At worst, the witnesses’ statements indicated that the floor was occasionally slippery. That a floor is slippery, however, does not give rise to a cause of action for negligence absent evidence of a negligent application of wax or polish *(Silver v Brodsky,*112 AD2d 213, 214; *see, Swartz v Rose,*40 AD2d 1028).

As defendant established its entitlement to summary judgment, plaintiff was obligated to demonstrate the existence of issues of fact requiring plenary resolution *(see, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center,*64 NY2d 851, 853). Plaintiff failed to meet this burden. Plaintiff conceded that there was no proof that defendant negligently waxed the floor. The thrust of her argument was that questions of fact existed as to whether defendant negligently failed to strip the floor at least twice a year in accordance with what assertedly is the accepted industry standard. Notwithstanding that plaintiff offered no excuse for submitting inadmissible proof to support this assertion *(see, Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs.,*46 NY2d 1065, 1067-1068), the expert’s opinion was unsworn; the opinion was thus insufficient to create a question of fact on this issue for it was based on the expert’s factually undocumented conjecture as to what could have occurred *(see, supra; see also, Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Center, supra; Shaw v Time-Life Records,*38 NY2d 201, 207).

Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order and judgment are affirmed, without costs.
**Exhibit 99.5**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No(s). 333-13574, 333-118019, and 333-119276 on Form S-8, No(s). 333-84786, 333-142652, 333-142670 and 333-172612 on Form F-3, and No. 333-174753 on Form F-10, and to the use of our reports dated February 24, 2013 relating to the consolidated financial statements of Nexen Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Corporation”) and the effectiveness of the Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in this Annual Report on Form 40—F of the Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2012.

 

 

/s/ Deloitte LLP

 

Independent Registered Chartered Accountants

Calgary, Canada

 

February 24, 2013

 

1

----
# C_2016202EN.01005701.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/57

---

Article 21

(ex Article 18 TEC)

(ex Article 18 TEC)

1.   Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaties and by the measures adopted to give them effect.

2.   If action by the Union should prove necessary to attain this objective and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the European Parliament and the Council, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, may adopt provisions with a view to facilitating the exercise of the rights referred to in paragraph 1.

3.   For the same purposes as those referred to in paragraph 1 and if the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting in accordance with a special legislative procedure, may adopt measures concerning social security or social protection. The Council shall act unanimously after consulting the European Parliament.

---
La Salle County, Texas; the Honorable Joel Rodriguez Jr., in his official capacity as County Judge, s



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

January 16, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00651

- CV

Philip Wayne HINDES and Melinda Hindes Eustace, Appellant s

v.

LA SALLE COUNTY, TEXAS ; the Honorable Joel Rodriguez Jr., in his official capacity as County Judge, La Salle County, Texas; and the Honorable Raul Ayala, in his official capacity as County Commissioner, Precinct 4, La Salle County, Texas, Appellee s

From the 81st Judicial Dist rict Court, La Salle County, Texas Trial Court No. 12

- 09

- 00179

- CVL Honorable Dick Alcala, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

In this accelerated appeal, A ppell ee s ’ brief wa s due to be filed on December 2 3 , 201 4

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(b). This court granted A ppell ee s’ f irst motion for extension of time to
file the brief until January 22, 2015

. On January 14, 2015, A ppell ee s filed a n unopposed second

m otion for extension of time to file the brief until February 5, 2015

, for a total extension of for ty

four days.

Appell ee s ’ motion is GRANTED. Appell ee s ’ brief must be filed with this court by February 5, 2015

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.6(d). No further extensions of time to file Appell ee s’ brief will be granted.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 16th day of January, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
#### Charles D. HUSTON, Collector of Internal Revenue, Appellant, v. Kathryn V. HEXTELL and C. B. Hextell.

No. 11593.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Nov. 8, 1939.

Cloid I. Level, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Des Moines, Iowa, for appellant.

C. B. Hextell and Robert D. Jackson, both of Des Moines, Iowa, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal, 28 F.Supp. 521, dismissed without taxation of costs in favor of either of the parties in this Court, on motion, of appellant and consent of appellees.
Dismissed as Moot and Opinion Filed April 17, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00003-CV 

BCH DEVELOPMENT, LLC AND BLANCHARD HOMES, LLC, Appellants 

V. 

LAKEVIEW HEIGHTS ADDITION PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION AND 

BARBARA WOHLRABE, Appellees 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-05900-A 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Francis and Myers and Chief Justice Thomas, Retired1

Opinion by Chief Justice Thomas, Retired 

 On December 13, 2013, the trial court signed its Order Granting Temporary Injunction 

at the request of appellees Lakeview Heights Addition Property Owners’ Association and 

Barbara Wohlrabe. Appellants BCH Development, LLC and Blanchard Homes, LLC filed this 

interlocutory appeal challenging the temporary injunction. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 

ANN. § 51.014(a)(4). While the interlocutory appeal was pending, the trial court granted 

appellees’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment in part and signed its Order Granting 

Permanent Injunction. A copy of the Order Granting Permanent Injunction has been filed in this 

 1

 The Honorable Linda Thomas, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth District of Texas—Dallas, Retired, sitting by 

assignment. 
 –2– 

Court. The permanent injunction addresses the same issue as the temporary injunction: limits on 

the construction of a residence by appellants at 6148 Monticello Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75214. 

If, while on the appeal of the granting or denying of the temporary injunction, the trial 

court enters a permanent injunction in the same matter, our consideration of the temporary 

injunction becomes moot. See Richards v. Mena, 820 S.W.2d 372 (Tex. 1991). When a case 

becomes moot on appeal, the appeal is dismissed. Isuani v. Manske–Sheffield Radiology Grp., 

P.A., 802 S.W.2d 235, 236 (Tex. 1991). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the interlocutory appeal as moot. 

140003F.P05 

 

/Linda Thomas/ 

LINDA THOMAS 

CHIEF JUSTICE, RETIRED 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

BCH DEVELOPMENT, LLC AND 

BLANCHARD HOMES, LLC, Appellants 

No. 05-14-00003-CV V. 

LAKEVIEW HEIGHTS ADDITION 

PROPERTY OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION 

AND BARBARA WOHLRABE, Appellees 

 On Appeal from the County Court at Law 

No. 1, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-05900-A. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Thomas, 

Retired. Justices Francis and Myers 

participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED AS 

MOOT. 

 It is ORDERED that appellees LAKEVIEW HEIGHTS ADDITION PROPERTY 

OWNERS’ ASSOCIATION and BARBARA WOHLRABE recover their costs of this appeal 

from appellants BCH DEVELOPMENT, LLC and BLANCHARD HOMES, LLC. 

Judgment entered this 17th day of April, 2015.
922 P.2d 1057

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

#### Doe, In re: John (DOB 7/8/86).

16240, 16023, 16087, 16240, 16253, 16028, 16086, 16239, & 16254

8/09/96

Affirmed
# L_2012112EN.01002101.xml

| 24.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 112/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 112/6

---

ACT

ACT

concerning the conditions of accession of the Republic of Croatia and the adjustments to the Treaty on European Union, the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community

PART FIVE

PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ACT

PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THIS ACT

TITLE II

APPLICABILITY OF THE ACTS OF THE INSTITUTIONS

APPLICABILITY OF THE ACTS OF THE INSTITUTIONS

Article 47

1.   Croatia shall put into effect the measures necessary for it to comply, from the date of accession, with the provisions of directives and decisions within the meaning of Article 288 of the TFEU, unless another time limit is provided for in this Act. Croatia shall communicate those measures to the Commission by the date of accession or, where later, by the time limit provided for in this Act.

2.   To the extent that amendments to directives within the meaning of Article 288 of the TFEU introduced by this Act require modification of the laws, regulations or administrative provisions of the present Member States, the present Member States shall put into effect the measures necessary to comply, from the date of accession of Croatia, with the amended directives, unless another time limit is provided for in this Act. They shall communicate those measures to the Commission by the date of accession or, where later, by the time limit provided for in this Act.

---
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-1116

In re: ARVIN LEE WILLIAMS,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(4:14-cv-00121-FL)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 21, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Arvin Lee Williams, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Arvin Lee Williams petitions for a writ of mandamus, 

alleging that the district court has unduly delayed in ruling on 

his civil action. He seeks an order from this court directing 

the district court to act. We find the present record does not 

reveal undue delay in the district court. Accordingly, we grant 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis but deny the mandamus 

petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

PETITION DENIED
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer of
infoUSA Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify that (i) the Quarterly Report on
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the
"Report") fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.

Date: May 14, 2003                      /s/ Vinod Gupta
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Vinod Gupta,
                                        Chief Executive Officer
## 

EXHIBIT 10.21.1

AMENDED  EXHIBIT "A"  GAS PURCHASE CONTRACT  As Of: October 1, 1994  Between  CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORPORATION ("BUYER")  and  IGI
RESOURCES, INC. ("SELLER")

|                                        |  |                                                          
|--------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------
|                                        |  |                                                          
|Effective Date of this Exhibit "A":     |  | October 1, 2000                                          
|Ending Date of this Exhibit "A":        |  | March 31, 2001                                           
|Delivery Point                          |  | As defined in Section 1.01(g) of the Contract noted above
|Maximum Daily Contract Quantity (MMBTU) |  | 7,446                                                    
|                                        |  |                                                          

Delivery Point Selling Price

| |  | "BUYER"
CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORPORATION
| |  | ---------------------------------------
| |  | By:                                    
| |  | Name
Title:Vice-President Gas Supply   
| |  | "SELLER"
IGI RESOURCES                 
| |  | By:                                    

[*] =
Redacted

---

## QuickLinks
##### 



(i)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(ii)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
Partnership.
 November 13, 2006
 By
    

    /s/ Dennis J. TietzDennis J. Tietz, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer of Cronos Capital Corp.,
General Partner of the Partnership/s/ John KallasJohn Kallas, Chief Financial Officer of CronosCapital Corp., General Partner of the
Partnership A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 *
    
    This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, other than as
required by Section 906, shall not be deemed to be filed with the Commission or subject to
the rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, or to the liabilities of Section 18 of said Act.
### 1

From: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US

To: danny.carroll@riotinto.com

Date: 02/16/2011 07:50 AM

Subject: Fw: ReleasePoint_NEI11365.xls

Hey Danny, look at these tabs and see if any of these ids link you to line s 9

- 11 of Column M of the

Release Point ID spreadsheet and let me know if it was helpful and what column you actually used to

help you figure it out. Thanks.

Rochelle Boyd, Environmental Engineer

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Qualit y Planning and Standards

Sector Policies and Programs Division

109 T.W. Alexander Drive, RTP, NC 27711

Mail Drop D243

- 02

Ph: (919) 541

- 1390 Fax: (919) 541

- 3207

Email: boyd.rochelle@epa.gov

----- Forwarded by Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/16/2011 07:4 8 AM

-----

From: Madeleine Strum/RTP/USEPA/US

To: Rochelle Boyd/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 02/15/2011 04:31 PM

Subject: Re: ReleasePoint_NEI11365.xls

hope this helps.

I had forgotten how I did these xwalks!

This time I used an updated flatfile

-- the V1 2008 NEI which hasn't been release except to the States

(and whoever has EIS gatewa y access)

The actual flat file contents for this faciity (emissions and stack params) are in a separate tab.

Madeleine Strum

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Emission Inventory and Analysis Group

919 541 2383 (voice)

919 541 0684 (fax)