alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ex parte MERRITT.

No. 26390.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 22, 1953.

Martin & Shown, Houston, for " appellant.

William H. Scott, Criminal Dist. Atty., and King C. Haynie, Assti Crim. " Dist. Atty., Houston, Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

On December 8, 1952, relator was convicted in the Criminal District Court of Harris County of the felony offense of unlawfully possessing a narcotic drug, the punishment assessed being not less than two nor more than five years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

Relator made no effort to give notice of appeal from said conviction to this court but, rather, elected to sue .out a writ of habeas corpus the follqwing day in which he insisted that the judgment of conviction was void because-he was tried, without the benefit 6f counsel.

We do not have here, then, a case such as that shown in Johnson v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 251 S.W.2d 739, where the appeal was to this.court from the conviction. The question for our determination here is whether the judgment of conviction is absolutely void, ■ as distinguished from merely voidable.

We have no statute in this state that requires the appointment of counsel for-one upon trial for an ordinary felony such as was the offense here involved.

Adjudications by this court holding invalid those judgments void because of the absence of counsel at the trial stem from the holdings of the Supreme Court of the United States touching that question as being a denial of due process. See Parsons v. State, Tex.Cr.App., 218 S.W.2d 202; Johnson v. State, supra. As in those cases, such adjudications rest upon what are found to be the undisputed facts of each case.

*110It would serve no useful purpose to here state the facts as shown by the record before us. Suffice it to say that they are not such as would authorize our conclusion, under any decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, that the judgment here entered was void and violative of due process under the holdings of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Accordingly, the relief prayed for by the writ of habeas corpus is denied and relator is remanded to the custody of the arresting officer.

Opinion approved by the Court.
DATE OFCOMPANY
    
    INCORP.
    
    
    VESSELNEWLEAD
HOLDINGS LTD., Bermuda
    
    
    1/12/05Wholly Owned (Direct) SubsidiariesAMT MANAGEMENT LTD., Marshall Islands
    
    
    1/10/05NEWLEAD HOLDINGS (US) LLC, Delaware
    
    
    10/23/08Current Shipowning companiesERMINA MARINE LIMITED, Marshall Islands
    
    
    11/01/04
    
    
    m.t. NORDANVINDLAND MARINE S.A., Marshall Islands
    
    
    6/13/05
    
    
    m.t. HIGH LANDRIDER MARINE S.A., Marshall Islands
    
    
    6/13/05
    
    
    m.t. HIGH RIDERALTIUS MARINE S.A., Marshall Islands
    
    
    6/13/05
    
    
    m.t. ALTIUSFORTIUS MARINE S.A., Marshall Islands
    
    
    6/13/05
    
    
    m.t. FORTIUSCHINOOK WAVES CORPORATION, Marshall Islands
    
    
    10/05/05
    
    
    m.t. CHINOOKCOMPASS OVERSEAS LTD., Bermuda
    
    
    10/18/05
    
    
    m.t. STENA COMPASSCOMPASSION OVERSEAS LTD., Bermuda
    
    
    10/18/05
    
    
    m.t. STENA COMPASSIONOSTRIA WAVES LTD., Marshall Islands
    
    
    11/27/06
    
    
    m.t. OSTRIAAUSTRALIA HOLDINGS LTD., Liberia
    
    
    8/03/09
    
    
    m.v. AUSTRALIABRAZIL HOLDINGS LTD., Liberia
    
    
    8/04/09
    
    
    m.v. BRAZILCHINA HOLDINGS LTD., Liberia
    
    
    8/03/09
    
    
    m.v. CHINACompanies with no assets (vessels sold)OCEAN HOPE SHIPPING LIMITED., Malta
    
    
    5/24/00
    
    
    ex m.t. OCEAN HOPEBORA LIMITED, BVI
    
    
    6/26/01
    
    
    ex m.t.  BORAMOTE SHIPPING LTD., Malta
    
    
    2/13/03
    
    
    ex m.t HIGHLANDSTATESMAN SHIPPING LTD., Malta
    
    
    2/13/03
    
    
    ex m.t RIDERSANTA ANNA WAVES CORP., Marshall Islands
    
    
    3/23/06MAKASSAR MARINE LTD., Marshall Islands
    
    
    5/13/05
    
    
    ex m.v. SARONIKOS BRIDGESEINE MARINE LTD., Marshall Islands
    
    
    5/13/05
    
    
    ex m.v. MSC SEINEIndirect SubsidiariesABROAD CONSULTING LTD, Marshall Islands
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Shareholder: AMT MANAGEMENTTRANS STATE NAVIGATION LTD., Malta
    
    
    8/26/03
    
    
    ex m.t. FORTIUS
    
    Shareholder: Ocean Hope Shipping LimitedTRANS CONTINENT NAVIGATION LTD., Malta
    
    
    8/26/03
    
    
    ex m.t. ALTIUS
    
    Shareholder: Ocean Hope Shipping LimitedDYNAMIC MARITIME CO., Marshall Islands
    
    
    4/02/04
    
    
    ex m.v.  MSC OSLO
    
    Shareholder: Ocean Hope Shipping LimitedJUBILEE SHIPHOLDING S.A., Marshall Islands
    
    
    6/22/04
    
    
    ex m.t. OCEAN HOPE
    
    Shareholder: Ocean Hope Shipping LimitedOLYMPIC GALAXY SHIPPING LTD., Marshall Islands
    
    
    4/02/04
    
    
    ex m.v. ENERGY
    
    Shareholder: Ocean Hope Shipping LimitedVINTAGE MARINE S.A., Marshall Islands
    
    
    6/18/05
    
    
    ex m.t. ARIUS
    
    Shareholder: Ocean Hope Shipping Limited
INITI AL REVIEW ENGI NEERI NG REPORT 

PMN : 14- 0267 

1 4 

TLV/ PEL: 

n one established . 
Consumer Us e : No 

SAT (concerns) (01/31 / 2014) : 

Re l ated d Mi s e SAT Inf o : 

Ana l og : 

Migrat ter: PMN negl; Hyd Pdt s l ow 

PBT rating : P1B1T1 

Heal t h : 2 De r mal , I nhalati o n 

Eco : 1 No releases to water 
OCCUPAT I ONAL EXPOSURE RATI NG : l A 

NOTES & KEY ASSUMPT I ONS: 

POLLUTION PREVENT I ON CONSI DERATI ONS : 

None . 

EXPOSURE- BASED REVI EW : No 
INITI AL REVIEW ENGI NEERI NG REPORT
From: je@ZroBlack je@zroblack.com

Subject: morning meetings

Date: May 17, 2019 at 8:01 AM

To: Russ Ernst r

Cc: JV jv@zroblack.com

Russ,

I wanted to send you a note to clarify my role on these calls. I will be on from time to time

as an observer and to offer guidance from ZroBlack’s point of view. Jonathan can handle

all the technical side of the conversations. I will be here to make sure we are meeting our

obligation to on this agreement and offer further strategies/insight into areas

where we can make the most impact to both of our organizations. I think we are off to a

great start and if you need anything please let me know.

Sincerely,

John E. Saenz

CEO

e: je@zroblack.com

p: 210-473-1694

w: www.zroblack.com

D824631D319C

4AFC9...93].jpg

4 KB

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for

the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received

this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains

confidential information and is intended only for the individual named. If you are not

the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

Please notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by

mistake and delete this e-mail from your system. If you are not the intended

recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying, distributing or taking any action in

reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited.

Case 5:20-cv-00571-OLG Document 35-11 Filed 01/15/21 Page 1 of 1
|                                                                       
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                       
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                         
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History: Annual                                                   
|View History:                                                          
|                                                                       
|Pennsylvania Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                       
|                                                                       
|Pennsylvania Dry Natural Gas Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                       

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 160    | 32     | 6      | 1      | 29     | 139    | 234    | 41     | 168    | 600   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 930    | 1,884  | 12     | 351    | 1,295  | 268    | 762    | 7,973  | 4,609  | 425   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2,806  | 3,491  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
Gina McCarthy

Commissioner The Honorable Robert W . Varney Regional Administrator United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 1, EPA New

England One Congress Street, Suite 1100 Boston, Massachusetts 02114-2023 Re: 8-Hour OzoneAttainment Measures Dear Mr . Varney: December 8, 2006

In accordance with the provisions ofTitle 40 Code of Federal Regulations Section 51 Appendix V, the enclosed revision to Connecticut's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality is being submitted for your approval . The revision, 8-Hour Ozone Reasonably Available Control Technology State Implementation PlanAnalysisfor the State ofConnecticut, includes a detailed description and analysis of Connecticut's reasonably available control technology (RACT) controls. Also included, in accordance with Appendix V, are copies of the hearing notice and hearing certification. All documents are submitted in quintuple as required. As you are aware, Connecticut has moved well beyond merely implementing RACT, and we have included in this SIP revision a discussion of additional 8-hour ozone attainment measures currently in development that pertain to the RACT category sources but go beyond the RACT requirements. We will be submitting these rules in support of the state's 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration. You may access our progress with respect to these, and other attainment measures, at our website at the following location: http://www .dep.state.ct.us/air2/regs/index.htm . If you have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact Mr. Gary Rose, the Air Bureau's Director of Engineering and Technical Services, at 860-424-4152.

Enclosures cc: David Conroy, EPA Region 1 KiernanJ . Wholean, CT DEP



# STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

79 ELM

STREET HARTFORD, CT 06106-5127 PHONE: 860-424-3001

(Printed on Recycled Paper) http ://dep.statcct .us An Equal OpporlunitY Emplover
|                                                                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History:                                                                                            
|                                                                                                         
|No chart available.                                                                                      
|No chart available.                                                                                      
|                                                                                                         
|                                                                                                         
|Florida Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Divestitures (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | 0      | W      | W      | W     
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

shoul d not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________ No. 93-7740 Summary Calendar

_______________
WILLIAM E. WARE, Petitioner-Appellant,
VERSUS J. STEWART MURPHY, Probation and Parole Board, et al., Respondents-Appellees.

_________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

(3:93-CV-89)

_________________________ January 12, 1996 Before KING, SMITH, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *

William Ware appeals the dismissal, as frivolous, of his petition for federal habeas corpus relief. He argues that the district court abused its discretion because he was denied due
process and the p rotections of the Ex Post Facto Clause when the interval between his parole hearings was extended.
We have reviewed the record, the district court’s order of2

dismissal, and Ware’s contentions. Finding no reversible error, we
AFFIRM. See Sandin v. Conner , 115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995); Allison v. Kyle , 66 F.3d 71 (5th Cir. 1995); Heck v. Humphrey , 114 S. Ct. 2364 (1994); Scales v. Mississippi State Parole Bd. , 831 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1987); Thomas v. Torres , 717 F.2d 248 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. Denied , 465 U.S. 1010 (1984).
#### Betsy Feuerstein, Respondent, v Alan R. Feuerstein, Appellant.

Judgment (denominated order) unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion dismissed. Memorandum: Defendant’s sole contention is that because plaintiff’s submission of a proposed order was untimely, her motion *908must be deemed abandoned. A prevailing party must provide the court with a proposed order or judgment for signature "unless otherwise directed by the court, within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order be settled or submitted” (22 NYCRR 202.48 [a]). A party’s failure to comply with that section shall be deemed an abandonment unless that party shows good cause for the delay (22 NYCRR 202.48 [b]). Special Term’s decision directing the submission of an order was dated May 10, 1989 and a proposed order was apparently not submitted until sometime in October 1989. Upon receipt of the proposed order, defendant’s counsel advised the court that the order should not be signed and that the motion must be deemed abandoned because the order was not submitted within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision. Plaintiff did not respond to defendant’s assertion. Because plaintiff failed to submit the proposed order within 60 days of the trial court’s decision and failed to show good cause for the delay, the motion must be deemed abandoned *(see, Seeman v Seeman,*154 AD2d 584; *Tuller v Tuller,*162 AD2d 801). (Appeal from judgment [denominated order] of Supreme Court, Erie County, Sedita, J.—enforcement.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
|                                                                                                                                              
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                              
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                                                
|View History: Annual                                                                                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                                                                          
|View History:                                                                                                                                 
|                                                                                                                                              
|Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Percentage of Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate Proved Reserves from Greater than 200 Meters Deep (Percent)
|                                                                                                                                              
|                                                                                                                                              
|Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Percentage of Natural Gas Liquids Lease Condensate Proved Reserves from Greater than 200 Meters Deep (Percent)
|                                                                                                                                              

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        | 15.4   | 16.0   | 18.2   | 46.7   | 39.8   | 38.5   | 42.1   | 41.3  
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 43.6   | 45.8   | 43.0   | 38.2   | 35.6   | 38.2   | 36.2   | NA     |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certificationof Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002**

**(18 U.S.C.§ 1350)**

 

In connection with thequarterly report of SouthWest Water Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2010 (the “Report”), I, Ben Smith,Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. §1350), that:

 

1)              to my knowledge, the Report fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2)              the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 
| Dated: August 6,  2010 | /s/ BEN SMITH                                           |   |
|-----------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                        | Ben Smith                                               |
|                        | Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Financial  Officer) |

 

----