alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
July 6, 2015 

Civil-Post Trial Division 

Harris County District Clerk 

Attn: Ms. Phyllis Washington, Post-Trial 

201 Caroline Street, Suite 250 

Houston, Texas 77002 

 Re: Gemini Insurance Company vs. Denbury Resources, Inc.

 Case No. 2012-10397, 270th Judicial District 

 Appeal No. 14-15-00041-CV, 14th Circuit Court of Appeals 

 Our File: 1782.18331 

Dear Ms. Washington: 

 On April 23, 2015 we requested the Court supplement the record to include motions for 

summary judgment inadvertently omitted from the Clerk’s record to the 14th Circuit Court of 

Appeals in the above-captioned litigation. However, the exhibits attached to those motions are 

still missing from the record: 

1. Exhibit “A” to Denbury’s Consolidated Reply Memorandum in Support of Its 

“Plugged and Abandoned” and “Due Diligence” No Evidence Motions for 

Summary Judgment (image number 62463542); 

2. Exhibit “B” to Denbury’s Consolidated Reply Memorandum in Support of Its 

“Plugged and Abandoned” and “Due Diligence” No Evidence Motions for 

Summary Judgment (image number 62463543); 

3. Exhibit “C” to Denbury’s Consolidated Reply Memorandum in Support of Its 

“Plugged and Abandoned” and “Due Diligence” No Evidence Motions for 

Summary Judgment (image number 62463544); 

4. Exhibit “D” to Denbury’s Consolidated Reply Memorandum in Support of Its 

“Plugged and Abandoned” and “Due Diligence” No Evidence Motions for 

Summary Judgment (image number 62463545); and 

5. This correspondence. 

CARVER, DARDEN,

KORETZKY, TESSIER, FINN,

BLOSSMAN & AREAUX LLC

SARAH E. STOGNER

ASSOCIATE

A

(504) 585.3845

stogner@carverdarden.com

E N E R G Y C E N T R E $ 1 1 0 0 P O Y D R A S S T . $ S U I T E 3100 $ N E W O R L E A N S , L A 7 0 1 6 3 

T E L E P H O N E ( 5 0 4 ) 5 8 5 - 3 8 0 0 $ F A C S I M I L E ( 5 0 4 ) 5 8 5 - 3 8 0 1

ACCEPTED

14-15-00041-CV

FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

7/6/2015 9:56:49 AM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 14th COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/6/2015 9:56:49 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Ms. Phyllis Washington

July 6, 2015

Page 2

CARVER, DARDEN,

KORETZKY, TESSIER, FINN,

 BLOSSMAN & AREAUX LLC

Please prepare, certify, and file in the appellate court a supplement containing these 

omitted items. The parties have completed their briefing, with Denbury’s Reply Brief being filed 

today. Please expedite this request to ensure the Appellate Court has a full and complete record 

for its determination. Should you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to 

contact me directly. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. 

Sincerely,

 Sarah E. Stogner

SES/daj

cc: 14th Circuit Court of Appeals

4845-0013-4437, v. 1
Exhibit 11.  Statement on computation of per share earnings.

         For the three months ended September 30, 1996 and 1995, the primary and
fully diluted weighted average number of shares outstanding were 3,852,586 and
3,921,180, respectively. For the nine months ended September 30, 1996 and 1995,
the primary and fully diluted weighted average number of shares outstanding were
3,872,209 and 3,917,828, respectively. The number of shares outstanding for the
three and nine month periods ended September 30, 1995 were restated to reflect
the conversion ratio of 1.0841375 shares of the Company's common stock per share
of the Bank's common stock effected as part of the Reorganization.




                                       18
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6286 

To amend section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to ensure 

that efforts to engage in espionage or technology transfer are considered 

in visa issuance, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 8, 2023 

Mr. CLINE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend section 212 of the Immigration and Nationality 

Act to ensure that efforts to engage in espionage or 

technology transfer are considered in visa issuance, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting America 

5 From Spies Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 6286 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPANDING INADMISSIBILITY ON SECURITY AND 

2 RELATED GROUNDS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 212(a)(3)(A) of the Im4 migration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(A)) 

5 is amended to read as follows: 

6 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Any alien is inadmis7 sible if a consular officer, an immigration offi8 cer, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the 

9 Attorney General knows, or has reasonable 

10 ground to believe, that the alien— 

11 ‘‘(i) engages, has engaged, or will en12 gage in any activity— 

13 ‘‘(I) in violation of any law of the 

14 United States relating to espionage or 

15 sabotage; or 

16 ‘‘(II) that would violate any law 

17 of the United States relating to espio18 nage or sabotage if the activity oc19 curred in the United States; 

20 ‘‘(ii) engages, has engaged, or will en21 gage in any activity in violation or evasion 

22 of any law prohibiting the export from the 

23 United States of goods, technology, or sen24 sitive information; 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 6286 IH

1 ‘‘(iii) seeks to enter the United States 

2 to engage solely, principally, or incidentally 

3 in any other unlawful activity; 

4 ‘‘(iv) seeks to enter the United States 

5 to engage solely, principally, or incidentally 

6 in any activity a purpose of which is the 

7 opposition to, or the control or overthrow 

8 of, the Government of the United States by 

9 force, violence, or other unlawful means; or 

10 ‘‘(v) is the spouse or child of an alien 

11 who is inadmissible under this subpara12 graph, if the activity causing the alien to 

13 be found inadmissible occurred within the 

14 last 5 years.’’. 

15 (b) WAIVER AUTHORITY.—Section 212(d)(3)(A) of 

16 the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

17 1182(d)(3)(A)) is amended by striking ‘‘(other than para18 graphs (3)(A)(i)(I), (3)(A)(ii), (3)(A)(iii), (3)(C), and 

19 clauses (i) and (ii) of paragraph (3)(E) of such sub20 section)’’ each place such phrase appears and inserting 

21 ‘‘(other than subparagraphs (A)(i)(I), (A)(ii), (A)(iii), 

22 (A)(iv), (C), (E)(i), and (E)(ii) of paragraph (3) of such 

23 subsection)’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
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 Defense

###### Department of the Air Force

          - 32 CFR Chapter VII
          - [Docket No: USAF-2021-HQ-0001]
          - RIN 0701-AA94

# AGENCY:

Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        Department of the Air Force (DAF) is correcting a final rule that                               ( print page 10716)                            appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         on December 17, 2021, Appointment to the Air Force Academy. This document corrects the RIN number from 0701-AA81 to 0701-AA94.                    

# DATES:

This correction is effective February 25, 2022.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Adriane S. Paris, Department of the Air Force Federal Register Office, (703) 614-8500.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In FR Doc. 2021-27304, appearing on page 71570 in the                     **Federal Register**                     of Friday, December 17, 2021, in the first column, the RIN is corrected to read “0701-AA94.”                

Adriane Paris,

Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.

[FR Doc. 2022-03461 Filed 2-24-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
1500 CADER L ANE , PE TAL U MA J on Tr a cy to: Dante Rod r i guez 10 / 24 / 2011 08 : 52 AM C c: S a m an t ha B au m ga rt ner Hi s t o r y: Th i s m e ss age ha s been r ep li ed t o.

H i D a n te,

T h e n o t ic e e n te r e d o n t h e s e tw o p arc e ls is:

T HIS IS AN E P A S U P ER F U N D SI T E

. 1 , 1

- D C A CO N T A M I NA T I O N S T I LL E X CEE D S D R I N K I N G W A T ER L EVE L S AS O F 10 /24/2011

. CO N T A C T D AN T E A T: RO D R I GUEZ

. D AN T E @ E P A. GOV P R I OR T O ISS U I N G AN Y WE LL P ER M I T S.

H a v e a g r e a t d a y! J o n T racy
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11
 
                           COHR INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
 
                       COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER SHARE
                                  (UNAUDITED)
                   (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT NET LOSS PER SHARE)
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        THREE MONTHS ENDED     SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                           SEPTEMBER 30          SEPTEMBER 30
                                                        -------------------    -----------------
                                                          1998       1997       1998       1997
                                                        --------    -------    -------    ------
<S>                                                     <C>         <C>        <C>        <C>
Net loss attributable to common stock.................  $(5,033)    $ (399)    $(6,121)   $  754
                                                        =======     ======     =======    ======
Common share information:
  Average shares outstanding for basic loss per
     share............................................    6,433      6,433       6,433     6,426
  Dilutive effect of stock options and warrants
                                                        -------     ------     -------    ------
  Shares for diluted loss per share...................    6,433      6,433       6,433     6,426
                                                        =======     ======     =======    ======
Net loss per common share:
  Basic...............................................  $ (0.78)    $(0.06)    $ (0.95)   $(0.12)
                                                        =======     ======     =======    ======
  Diluted.............................................  $ (0.78)    $(0.06)    $ (0.95)   $(0.12)
                                                        =======     ======     =======    ======
</TABLE>
 
                                       19
r-- o'ZO06- 0621 

p

. 

Appendix 1-1 

# Environmental Releases of PFDA from Fluoropolymer Production 

( Production 

7 

Releases to all environmental 

Operations ( Total PFOA volume of compartments from F-polymer 

Used ) Fluoropolymer manufa cture 

Products 

Manufactured kes of PFOA 

using PFOA ) ( PFOA ) tons of F-polymers 

(kgs) (tons/year) (kgs) 

2000 

2006 

U.S. 

2007 

2008 

2000 

2006 

ROW 

2007 

2008 

TSCA CBI - Sanitized 

® 

Target Releases 

& Reduction % 

kes of PFOA 

tons of F-polymers 

(Reduction %) 

illilfllllll!IIIIIIIIIVII~III!IIIIII'llllll'lll!III!I!i1li 

Company Sanitized 

O 

a 

_, 

J 

'4J 

N 

Cft 
Appendix 1-2 " 

# Environmental Releases of PFOA, Precursors and Higher homologues 

from Telomer Production 

( Production Releases to all environmental 

Operations volume of Telomer compartments from F-telomer manufacture 

Products ) 

kes of moiety 

Type of moiety tons of telomers 

(tons/year) (kgs) 

PFOA 

2000 

Precursors and 

Higher homolo gues 

PFOA 

2006 

Precursors and 

U.S. Higher homologues 

PFOA 

2007 

Precursors and 

Higher homologues 

PFOA 

2008 

Precursors and 

Higher homologues 

PFOA 

2000 

Precursors and 

Higher homologues 

PFOA 

2006 

Precursors and 

ROW Higher homologues 

PFOA 

2007 

Precursors and 

Higher homologues 

PFOA 

2008 

Precursors and 

Higher homologues 

® 

Target Releases & 

Reduction % 

kt`a of moietv 

tons of telomers 

(Reduction %) 

TSCA CBI - Sanitized 
Appendix 1-3" 

# Concentration of PFOA in Fluoropolymer Products 

Operations 

( Sales volume of 

Fluoropolymer 

Products 

Manufactured 

Concentration of PFOA 

in Products 

using PFOA ) 

7 

(tons/year) 

( PFOA ) 

(kgs) 

kes of PFOA 

tons of F-polymers 

Dispersion 

2000 Elastomer 

Others 

Dispersion 

2006 Elastomer 

U.S . 

Others 

Dispersion 

2007 Elastomer 

Others 

Dispersion 

2008 Elastomer 

Others 

2000 

Dispersion 

Others 

2006 

Dispersion 

ROW 

Others 

2007 

Dispersion 

Others 

2008 

Dispersion 

I I r Others 

TSCA CBI - Sanitized 

® 

Target Concentration 

& Reduction I 

kas of PFOA 

tons of F-polymers 

(Reduction %) 

Company Sanitized 
Appendix 1-4 

~ Concentration of PFOA, Precursors & Higher homologues in Telomer Products 

(PFOA, Alcohol, Olefin, Iodide) 

( Sales volume of 

Operations Telomer Concentration of Moiety in Products 

7 Products ) 

Type of moiety kes of moiety 

tons of telomers 

(tons/year) (kgs) 

PFOA 

2000 

Precursors and 

Higher homologues 

PFOA 

2006 

Precursors and 

U.S. Higher homologues 

PFOA 

2007 

Precursors and 

Higher homologues 

PFOA 

2008 

Precursors and 

Higher homologues 

PFOA 

2000 

Precursors and 

Higher homologues 

PFOA 

2006 

Precursors and 

ROW Hi gher homologues 

PFOA 

2007 

Precursors and 

Hi gher homologues 

PFOA 

2008 

Precursors and 

Hi gher homologues 

TSCA CBI - Sanitized 

Target Concentration 

& Reduction % 

kes of moiety 

tons of telomers 

(Reduction %) 

Company Sanitized
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Darien L. RELIFORD, also known as Big Troy, Defendant-Appellant

No. 16-30652 Summary Calendar

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Filed June 13, 2017

Carol Mignonne Griffing, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District of Louisiana, Shreveport, LA, for Plaintiff-Appellee

Elizabeth Cary Dougherty, Esq., Dougherty Law Firm, L.L.C., Baton Rouge, LA, for Defendant-Appellant

Before BARKSDALE, HAYNES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Darien L. Reliford pleaded guilty to conspiracy to possess, with intent to distribute, five kilograms or more of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 846. The district court sentenced him,. *inter alia,*to a within-Guidelines sentence of 327 months’ imprisonment. Reliford contends his sentence is substantively unreasonable.

As Reliford concedes, he did not preserve in district court his substantive-unreasonableness challenge; nor did he preserve the issues discussed *infra.*Therefore, our review is only for plain error. *E.g., United States v. Broussard,*669 F.3d 537, 546 (5th Cir. 2012). Under that standard, Reliford must show a forfeited plain (clear or obvious) error that affected his substantial rights. *Puckett v. United States,*556 U.S. 129, 135, 129 S.Ct. 1423, 173 L.Ed.2d 266 (2009). If he does so, we have the discretion to correct the reversible plain error, but should do so only if it “seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings”. *Id.*

First, the court did not plainly err by considering Reliford’s criminal history in its sentencing decision, even though that *288information was factored into the Guidelines calculation. *See United States v. Key,*599 F.3d 469, 475 (5th Cir. 2010). Second, he has not shown his sentence is excessive when compared to similarly-situated defendants convicted of drug offenses. *See United States v. Smith,*440 F.3d 704, 709 (5th Cir. 2006).

Finally, Reliford contends the court did not adequately consider that much of his criminal history stemmed from substance abuse. This assertion, however, reflects his mere disagreement with the propriety of his sentence. *United States v. Ruiz,*621 F.3d 390, 398 (5th Cir. 2010); *United States v. Fields,*637 Fed.Appx. 172, 173 (5th Cir. 2016). Accordingly, Reliford has not rebutted the presumption that his within-Guidelines sentence is reasonable. *See United States v. Cooks,*589 F.3d 173, 186 (5th Cir. 2009).

In short, Reliford fails to show the requisite clear or obvious error.

AFFIRMED.

*

 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.
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION.

UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL

AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.

IN THE

ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondent,

v.

GARY FRANCIS RICHTER, Petitioner.

No. 1 CA-CR 17-0496 PRPC

Petition for Review from the Superior Court in Maricopa County

No. CR2004-037069-002

The Honorable M. Scott McCoy, Judge

REVIEW GRANTED; RELIEF DENIED

COUNSEL

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, Phoenix

By Diane Meloche

Counsel for Respondent

Gary Francis Richter, Kingman

Petitioner

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Presiding Judge Jon W. Thompson, Judge Peter B. Swann, and Judge James 

P. Beene delivered the decision of the Court.

FILED 3-6-2018
STATE v. RICHTER

Decision of the Court

2

P E R C U R I A M:

¶1 Petitioner Gary Francis Richter seeks review of the superior 

court’s order denying his petition for post-conviction relief, filed pursuant 

to Arizona Rule of Criminal Procedure 32.1. This is the petitioner’s second 

successive petition.

¶2 Absent an abuse of discretion or error of law, this Court will 

not disturb a superior court’s ruling on a petition for post-conviction relief. 

State v. Gutierrez, 229 Ariz. 573, 576-77, ¶ 19 (2012). It is the petitioner’s 

burden to show that the superior court abused its discretion in denying the 

petition. See State v. Poblete, 227 Ariz. 537, 538, ¶ 1 (App. 2011).

¶3 We have reviewed the record in this matter, the superior 

court’s order denying the petition for post-conviction relief, and the petition 

for review. We find that petitioner has not shown an abuse of discretion. 

¶4 Accordingly, we grant review and deny relief.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001004990
<NAME> NCS HEALTHCARE
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          21,341
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  198,023
<ALLOWANCES>                                    18,155
<INVENTORY>                                     50,545
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               267,773
<PP&E>                                          82,690
<DEPRECIATION>                                  31,732
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 679,789
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           75,548
<BONDS>                                        293,316
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           202
<OTHER-SE>                                     301,162
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   679,789
<SALES>                                        350,876
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               350,876
<CGS>                                          261,620
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  261,620
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   573
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               9,575
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 17,627
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,533
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             10,094
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    10,094
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .50
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .50
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. section1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Fona, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2011, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Chloe DiVita,
Treasurer, Secretary, Director and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d),
as applicable, 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.



BY(Signature)                         /s/ Chloe DiVita
(Name and Title)                      Chloe DiVita,
                                      Treasurer, Secretary, Director
                                      and Chief Financial Officer

(Date)                                August 12, 2011
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Marcus Marshall, Appellant.

[770 NYS2d 315]

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.), rendered August 30/2001, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Issues of identification and credibility, including the weight to be given to inconsistencies in testimony, were properly considered by the jury and there is no basis to disturb its determinations.

The record establishes that defendant received effective assistance of counsel *(see People v Benevento,*91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; *see also Strickland v Washington,*466 US 668 [1984]). Counsel conducted a thorough and vigorous misidentification defense. The record does not support defendant’s contention that counsel made a promise in his opening statement to produce alibi evidence. Furthermore, when counsel referred to defendant by name during cross-examination of the identifying witness, this could not have undermined the mistaken identity defense. “After a witness identifies a defendant as a perpetrator, defense counsel is under no obligation to phrase every question on cross-examination in a manner designed to remind the jury constantly of the obvious fact that the issue of identity has not been conceded” *(People v Carver,*234 AD2d 164, 165 [1996], *lv denied*89 NY2d 1010 [1997]).

Defendant’s contentions concerning jury note-taking are unpreserved *(People v Valiente,*309 AD2d 562 [2003]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams and Friedman, JJ.