alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2


             [NSA NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC. LETTERHEAD]


           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS


         We hereby consent to the reference to our firm and to our report dated
February 11, 2002 presenting estimated reserves and future revenue for the oil
and gas properties of NEG Operating LLC, in NEG Operating LLC's Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001.

                                        NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.




                                        By: /s/ FREDERIC D. SEWELL
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Frederic D. Sewell
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

Dallas, Texas
March 14, 2002
#### Anthony Canzoneri, Respondent, v Wigand Corporation, Appellant.

t. n an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), dated June 28, 1989, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to renew, and, upon renewal, vacated a prior order of the same court dated March 28, 1989, granting the defendant’s motion for summary judg*594ment, denied that motion and granted the plaintiff leave to serve an amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant’s challenge to a prior decision of the same court dated January 24, 1989, vacating the plaintiff’s default in responding to the defendant’s motion for summary judgment is not properly before us.

While a motion for leave to renew a prior motion should generally be based on newly discovered facts *(see, Caffee v Arnold,*104 AD2d 352), it is within a court’s "discretion to grant renewal even upon facts known to the movant at the time of the original motion” *(Esa v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn.,*89 AD2d 865, 866; *see also, Oremland v Miller Minutemen Constr. Corp,*133 AD2d 816, 818; *Vitale v La Cour,*96 AD2d 941). Here, the court properly exercised its discretion and accepted as new evidence, proof that was available to the plaintiff at the time of the defendant’s original motion for summary judgment. This new proof, an affidavit from the plaintiff’s employer who had personal knowledge regarding the plaintiff’s work assignments, has clearly raised an issue of fact regarding the date of the accident. Bracken, J. P., Harwood, O’Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MARCUS O

. TAITE

- EL

- BEY

- TEY

- )

WASHI TOW TURNER

, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 2 3

- 0 354 2 (UNA)

)

)

ALABAMA GOVERNOR )

KAY IVEY et al

., )

)

Defendant s

. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff, an Alabama state prisone r

, has filed a pro se c omplaint , ECF No. 1, and an

application to proceed in forma pauperis , ECF No. 3. The complaint

, nam ing A labama’s three

branches of government and baldly cit ing federal statutes

, is incomprehensible

. Fe deral courts

lack “ power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if

, ” as here, “ they are so

attenuated and unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit .” Hagans v. Lavine , 415 U.S. 528,

536

– 37 (1974)

. Furthermore, the Eleventh Amendment generally immunizes states from suits

filed against them in federal court. 1 Consequently, this case will be dismissed by separate order.

_________/s/___________

__ _ CHRISTOPHER R. COOPER

Date: January 12 , 202 4 United States District Judge

1 The Eleventh Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: “The Judicial power of the United States

shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the

United States by Citizens of another State, or b y Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.” U.S. Const.

amend. XI. T he Supreme Court “ long ago held that the Eleventh Amendment bars a citizen from bringing

suit against the citizen ’ s own State in federal court, even though the express terms of the Amen dment refer

only to suits by citizens of another State. ” Welch v. Texas Dept. of Highways and Public Transp ., 483 U.S.

468, 472 (1987)

.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT RULE 13a-14
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 I, Craig W. Carlson, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Cygnus, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this Annual 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 Annual
Report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this Annual Report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer 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 registrant and we 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 registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this Annual Report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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 Annual Report based on such evaluation; and c) disclosed in this Annual Report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most
recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrant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 registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting. Date: March 26, 2004 /s/ Craig W. CarlsonCraig W. CarlsonChief Financial Officer
EX-10(Z)



 






Exhibit 10(z)




AMENDMENT

TO

THE SCOTTS COMPANY 1996 STOCK OPTION PLAN


2005 AMENDMENT




     WHEREAS, the shareholders of The Scotts Company (“Scotts”) previously approved the adoption of
The Scotts Company 1996 Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”); and



     WHEREAS, on March 18, 2005 (the “Effective Time”), Scotts consummated the restructuring of
Scotts’ corporate structure into a holding company structure by merging Scotts into a wholly-owned
second-tier Ohio limited liability company subsidiary, The Scotts Company LLC (“Scotts LLC”),
pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as of December 13, 2004 (the “Merger
Agreement”), by and among Scotts, Scotts LLC and The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company (the “Company”);
and



     WHEREAS, pursuant to the Merger Agreement, the Company assumed, as of the Effective Time, the
Plan and all obligations and liabilities of Scotts thereunder; and



     WHEREAS, Section 9 of the Plan provides that the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”)
may amend the Plan at any time without shareholder approval except to the extent that shareholder
approval is required to satisfy applicable requirements imposed by Rule 16b-3 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; applicable requirements of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended; or any securities exchange, market or other quotation system on or through which the
Company’s securities are listed or traded; and



     WHEREAS, the Board has resolved to amend the Plan to reflect the Company’s assumption of the
Plan;



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended effective as of the Effective Time as follows:



     1. The title of the Plan is amended to be “The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company 1996 Stock Option
Plan.”



     2. Section 2.1(k) of the Plan is amended and restated, in its entirety, to read as follows:
“Company” means The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company, an Ohio corporation, and any successor thereto.



     3. Section 2.1(s) of the Plan is amended and restated to read, in its entirety, as follows:
“Plan” means The Scotts Miracle-Gro Company 1996 Stock Option Plan, as in effect from time to time.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Amendment to be executed as of the 6th day of
May, 2005, to be effective as of March 18, 2005.


	 	 	 	 	 
	 	THE SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO COMPANY

 	 
	 	By: /s/ Christopher L. Nagel

 	 
	 	Print Name: Christopher L. Nagel
 	 
	 	Title:  	EVP and Chief Financial Officer
ex10a.htm
















Exhibit (10)(a)

















Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm












We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Post-Effective Amendment No. 29 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-135039) and Amendment No. 453 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-08517), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) April 1, 2015, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 8, 2015, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln Life Variable Annuity Account N for the interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.













/s/ Ernst & Young LLP









Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


October 1, 2015
Exhibit 99.1
 (RS LOGO)TBPE REGISTERED ENGINEERING FIRM F-1580
    
    FAX (713) 651-08491100 LOUISIANA   SUITE 3800
    
    HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-5218
    
    TELEPHONE (713) 651-9191
  
    SEC PARAMETERS    PetroQuest Energy, Inc.
 ProvedDeveloped
    
    
    
    
    
    
    TotalProducing
    
    
    Non-Producing
    
    
    Undeveloped
    
    
    ProvedNet Remaining ReservesOil/Condensate  Barrels
    
    
    740,941
    
    
    
    1,032,470
    
    
    
    156,376
    
    
    
    1,929,787Plant Products  Barrels
    
    
    980,900
    
    
    
    208,003
    
    
    
    561,946
    
    
    
    1,750,849Gas  MMCF
    
    
    25,793
    
    
    
    9,470
    
    
    
    13,306
    
    
    
    48,569Income DataFuture Gross Revenue
    
    $
    163,064,743
    
    
    $
    103,224,013
    
    
    $
    67,850,402
    
    
    $
    334,139,158Deductions
    
    
    65,073,881
    
    
    
    63,811,510
    
    
    
    45,688,044
    
    
    
    174,573,435Future Net Income (FNI)
    
    $
    97,990,862
    
    
    $
    39,412,503
    
    
    $
    22,162,358
    
    
    $
    159,565,723Discounted FNI @ 10%
    
    $
    85,444,827
    
    
    $
    35,483,160
    
    
    $
    12,636,297
    
    
    $
    133,564,284
 1200, 530 8TH AVENUE, S.W.CALGARY, ALBERTA T2P 3S8
    
    TEL (403) 262-2799
    
    FAX (403) 262-2790621 17TH STREET, SUITE 1550 DENVER, COLORADO 80293-1501
    
    TEL (303) 623-9147
    
    FAX (303) 623-4258




---



##### 



Discounted Future Net IncomeAs of December 31, 2009Discount Rate
    
    TotalPercent
    
    Proved5
    
    $
    145,028,78715
    
    $
    123,998,55220
    
    $
    115,742,99930
    
    $
    101,982,082
  Reserves Included in This Report
     RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
    
    PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS




---



##### 



Estimates of Reserves
   RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
    
    PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS




---



##### 



Future Production Rates
   Hydrocarbon Prices
   Costs
     RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
    
    PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS




---



##### 



Standards of Independence and Professional Qualification
      Terms of Usage
  Very truly yours,RYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.
TBPE Firm Registration No. F-1580/s/ James F. Latham

James F. Latham, P.E.TBPE License No. 49586Senior Vice President
    
    [SEAL]JFL/sm
 RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
    
    PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS




---



##### 



PETROQUEST ENERGY, INC.
 Estimated
 Future Reserves and Income
 Attributable to Certain
 Leasehold and Royalty Interests
 SEC Parameters
 As of
 December 31, 2009
 /s/ James F. Latham

James F. Latham, P.E.TBPE License No. 49586Senior Vice PresidentRYDER SCOTT COMPANY, L.P.TBPE Firm License No. F-1580[SEAL]
 RYDER SCOTT COMPANY
    
    PETROLEUM CONSULTANTS
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-50241

USDC No. WA-91-CV-315

__________________

SYNNACHIA McQUEEN,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DAVID TURNER, COIII; GREG L. KLEPPER,

Officer; ROGELIO NAVARRO, COIII, Officer; 

MICHAEL WISEMAN, COIII; DAVID H. McCULLOUGH, Lt.;

DENNIS POLK, Sgt.,

 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

- - - - - - - - - -

November 7, 1995

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Synnachia McQueen's motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (IFP) on appeal is DENIED.

McQueen appeals a jury verdict that Correctional Officers

David Turner and Greg Klepper did not use excessive force against

him in prison. McQueen contends that the district court erred by

denying his motion in limine; gave erroneous jury instructions
No. 95-50241

-2-

regarding the Eighth Amendment and the defendants' good-faith

defense; failed to instruct the jury regarding his Fourteenth

Amendment and state-law claims; and erred by not admitting into

evidence an internal affairs report. McQueen also contends that

the defendants did not offer a non-discriminatory reason for

exercising a peremptory strike against the sole remaining black

venireperson and that the verdict was contrary to the evidence.

We have examined McQueen's motion and the record and have

concluded that all of the issues he raises for appeal are

frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir.

1983). We have warned McQueen that frivolous appeals might

result in sanctions. We also have admonished McQueen to review

his pending appeals and withdraw any that are frivolous. We

reiterate our admonition to McQueen and warn him that any further

frivolous appeals will result in sanctions.

APPEAL DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-Q
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          12,318
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  125,334
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,904
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               161,442
<PP&E>                                         171,484
<DEPRECIATION>                                  58,040
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 393,166
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          104,627
<BONDS>                                        100,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            64
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   393,166
<SALES>                                        137,748
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               137,748
<CGS>                                           77,820
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  132,492
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (135)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,590
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,801
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,117
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,978
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    514
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,464
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .02
        

</TABLE>
#### RAY v. STATE.

No. 19891.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 15, 1938.

Maxwell Burkett, of San Antonio, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty.,- of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is aggravated assault; penalty assessed at a fine of $250 and confinement in the county jail for one year.

The complaint and information appear regular. The evidence adduced upon the trial is not brought forward for review. No complaints of the procedure have been presented by bills of exception.

Perceiving no error justifying a reversal, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### Claire Feiner et al., Appellants, v Incorporated Village of Farmingdale, Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), dated December 8, 1988, which granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this action brought against the Incorporated Village of Farmingdale (hereinafter the Village), the plaintiffs claim that they are exempt from the prior-written-notice-of-defect prerequisite to commencement of an action *(see,*Village Law § 6-628) since the Village committed acts of affirmative negligence.

While it is true that no prior notice of defect is necessary in the face of affirmative acts of negligence *(see, Parella v Levin,*111 AD2d 750), under no view of the facts at bar could it be said that the painting and maintenance of lines by the Village on the roadway, demarcating parking spaces next to the allegedly defective curb, constituted an act of affirmative negligence obviating the need for prior written notice of the alleged dangerous condition of the curb. In the absence of the required prior written notice of defect, no civil action can be maintained against the Village for any injuries allegedly sustained by reason of the claimed curb defect *(see,*Village Law § 6-628; *Londino v Bank of N. Y.,*132 AD2d 688). Therefore, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the Village. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Balletta, Miller and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
J

- S55002

- 16

NON
- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION
- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENN SYLVANIA IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Appellee

v.

KIYIEM HAGWOOD
Appellant No. 1871 EDA 2015

Appeal from the PCRA Order May 29 , 2015 In the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 51

- CR

- 0701822

- 2006

BEFORE: LAZARUS, J., DUBOW, J., and STEVENS, P.J.E. *

JUDGMENT ORDER BY LAZARUS, J.: FILED JULY 1, 2016.
Kiyiem Hagwood appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing his
petition 1 filed pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act (PCRA), 42 Pa.C.S.
§§ 9541

- 9546. In 2008, Hagwood was convicted of second

- degree murder
and related offenses in connection with the shooting death of Andrew Rivera.
At the time of the offenses, Hagwood was seventeen years old. Hagwood
was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.

____________________________________________

* Former Justice specially assig ned to the Superior Court.

1 Hagwood’s pro se petition was timely filed as his judgment of sentence became final on April 25, 2011. See 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 9545(b)(3); Sup. Ct. R. 13. Therefore, Hagwood had until April 25, 2012 to file his petition. Instantly, he filed his pro se petition on September 8, 2011, which he later amended on November 17, 2011 and August 21, 2012. Appointed counsel filed an amended petition on July 24, 2014. In the July 2014 petition, Hagwood raised the Miller issue.J

- S55002

- 16

- 2

-

On appeal, Hagwood argue s that the PCRA court erred in determining
that he is not eligible for resentencing based on Miller v. Alabama , 132 S.
Ct. 2455 (2012). In Miller , the United States Supreme Court concluded that
mandatory life

- without

- parole sentences for juveniles violate the Eighth
Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Id. at 2464. In
light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Montgomery v.

Louisiana , 136 S. Ct. 718 (2016) (as revised Jan. 27, 2016), which held

that Miller must be applied re troactively, we reverse and remand. See

Commonwealth v. Secreti , 134 A.3d 77 (Pa. Super. 2016) (interpreting
Montgomery as making retroactivity under Miller effective as of the date

of the Miller decision).

Order reversed. Case remanded for resentencing. 2 Jurisdiction
relinquished. 3

____________________________________________

2 The Commonwealth does not oppose a remand limited to resentencing. Appellee’s Brief, at 2.

3 We note that at the time the PCRA court ruled upon Ha gwood’s petition, Montgomery had not yet been decided. Thus, the court ruled in accordance with the prevailing law at the time which was that the Miller holding does not apply retroactively to an inmate, serving a life sentence without parole, who has exh austed his direct appeal rights and is proceeding under the PCRA. See Commonwealth v. Cunningham , 81 A.3d 1 (Pa. 2013).J

- S55002

- 16

- 3

-

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 7/1/2016