alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Consent of Pollard, Gore & Harrison Petroleum Engineers

     As independent  petroleum  engineers,  Pollard,  Gore & Harrison  Petroleum
Engineers hereby consents to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement on Form S-3 of Magnum Hunter  Resources,  Inc. (the  "Company") of all
references to our reports and our firm included in or made part of the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999.

/s/ Pollard, Gore & Harrison Petroleum Engineers
--------------------------------------------------
Pollard, Gore & Harrison Petroleum Engineers


Houston, Texas
August 17, 2000
# Amtsblatt C 212A/2019

| | ISSN 1977-088X |
| --- | --- |
| Amtsblatt
  der Europäischen Union | C 212A |
| | |
| Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache | Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen | 62. Jahrgang24. Juni 2019 |

ISSN 1977-088X

Amtsblatt

der Europäischen Union

C 212A

Ausgabe in deutscher Sprache

Mitteilungen und Bekanntmachungen

62. Jahrgang24. Juni 2019

---

| Inhalt | Seite |
| --- | --- |
| | Berichtigungen |
| 2019/C 212 A/01 | Berichtigung der Stellenausschreibung für die Stelle des Exekutivdirektors/der Exekutivdirektorin der Europäischen Arzneimittel-Agentur (EMA) Amsterdam (Bediensteter auf Zeit — Besoldungsgruppe AD 14) — COM/2019/20037 ( ABl. C 165 A vom 14.5.2019 ) | 1 |

Inhalt

Seite

Berichtigungen

2019/C 212 A/01

Berichtigung der Stellenausschreibung für die Stelle des Exekutivdirektors/der Exekutivdirektorin der Europäischen Arzneimittel-Agentur (EMA) Amsterdam (Bediensteter auf Zeit — Besoldungsgruppe AD 14) — COM/2019/20037 ( ABl. C 165 A vom 14.5.2019 )

1

---

| DE | |
| --- | --- |

DE

---

Berichtigungen

| 24.6.2019 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | CA 212/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.6.2019

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

CA 212/1

---

Berichtigung der Stellenausschreibung für die Stelle des Exekutivdirektors/der Exekutivdirektorin der Europäischen Arzneimittel-Agentur (EMA) Amsterdam (Bediensteter auf Zeit — Besoldungsgruppe AD 14) — COM/2019/20037

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 165 A vom 14. Mai 2019
  )

(2019/C 212 A/01)

Auf Seite 6, „Bewerbungsschluss“:

Anstatt:

„Bewerbungsschluss ist der 13. Juni 2019, 12.00 Uhr (mittags), Brüsseler Zeit; danach ist keine Online-Bewerbung mehr möglich.“,

muss es heißen:

muss es heißen

„Bewerbungsschluss ist der 4. Juli 2019, 12.00 Uhr (mittags), Brüsseler Zeit; danach ist keine Online-Bewerbung mehr möglich.“

---
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

JAMES AUGUSTE,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D14-2391

[June 3, 2015]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County; Ilona M. Holmes, 

Judge; L.T. Case No. 10-665CF10A.

Dane K. Chase of Chase Law Florida, P.A., St. Petersburg, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Mitchell A. Egber, 

Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

MAY and CONNER, JJ., concur.

WARNER, J., concurs specially with opinion.

WARNER, J., concurring specially.

I concur in the affirmance of the order summarily denying the motion 

for postconviction relief and write to note that, as to appellant’s second 

ground, Puglisi v. State, 112 So. 3d 1196 (Fla. 2013) is not controlling. 

Appellant contended that trial counsel was ineffective for calling a witness 

whose testimony conflicted with the defendant, and that counsel’s strategy 

was patently unreasonable. The court denied this claim, because it was 

apparent that the appellant insisted on calling the witness, not trial 

counsel (which appellant concedes on appeal). Therefore, it did not 

amount to a strategic decision on the part of trial counsel.
2

Appellant contends, however, that based upon Puglisi, the decision to 

call witnesses was counsel’s responsibility, not the defendant’s. Therefore, 

he could still claim ineffective assistance. In Puglisi, the supreme court 

did so hold, receding from cases such as Blanco v. State, 452 So. 2d 520, 

524 (Fla. 1984), which had held that the decision to call witnesses was 

ultimately the defendant’s. Nevertheless, Puglisi does not apply in this 

case, because appellant’s trial took place before Puglisi issued. Thus, a 

Blanco analysis would apply and did give the appellant the ultimate 

decision on which witnesses to call. See England v. State, 151 So. 3d 1132, 

1141 (Fla. 2014). As he made the decision to call the witness, compelling 

counsel to do so, this cannot constitute ineffective assistance of trial 

counsel.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
EXHIBIT 4.2

  

 Exhibit 4.2
 

 (Front)
 

 NUMBER CERT.
 

 ENERGIZER TENNIS INC.
 

 SHARES
 

 INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA $0.001 PAR VALUE COMMON STOCK
 

 COMMON STOCK
 CUSIP # 29271H 1 03
 

 This Certifies that
 

 Is The Owner Of
 

 FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF ENNERGIZER TENNIS INC.
 

 Transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed.  This Certificate is not valid until countersigned by the Transfer Agent and registered by the Registrar.
 

 Witness the facsimile seal of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.
 

 Dated:
 /s/ Alexander Farquharson
 ________________________
 __________________________
 Chief Executive Officer
 

 /s/ Daniel Martinez
 __________________________
 Chief Financial Officer
 

 

 Countersigned:
 VSTOCK TRANSFER, LLC
 Transfer Agent and Registrar
 

 By:___________________
 Authorized Signature
 

 


 
 

 (Back)
 

 The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations.
 

 TEN COM - as tenants in common
 UNIF GIFT MIN ACT - _____Custodian ________
 TEN ENT - as tenants by the entireties
 (cust)
 (Minor)
 JT TEN  - as joint tenants with right
 of  survivorship and not as
 under the Uniform Gifts
 tenants in common
 Minors Act  ___________
 (State)
 

 

 Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.
 

 For Value Received, ______________________ hereby sell, assign and transfer unto
 

 

 ______________________________________
 Please insert Social Security or other
 Identifying Number
 

 _____________________________________________________________________________
 (Please print or type write name and address, including postal zip code of assignee)
 

 _____________________________________________________________________________
 

 _____________________________________________________________________________
 

 _________________________________________________________________Shares
 

 of the common stock represented by this certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints ___________________________________Attorney to transfer the said stock on the books of the within-named Corporation with full power of substitution in the premises.
 

 Dated _________________________
 

 

 _____________________________________________________________________________
 Notice: The signature(s) to this assignment must correspond with the name(s) as written upon the face of this  certificate in any particular without alteration or enlargement or any change whatsoever.
 

 

 

 Signature(s) Guaranteed:
 Notice: The signature(s) should be guaranteed by an eligible guarantor institution.  (banks, stockbrokers, savings and loan association and credit unions) with membership in an approved signature guarantee medallion program pursuant to s.e.c rule 17ad-15
EXHIBIT
    32.1
  CERTIFICATION
    BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
    PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
    2002
  Company
  (a)
    the Companys periodic report on
    Form 10-Q
    for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2008 (the
    Form 10-Q),
    fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
    Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange
    Act of 1934, as amended, and related interpretations; and(b)
    the information contained in the
    Form 10-Q
    fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
    condition and results of operations of the Company.  * *
    *
  By:
    /s/Joseph
    I. Gasca      C-3
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-117136 and 333-69531 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-54878,
333-88804, 333-62271, 333-61197, 333-39353 and 333-33353 on Form S-8 of our
reports dated June 13, 2005, relating to the financial statements and financial
statement schedule of Atari, Inc., and management's report on the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K/A of Atari, Inc. for the year ended March 31, 2005.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

New York, New York
October 12, 2005
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-10679 Summary Calendar

ROBERT W. HUDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus BILL LONG, DISTRICT CLERK OF DALLAS COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:98-CV-912-P

- - - - - - - - - - January 14, 1999 Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Robert W. Hudson, Jr., Texas prisoner No. 550733, moves this court for appointment of appellate counsel to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous. The motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED. The district court did not err in denying Hudson’s requests for mandamus relief. See Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court , 474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir. 1973); 28 U.S.C. § 1361. We AFFIRM the dismissal of Hudson’s claim for monetary damagesNo. 98-10679 -2- because our review of the record shows that the underlying claims that Hudson wished to raise in state court were frivolous. See Ruiz v. United States , No. 97-20950, 1998 WL 770642, at *2 (5th Cir. Nov. 20, 1998). The district court lacked the authority to assume jurisdiction over Hudson’s attempts to modify the terms of a state-court child custody order. Ankenbrandt v. Richards , 504 U.S. 689, 703-04 (1992). AFFIRMED; MOTION FOR COUNSEL DENIED.
EXHIBIT 32.1





CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SETION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of EGPI Firecreek, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gregg Fryett, CEO of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material  respects,  the financial  condition and result of operations of the Company.





Date:  November 18, 2005





/s/ Gregg Fryett

Gregg Fryett

Chief Executive Officer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

November 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134331 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 134331 

 COA: 274956 

Wayne CC: 02-013472-01 

JEREMIAH WILLIAM BROOKS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 21, 2007 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

s1119 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

November 29, 2007 

 Clerk
Exhibit 32.1

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 Debt Resolve, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, David M. Rainey,
Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

| |     |                                                                                                                                                       
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) | The Report
 fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
 Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               
| |     |                                                                                                                                                       
| | (2) | The
 information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
 respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                        |     |                                                                                | 
|----------------------- | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | 
|Dated:
 August 18, 2009 | By: | /s/ DAVID M.
 RAINEY                                                           | 
|                        |     |                                                                                | 
|                        |     | David M.
 Rainey
 Interim Chief Executive Officer and Chief
 Financial Officer

|  
|--
|  
|44

---
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1
 
                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
 
     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-00428, 333-33353 and 333-39353) and Form S-3 (Registration
No. 333-51645) of GT Interactive Software Corp. of our report dated May 10,
1996, with respect to the combined financial statements of WizardWorks Group for
the year ended March 31, 1996, included in the Transition Report (Form 10-K) of
GT Interactive Software Corp. for the transition period from January 1, 1998 to
March 31, 1998.
 
                                          ERNST & YOUNG LLP
 
Minneapolis, Minnesota
June 23, 1998
Dismiss and Opinion Filed December 11, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01412-CV 

No. 05-15-01413-CV 

IN RE DONALD GENE BLANTON, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 86th Judicial District Court 

Kaufman County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 23078-86, No. 23592-86 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Francis, Myers, and Schenck 

Opinion by Justice Francis 

In this petition for writ of mandamus, relator requests that the Court order the trial court 

to rule on his “Motion for State Production Indictment to the State’s Sworn Affidavit Evidence 

Relied on To Defendant’s Conviction Defendant Actually Innocent.” Relator asks the trial court 

to order the State to submit a motion to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals recommending that 

his convictions be immediately overturned. The trial judge filed a response to the petition for 

writ of mandamus explaining that he has taken no action on relator’s motion because the trial 

court’s plenary power over the cases has expired. 

Although we agree that the trial court’s “plenary jurisdiction” over the underlying 

judgments of conviction has expired, we also note the court retains the power and duty to address 

motions raising collateral post-conviction matters committed to it by statute or relevant 
 –2– 

procedural rule. State v. Patrick, 86 S.W.3d 592, 594 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) (plurality 

opinion). As the Court of Criminal Appeals explained: 

When a conviction has been affirmed on appeal and the mandate has issued, 

general jurisdiction is not restored in the trial court. The trial court has special or 

limited jurisdiction to ensure that a higher court's mandate is carried out and to 

perform other functions specified by statute, such as finding facts in a habeas 

corpus setting, or as in this case, determining entitlement to DNA testing. 

Patrick, 86 S.W.3d at 594 (footnotes omitted). 

In this case, the trial court lacks the authority to grant the relief sought and has so advised 

relator by his response to the petition for writ of mandamus. Although the preferred and better 

practice is for trial courts to advise a party at the time the court determines it lacks authority to 

take action on a motion, no purpose would be served in this case by requiring the trial judge to 

sign an order conveying the same information by way of a denial of the motion. As a result, the 

petition for writ of mandamus is now moot. See In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 

732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) ( “A case becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist 

between the parties at any stage of the legal proceedings.”); Dow Chem. Co. v. Garcia, 909 

S.W.2d 503, 505 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (court will not issue mandamus if it would be 

useless or unavailing). 

We dismiss the petition for want of jurisdiction. 

151412F.P05 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32

                                             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                              AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                                   SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In  connection   with  the  Quarterly   Report  of  Everyday   Assembly
Productions, Inc., on Form 10- QSB for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
the  undersigned,  B. Stephen  Bailey,  Chief  Executive  Officer and  Principal
Accounting Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted  pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge and belief:

         1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13 (a) or
15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         2. The  information  contained in the Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of  operations of the
Company.


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ B. Stephen Bailey
B. Stephen Bailey
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

No. 11-20315 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. RENE MALDONADO SOSA, also known as Samuel Valencia, also known as Samuel Rodriguez Valencia, also known as Samuel Valencia-Rodriguez, Defendant-Appellant
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:10-CR-830-1
Before GARZA, SOUTHWICK, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges PER CURIAM: * The Federal Public Defender app o int e d t o r e p r e s e nt Rene Maldonado Sosa 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). Sosa has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Sosa’s response. We

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s

F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Decem ber 3 0, 2 011 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 , the cour t has d ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t for th in 5 T H C IR
. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-20315 Document: 00511710351 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2011No. 11-20315

for ap p e l l a t e r eview. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further r e s p o n sibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 T H C I R
. R. 42.2. Sosa’s motion to proceed pro se and to file a separate pro se brief is DENIED. See United States v. Wagner , 158 F.3d 901, 902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

2 Case: 11-20315 Document: 00511710351 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2011
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 73 (Thursday, April 16, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 20552]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08864]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 9099]


Foreign Affairs Policy Board Meeting Notice

AGENCY: Department of State.

Closed Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. 
App., the Department of State announces a meeting of the Foreign 
Affairs Policy Board to take place on April 30, 2015, at the Department 
of State, Washington, DC.
    The Foreign Affairs Policy Board reviews and assesses: (1) Global 
threats and opportunities; (2) trends that implicate core national 
security interests; (3) tools and capacities of the civilian foreign 
affairs agencies; and (4) priorities and strategic frameworks for U.S. 
foreign policy. Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App section 10(d), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1), it 
has been determined that this meeting will be closed to the public as 
the Board will be reviewing and discussing matters properly classified 
in accordance with Executive Order 13526.
    For more information, contact Gloria Lee at (202) 647-1965.

    Dated: April 13, 2015.
Andrew McCracken,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2015-08864 Filed 4-15-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-10-P