alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
...... ,· " 

L Olt :tS E. PEA~S'<f)IJ CL~ 

~~ Q,l..\~"r~F:' ~PPSA\-.S 

MAy· Z5; Z.0/'5 

~ 1 3C11 -Oi 

RECEIVED IN 

COURT OF CRIPJliNAL APPEALS 

JUN 012015 

Abet Acosta, Clerk 

I ~1\ve: VJR::t::lTEJJ -ro AS.K, FOR. f\s.&:.'STAIJC£. --rowAA.Ds 

Cl"BTT\:r~~ .4T=RoM --rHE QOL\RT cF APPEA-LS o~ ~f\lFoR.-. 

MA.TICJ/J <llP !-low To OE;rMN, A Cofll OP A l(Oif 

WRIT OF \-(1\BE_US CoRft\S# 

,_L FILED N\~ \(0'1 WRIT FRoM bAWSC>N S7AT~ TAXL; 

_. -=t::.t-J ~LAtE Zt9e3 d.. £MY 2oot.f- ,-mt_ Wt\:rT ~o~C£RNs 

·. l11E t.A-rE bss 0f A PAR.ou:_ ~~vocJ\T:rotJ thR.r~q ·- ArTF--R ~V.:tN~ ~0 iEI\R.S. ct=' A 3TI\TE. .J~xL ~t_~~E~k~£ 

AtJD RELE(\<;Eb OtJ \)A~LEdl Ul~ N\'l \t\.~R\) ~~) N\ONli-\ 

REPORT I Wf\S ~K[LJS:_D ·1\N!) NOT.:J-F:l_E-1) ~T LtiL 

~EASON fOR f2:ExiJ6 -:r-~ \}Jf\S B£c-AUSE =-c i4ID NfVfR -~l-\1) 

. A PARDL£ HEM.:LN<a ~SPE<1-XFcN..LV fitttl{E STI\T~ JAXL- ~ 

Two YEARs l-1\TER Mm MV !Ef.EAS£.-tiN"!:> Mt>s• & :rN -:rf\:rL FoR 

\\-\£ ~EI\RII\\G 0 E"8J -ntoo~~ -::c::.- HV\D ~N -..t..~ c.usroo'/ FcR~)lWo 

YfttRS (; ::r: AePRE(;LI\TE VouR HELPq_ ItJFo~f()f\T.:rotJ oF 1M I De..-:#: 

~-S3530I ~u"Cilt~R.Y «AB-15y~A~ StwrEtJ&-. CUE Wrtl=-T (fo1w~ 

1\&)ltr A.~NCE m WE_ ~ B ~ lf[E &Af.D o-F Pt\~~NS 1\ND f.ARoL£, I 

t~oB~~-d-lf-Stf 

bA.Lll\~~aumt.TX' 

~JDGE-: ~1\ROLD ENTz 

OR ~E_:r.TH DE~N 

tLVDE L. GeES< ~~, . &ft:cs~ t<i7<Aoss ·- · 

P.o~ Box qooo 

-~£1J"D£Rsl>N 1f 75~53
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D19-1404

_____________________________

TONY DANIELS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Linda F. McCallum, Judge.

October 17, 2019

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

RAY, C.J., and MAKAR and KELSEY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

Tony Daniels, pro se, Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, and Heather Flanagan Ross, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
EXHIBIT 32.2



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

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May 31, 2005 of Resources Connection, Inc. (the Form 10-K), I, Stephen J. Giusto, Chief Financial Officer of Resources
Connection, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



1. The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



2. The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Resources Connection, Inc.



August 11, 2005



/s/    STEPHEN J. GIUSTOStephen J. GiustoChief Financial Officer andExecutive Vice President of Corporate Development




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 required by Section 906, has been
provided to Resources Connection, Inc. and will be retained by Resources Connection, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



The foregoing certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It is not being
filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

NADIA KUZMENKO, AKA Nadia Reyes, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 21-10111 

D.C. Nos. 

2:11-cr-00210-JAM-2 

2:11-cr-00210-JAM 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 9, 2022**

San Francisco, California

Before: HURWITZ and VANDYKE, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSEN,*** District 

Judge.

Nadia Kuzmenko was sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment in 2015 for wire 

fraud. In March 2021, she moved for compassionate release under 18 U.S.C. 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the 

District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

FILED

FEB 11 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

§ 3582(c)(1)(A)(i). The district court denied the motion, concluding that Kuzmenko 

failed to establish extraordinary and compelling circumstances warranting relief, 

and, even if she had, reduction of her sentence was not appropriate under the 

sentencing factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Reviewing for abuse of discretion, see

United States v. Aruda, 993 F.3d 797, 799 (9th Cir. 2021) (per curiam), we affirm. 

A district court may base its denial of a motion for compassionate release 

solely on the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Keller, 2 F.4th 1278, 1284 (9th 

Cir. 2021). The district court did not abuse its discretion in doing so here. The court 

accurately noted that Kuzmenko had served only 14.5 months of a 96-month 

sentence and concluded that granting § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i) relief “at this point would 

undermine the 18 U.S.C. § 3553 sentencing factors by minimizing the original 

sentence’s deterrent effect, failing to provide just punishment, and failing to promote 

respect for the law.” Moreover, the same district judge presided over Kuzmenko’s 

5-week trial, and had sentenced Kuzmenko to a below-Guidelines term after 

carefully analyzing the § 3553(a) factors. See United States v. Wilson, 8 F.4th 970, 

977 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting that a minimal explanation for denying a § 3582(c)(2)

motion from the sentencing judge suffices in light of “the deference due to the 

judge’s professional judgment and the context of a particular case”). 

AFFIRMED.
Effie M. CHAISSON v. STATE of Louisiana, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HOSPITALS THROUGH the REGISTRAR OF VITAL RECORDS

NO- 2018-00540

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 2018

Denied.

HUGHES, J., would grant.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7327

STEPHEN A. SHARP, Petitioner - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-1170-AM) Submitted: March 16, 1999 Decided: May 18, 1999 Before NIEMEYER and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Stephen A. Sharp, Appellant Pro Se. Daniel John Munroe, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’sopinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Sharp v. Virginia Parole Bd. , No. CA97-1170-AM (E.D. Va. Aug. 4, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### In the Matter of Raymond G., Respondent, v Colette E., Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 857]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Richard Ross, J.), entered on or about June 17, 1999, which granted petitioner’s application for custody of the subject child, with supervised visits by respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The award of custody in favor of petitioner is amply supported by evidence that, inter alia, respondent interfered with petitioner’s visitation rights *(see Matter of Michael C.,*282 AD2d 407 [2001], *lv denied*96 NY2d 722 [2001]) and resides with a boyfriend who has an extensive criminal history that includes drug-related convictions *(cf. Matter of Joseph Emmanuel N.,*292 *462AD2d 295 [2002]), and that petitioner is better able to provide for the child’s emotional, intellectual and other needs, including a nurturing home and family *(see Eschbach v Eschbach,*56 NY2d 167, 172, 173 [1982]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan, Ellerin and Gonzalez, JJ.
Dionte Jermaine DAVIS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D17-2104

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

NOVEMBER 14, 2017

Petitioner is deemed insolvent and may proceed in forma pauperis for purposes of this cause.

Upon consideration, this proceeding is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, without prejudice to refile in the Second Judicial Circuit in and for Leon County, Florida.

SUAREZ, LOGUE and LINDSEY, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Arnoldo MORALES, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-40281 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed August 22, 2017

Traci Lynne Kenner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Eastern District of Texas, Tyler, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Amoldo Morales, Pro Se

Before KING, ELROD, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The attorney appointed to represent Ar-noldo Morales has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed briefs in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Morales has filed responses. The record is not sufficiently developed to allow us to make a fair evaluation of Morales’s ineffective assistance of counsel *265claims; we therefore decline to consider the claims without prejudice to collateral review. *See United States v. Isgar,*739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014).

We have reviewed counsel’s briefs and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as Morales’s responses. 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. Morales’s motion to file an out-of-time response is GRANTED. His motions to relieve counsel and for the appointment of new counsel are DENIED.

*

 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.
Obduella David SOTO, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D16-3491

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 4, 2018.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                          1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JAN-02-2000
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    JUL-04-1999
<CASH>                                2,225
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                           768
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                           6,142
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     17,745
<PP&E>                               57,348
<DEPRECIATION>                        8,837
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       93,495
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                23,069
<BONDS>                              47,616
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                 68
<OTHER-SE>                           14,395
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         93,495
<SALES>                             101,522
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    101,522
<CGS>                                34,640
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        81,380
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                     11,050
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                    1,981
<INCOME-PRETAX>                       7,111
<INCOME-TAX>                          1,778
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                   5,333
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                             2,281
<NET-INCOME>                          3,052
<EPS-BASIC>                          0.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.48



</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America Plaintiff-Appellee v. Daniel DREWS Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-4199

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 3, 2017

Filed: August 11, 2017

*175John Higgins, U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of Nebraska, Omaha, NE, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Daniel Drews, Pro Se

Karen Marie Shanahan, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Omaha, NE, for Defendant-Appellant

Before SMITH, Chief Judge, ARNOLD and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Daniel Drews violated the terms of his supervised release and . was sentenced, in November 2016, to 8 months of imprisonment and 24 more months of supervised release. He appealed that sentence, and the appeal was submitted to this panel on April 3, 2017. Since the appeal was submitted, Drews has served his full term of imprisonment, had his supervision revoked again, and been sentenced to 6 more months of imprisonment with no more supervised release.

“Final judgment in a criminal case means sentence. The sentence is the judgment.” *Burton v. Stewart,*549 U.S. 147, 156, 127 S.Ct. 793, 166 L.Ed.2d 628 (2007) (per curiam) (quoting *Berman v. United States,*302 U.S. 211, 212, 58 S.Ct. 164, 82 L.Ed. 204 (1937)). Because Drews is no longer serving the sentence, and therefore the judgment, now on appeal, the appeal is moot. *See United States v. Maxie,*No. 16-1448, 693 Fed.Appx. 465, 2017 WL 3084423 (8th Cir. July 20, 2017) (per curiam).

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.
#### APPISTRY, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Amazon Web Services, Inc., Defendants-Appellees

2015-2077

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

February 10, 2017

Anthony G. Simon, The Simon Law Firm, P.C., St. Louis, MO, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also represented by Benjamin R. Asicew, Michael. P, Kella, Timothy Dávid Krieger.

Alan M. Fisch, Fisch. Sigler, LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by John T. Battaglia, Roy William Sigler, Jennifer Robinson, Jeffrey Matthew Saltman¡ David M. Saunders, San Jose, CA.

(Lourie, Hughes, and Stoll, Circuit Judges).

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

This Cause having been heard and considered, it is Ordered and Adjudged:

AFFIRMED. *See*Fed. Cir. R. 36.
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 28 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 7880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02829]



[[Page 7880]]

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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Meeting for Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory 
Committee; Correction

ACTION: Request change in published advisory committee meeting date; 
Corrected.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) published a document in 
the Federal Register of November 26, 2021, concerning a 1-day, virtual 
advisory committee meeting for the Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory 
Committee. The advisory committee meeting will no longer be held on 
February 22, 2022. Instead, the 1-day virtual session will be taking 
place on March 4, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Please contact Crystal Robinson 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cfacbdbda0ada6a1bc8fa1bca9e1a8a0b9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4e2d3c3c212c27203d0e203d2860292138">[email protected]</span></a> or 703-292-8687.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register published November 26, 2021, in FR Doc. 
2021-25778 (Filed 11-24-21), on page 67501, second column, Date and 
Time Section, please change the date to March 4, 2022; 12:00 p.m.--4:00 
p.m. (VIRTUAL).

    Dated: February 7, 2022.
Crystal Robinson,
Committee Management Officer, National Science Foundation.
[FR Doc. 2022-02829 Filed 2-9-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 24.4
 
 STATE OF TEXAS                 §
 COUNTY OF DALLAS          §
 
 POWER OF ATTORNEY
 
 Know all men by these presents, that I, WILLIAM A. SWANSTON, a Director of AMERICA’S CAR-MART, INC., a Texas corporation, do constitute and appoint WILLIAM H. HENDERSON and JEFFREY A. WILLIAMS my true and lawful attorneys-in-fact, with full power of substitution, for me in any and all capacities, to sign, pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for AMERICA’S CAR-MART, INC. for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2010 and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange Commission and National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., together with all exhibits thereto and other documents in connection therewith, and to sign on my behalf and in my stead, in any and all capacities, any amendments to said Annual Report, incorporating such changes as said attorneys-in-fact deem appropriate, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said attorneys-in-fact, or their substitute or substitutes may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.
 
 In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this_18th day of June, 2010.
 
 
 /s/ William A. Swanston
 WILLIAM A. SWANSTON
 
 
 
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
 
 Before me this 18th day of June, 2010, came WILLIAM A. SWANSTON, personally known to me, who in my presence did sign and seal the above and foregoing Power of Attorney and acknowledged the same as his true act and deed.
 
 
 /s/ Kiley Young
 NOTARY PUBLIC
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
UNITED STATES OF AM ER IC A,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lle e , v. GEOR GE GARIB A Y, AKA Sc ooby ,

De fe nda n t-Appe l la

nt. No. 16-50098

D.C . No. 3:13-c r-04514-B EN-8
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia R oge r T. B e nite z , Distric t Judge , Pre s iding A rgue d a nd Subm itte d Ja

nua ry 11, 2017 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia B e fore : KOZINSKI a

nd WATFORD, C irc uit Judge s, a nd B ENNETT, ** Distric t Judge
. W e re

je c t Ge orge Ga

riba y ’ s c o nte ntion tha

t atte m pte d m urde r unde r C a lifornia la w is not a “ c rim e of viole nc e ” for the purpose s of the Se nte nc ing Guide line s’ c are e r offe nde r provision. U.S.S.G. § 4B 1 .1 (2015). Thec om m e nta ry 

# FIL ED
JAN 24 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The Honora

ble M ark W . B e nne tt, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Northe rn Distric t of Iowa , sitting by de signa t ion.Pa ge 2 of 2

to the “ c rim e of viole nc e ” de finition in § 4B 1.2 lists a tte m pte d m urde r am ong the
e num e rate d offe nse s tha

t qua l ify a s c rim e s of viole nc e . The kill z one the ory

doe s not re nde r atte m

pte d m urde r unde r C a lifornia

la w broa de r tha

n the ge ne ric form

of the offe nse . The e l e m e nts of both the C a lifornia
and the ge ne ric form

of atte m pte d m urde r inc l ude a

spe c ific inte nt to kill. Se e Brax ton v . Unite d State

s , 500 U.S. 344, 351 n.* (1991); Pe o plev . Stone , 205 P.3d 272, 275 (C a l. 2009); c

f. Unite d State

s v . Albino-Loe , 747 F.3d 1206, 1214 (9th C ir. 2014). The kill z one the o ry doe s not a llow for a

n atte m pte d m urde r c onvic tion in the a bse nc e of tha

t m e nta l sta

te re quire m e nt. R athe r, it m e re l y e xpla ins tha t whe n a de fe n da nt c h oose s a

m e thod of killing tha

t c re ate s a z one of fata l da

nge r, the j ury m ay infe r that the de fe nda

nt inte nde d to kill a

n a lle ge d vic tim

in tha t z one . Stone , 205 P.3d a

t 276–78. Ga

riba y ha s fa ile d to ide ntify

a single jurisdic tion
re je c ting this infe

re nc e or a n a pplic ation of C a lifornia ’ s kill z one the ory tha t
c rim ina liz e d c onduc t a s atte m pte d m urde r that m ost jurisdic tions would not. AFFIRM E D.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

March 26, 2014

N o. 04

- 13

- 00497

- CV

CNMK TEXAS PROPERTIES LLC d/b/a Cinem ark Movies 12,

Appellant

v.

Sandra RODRIGUEZ and Ruperto R. Rodriguez,

Appellee s

From the 406th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2011CVT00752 D4

Honorable Oscar J Hale, Jr., Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone

, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion , Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

This appeal is currently set for oral arguments on April 30, 2014. On March 25, 2014,

appellant’s counsel informed this court that the parties have reached a settlement in this case.

Counsel states a joint motion to dismiss will be filed as soon as the parties’ sett lement agreement

is finalized, and asks this court, in the meantime, to rem ove this appeal from the court’s April 30,

2014, oral argument docket.

The appeal will be removed from the court’s April 30, 2014, oral argume nt docket after

the parties file the appropriate motion to dismiss. The parties are encouraged to file a motion to

dismiss that comp l ies with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1 by April 23

, 2014.

It is so ORDERED on this 26 th day of March, 2014.



### PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO :

_______________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 23.1




















Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm





Natural Gas Services Group, Inc.


Midland, TX





We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-147311, No. 333-110954, No. 333-160068, No. 333-160063 and No. 333-153874) and Form S-3 (No. 333-119502, No. 333-122687 and No. 333-161346) of Natural Gas Services Group, Inc. of our report dated March 10, 2011, relating to the financial statements and the effectiveness of Natural Gas Services Group, Inc.’s internal control over financial reporting appearing in the Company’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010.








/s/ BDO USA, LLP





Houston, TX


March 10, 2011