alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Filed 10/17/17 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2017 ND 239

State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Abdirahman Pashir Sahel, Defendant and Appellant

No. 20170178

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District, the Honorable Steven L. Marquart, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Reid A. Brady, Assistant State’s Attorney, Fargo, N.D., for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief.

Kevin McCabe, Dickinson, N.D., for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief.

State v. Sahel

No. 20170178

Per Curiam.

[¶1]Abdirahman Pashir Sahel appeals from a criminal judgment entered after he pleaded guilty to gross sexual imposition and terrorizing.  Sahel argues that he should be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea because the district court failed to comply with the requirements of N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b).  Because Sahel did not raise this issue at the district court, we review for obvious error under N.D.R.Crim.P. 52(b).

[¶2]Although the district court did not inform Sahel of all his rights under N.D.R.Crim.P. 11 at the change of plea hearing, the district court substantially complied with Rule 11 over the course of his case.  See Abdi v. State, 2000 ND 64, ¶ 12, 608 N.W.2d 292 (stating that the district court “must substantially comply with the procedural requirements of [N.D.R.Crim.P. 11(b)] to insure the defendant is entering a voluntary guilty plea”); State v. Murphy, 2014 ND 202, ¶ 9, 855 N.W.2d 647 (considering statements made at prior hearings in determining whether the defendant was informed of and understood his rights).  Thus, the district court did not commit obvious error by accepting Sahel’s guilty plea.  We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(3) and (7).

[¶3]Gerald W. VandeWalle, C.J.

Jerod E. Tufte

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration 

          - [Docket No. 98F-1192] 

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the withdrawal, without prejudice to a future filing, of a food additive petition (FAP 7B4546) proposing that the food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of 3-iodo-2-propynyl butyl carbamate as a fungicidal additive for resinous and polymeric coatings intended to contact food. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Mark A. Hepp, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition (HFS-215), Food and Drug Administration, 200 C St. SW., Washington, DC 20204, 202-418-3098. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In a notice published in the                     **Federal Register**                     of December 24, 1998 (63 FR 71295), FDA announced that a food additive petition (FAP 7B4546) had been filed by Troy Corp. c/o S.L. Graham & Associates, 1801 Peachtree Lane, Bowie, MD 20721. The petition proposed to amend the food additive regulations in § 175.300                     *Resinous and polymeric coatings*                     (21 CFR 175.300) to provide for the safe use of 3-iodo-2-propynyl butyl carbamate as a fungicidal additive for resinous and polymeric coatings intended to contact food. Troy Corp. has now withdrawn the petition without prejudice to a future filing (21 CFR 171.7).                 

      ( print page 65860)    
Dated: October 11, 2000. 

Alan M. Rulis, 

Director, Office of Premarket Approval, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition. 

[FR Doc. 00-28055 Filed 11-1-00; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
#### JOHNSON v. STATE.

No. 24431.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 22, 1949.

None on appeal for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, fo» the State.

*862DAVIDSON, Judge.

The offense is possession of whisky in a container to which no stamp was affixed showing the payment of the tax due the State; the punishment,’ thirty days’ confinement in jail.

The record before us contains neither bills of exception nor a statement of facts.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court
**Exhibit 32.01****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Viseon, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for thequarter and nine months ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon May 15, 2006 (“Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicatedbelow, hereby certifies pursuant 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to our knowledge:     1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and     2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated:May 15, 2006
#### HERTZ CORPORATION *v.*AMICA MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL.*

The Supreme Court docket number is SC 15967.

*Daniel P. Scapellati*and *James M. Celentano,*in support of the petition.

*Thomas P. Mullaney III,*in opposition.

Decided July *2,*1998

*

 The appeal was withdrawn October 28, 1998.

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 48 Conn. App. 918 (AC 17247), is granted, limited to the following issue:

“In a declaratory judgment action where the plaintiff sought declaratory relief with respect to whether it or the defendant insurer was responsible for providing primary insurance coverage in a pending underlying tort case, did the Appellate Court properly affirm the judgment of the trial court dismissing the declaratory judgment action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on the grounds such action was premature?”

NORCOTT, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this petition.
#### DAVIS v. STATE.

No. 25796.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 9, 1952.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This is a conviction for the primary offense of felony theft, with an accompanying allegation of a prior conviction for burglary with intent to commit the crime of theft. Punishment was assessed at ten years’ confinement in the penitentiary, under the provisions of Arts. 62 and 1421, P. C. Valenzuela v. State, 153 Tex.Cr.R. 623, 224 S.W.2d 239.

Felony theft and burglary with intent to commit theft are offenses of the same nature, within the meaning of Art. 62, P. C. Sasser v. State, 131 Tex.Cr.R. 347, 98 S.W.2d 211.

The statement of facts accompanying this record, having been ¡filed in the trial court long after the expiration of the time allowed by law for such filing, cannot be considered. In the absence of a statement of facts, the bills of exception appearing cannot be appraised.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ALBERTO PUENTES,

 Appellant,

v.

LILIANA RODARTE,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-21-00101-CV

Appeal from the

388th Court District Court 

of El Paso County, Texas 

(TC#2018DCM8191) 

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We therefore 

dismiss the appeal. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 21ST OF JULY, 2021.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Chief Justice

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Alley, JJ.
#### HURST v. KENTUCKY OIL & DISTRIBUTING CORP.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 23, 1953.

Rehearing Denied March 20, 1953.

*468W. C: Dabney, Monticello, for appellant.

Parker W. Duncan, Monticello, for ap-pellee.

CAMMACK, Justice.

Mrs. Stella B. Hurst owns two parcels of land which were originally a part of a 3000 acre tract owned by J. W. and A. Miller. The Millers leased their land for oil and gas in 189S. Mrs. Hurst came in possession of her two tracts sometime after 1924. Prior to that time there had been a few wells drilled on her property, but no oil or gas has been produced on- her lands since she has owned them. In the case of Hurst v. Paken Oil Company, 287 Ky. 257, 152 S.W.2d 981, we held that Mrs. Hurst was not entitled to any part of the royalties accruing under the original lease from wells not located on her lands.

In the present action Mrs. Hurst seeks to have canceled the oil and gas lease, as it pertains to her property, which is now held by the Kentucky Oil and Distributing Corporation. The old Miller lease was a very productive one, but only small amounts of oil and gas are being produced under it now. According to a stipulation of facts, the appellee bad started a comprehensive repressuring program about a year before the institution of this action. That activity covers all of the original Miller lease. Approximately $100,000 had been spent on this work when this action was tried. The stipulation shows that one of the repressuring wells is located very close to Mrs. Hurst’s property, so it stands to reason that, should the repressuring program prove successful, she would stand to benefit, along with other owners of the old Miller tract. Of course, we do not mean to say that the repressuring activity could be supposed to produce proportionately a larger amount of oil and gas on Mrs. Hurst’s property than was produced when the original operations were begun under the Miller lease.

'As said in Martin v. Graf, 289 Ky. 272, 158 S.W.2d *637,*the subdivision of lands under a lease into separate tracts places no additional burdens on the lessee to develop the separate tracts as units or separate leases. It may be, as contended by Mrs. Hurst, that a lessee’s actions could constitute an abandonment or forfeiture of a part of an original large lease, but we find no facts warranting such a conclusion in the case at hand. The original wells drilled on Mrs. Hurst’s property were less productive than were some of those on other parts of the Miller lease. This she knew when she bought her two tracts. The repres-suring program under the old Miller lease was inaugurated in good faith. This of itself shows that the appellee to date has no intention of forfeiting or abandoning all or any part of the original Miller lease. -

Judgment affirmed.

DUNCAN, J., not sitting.
# Contents

Data 1

http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/rngc3m.htm

U.S. Energy Information Administration

infoctr@eia.doe.gov

# Data 1

Back to Contents
The State of TexasAppellee/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

August 5, 2014

No. 04-13-00818-CR

Mark Anthony GARCIA,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2009CR2731A

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela, Judge Presiding

ORDER

The State’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The 

State’s brief is due September 3, 2014.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

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

court on this 5th day of August, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen,

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.

February 10 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk February 10 , 2017

152448 (13 5 )

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

SC: 152448

v COA: 317892

St. Clair CC: 10

- 002936

- FC

TIA MARIE

- MITCHELL SKINNER,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_____________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice , the motion for a modified briefing scheduled to

enable the case to be heard on the May 2017 case call is DENIED.
<PAGE>
 
MEMO TO:  Larry Mcintosh

SUBJECT:  Terms & Conditions of Continued Employment

DATE:     April 20, 1998

Resultant of our discussions during the week of April 13, 1998, the following 
items represent your agreement to the terms and conditions as mutually 
negotiated to remain as an employee of Number Nine in your present capacity as 
VP OEM Sales. The following conditions/terms are part of this agreement:

     (1)  Your new salary will be $6,250 per pay period, paid twice a month
          annualized at $150,000. The effective date of your new salary will be
          April 30, 1998.

     (2)  The Company will grant you an option to purchase 100,000 shares of
          common stock (normal vesting terms) at a purchase price at fair market
          value on the day of the grant with acceleration based on mutually
          agreed performance goals being met on time.

     (3)  Should the Company engage in a change of control for all or
          substantially all of the Company's assets (greater than (50%) fifty
          percent) prior to the completion of the performance goal arrangement
          stated in #2 above, you and the Company will review the ability to
          achieve these goals as a result of the change of control. If the goals
          are determined to be unachievable or new goals cannot be reasonably
          established, acceleration of all or a portion of these shares will be
          addressed.

     (4)  Should the Company terminate your employment for reasons other than
          for cause, the Company will continue to pay your salary for a ninety
          day period from the official date of termination. The Company will
          also continue your health and medical benefit coverage for the same
          ninety day period at the level of benefit in place at the time of the
          official date of termination.

     (5)  Upon the vacancy of the VP Worldwide Sales position, you will assume
          the duties, title, responsibilities and accountabilities as assigned
          to the position. In addition, you will be expected to perform such
          other duties, responsibilities and accountabilities that may be
          assigned to you by the Company from time to time.

     (6)  The Company agrees to the acceleration of the unvested shares granted
          on August 21, 1997.
          
Accepted and Agreed:                    Date:  4/22/98

/s/ Larry Mcintosh                      /s/ Andy Najda
----------------------------------      -----------------------------
Larry Mcintosh                          Andy Najda
                                        Chairman, CEO
                                        Number Nine Visual Technology
U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations

West Building Ground Floor, Room w12 - 1 40 1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. Washington, DC 20590 

## Application **to Amend**

**Section 333 Exemption No. 14834**  **Regulatory Docket No. FAA -**  **2015 -**  **5747** March 19th 12 , 2016 **Petitioner:** Denison Yacht Sales, Inc. 850 Northeast 3 rd Street Dania Beach, FL 33004 Cell: 954- 646 - 4435 Email: 

### floridadronepros@gmail.com Greetings, By letter from the FAA dated August 16th , 2015 an Exemption 333 was granted to Denison Yacht Sales, Inc. for relief under Section 333. That letter was marked Section 333 Exemption No. 14834 Reg ulatory Docket No. FAA- 2015 - 5747 . Denison Yacht Sales, Inc. hereby requests that the exemption so granted be amended to include DJI Phantom 4 models . Re levant facts and reasoning are:  DJI has anno u nced they will discontinue the Phanto m 2 model which was approved in Denison Yacht Sales, Inc. Exemption No. 14834 .  Size, weight and performance specification of the DJI Phantom 4 (“P4 ” ) are substantially similar to those of the DJI Phantom 2 Vision+ (“P2”) and Phantom 3 (P3) in all relevant respects: 

### PHANTOM	4	Specs: Weight	(Including	Battery) Max	Ascent	Speed 6	m/s	(Sport	mode) Max	Descent	Speed 4	m/s	(Sport	mode) Max	Speed 20 m/s	(Sport	mode) Max	Service	Ceiling	Above	Sea	Level 19685	feet	(6000	m) Max	Flight	Time Approx.	28	minutes Operating	Temperature	Range 32°	to	104°	F	(0°	to	40°	C) Satellite	Systems GPS	/	GLONASS Hovering	Accuracy Vertical: +/ - 0.1	m	(when	Vision Positioning	is	active)	or	+/ - 0.5	m Horizontal: +/ - 0.3	m	(when	Vision	Positioning	is	active)	or	+/ - 1.5	m o  The findings, rationale and conclusions contained in the FAA’s Exemption No. 14834 apply without modification to this application to include the DJI Phanto m 4 model in Exemption No. 14834 .Thank you for your consideration of this important request. Please advise us of any a dditional

information that is required. Sincerely,

Lee Borkowski / Representative Denison Yacht Sales, Inc. 850 Northeast 3 rd Street Dania Beach, FL 33004 Cell 954- 646 -4435
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,025
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   56,718
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                58,743
<PP&E>                                             115
<DEPRECIATION>                                      15
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  58,843
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,875
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           247
<OTHER-SE>                                      15,721
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    58,843
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,342
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,805
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,966
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,651
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     68
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,148)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.56)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
# Record of Contacts **Docket No. FAA** **- 20**  **12 -**  **0271 Contacts.**  With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed? Organization Person Contacted Date Response Transport Canada Helen Tsai

613 - 952 - 43 62 8/05 /11 Sent email. Bom bardier Joseph Watson

416 - 375 - 4054 8/05/11 Sent email. Regional Airline Association Connie Arnold

(202)367 - 1252 8/05/11 Sent email.
#### JONES v. STATE.

No. 23869.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 19, 1947.

W. J. Baldwin, of Beaumont, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction ■ was for murder, punishment assessed at fifteen years in the penitentiary, from which conviction appellant appealed to this court.

It is now shown by proper affidavit that pending such appeal appellant died in Hardin County, Texas, on the'30th day of October, 1947.

The appeal is abated.
#### James GRAHAM, Appellant, v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 26302.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 18, 1953.

No attorney on appeal for appellant.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of possessing alcoholic beverages for the purpose of sale in a dry area, and his punishment was assessed by the jury at confinement in jail for a period of seven months and a fine of $750.

Appellant has filed his motion stating under oath that he desires to dismiss his appeal.

The motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 214 (Friday, November 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66258]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28209]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[NM-930-1310-01; NMNM 1804]


New Mexico: Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas 
Lease

    Under the provisions of Public Law 97-451, a petition for 
reinstatement of oil and gas lease NMNM 1804 for lands in Rio Arriba 
County, New Mexico, was timely filed and was accompanied by all 
required rentals and royalties accruing from May 1, 2000, the date of 
termination.
    No valid lease has been issued affecting the lands. The lessee has 
agreed to new lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $5.00 
per acre or fraction thereof and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The 
lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and has reimbursed 
the Bureau of Land Management for the cost of this Federal Register 
notice.
    The Lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the 
lease as set out in sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act 
of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing 
to reinstate the lease effective May 1, 2000, subject to the original 
terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty 
rates cited above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lourdes B. Ortiz, BLM, New Mexico 
State Office, (505) 438-7586.

    Dated: October 24, 2000.
Lourdes B. Ortiz,
Land Law Examiner.
[FR Doc. 00-28209 Filed 11-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-FB-M