alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit
23.5




DeGolyer
and MacNaughton
  4925
Greenville Avenue, Suite 400
 One
Energy Square
 Dallas, Texas 75206
  July 13, 2010
   Board of
Directors
 Ecopetrol
S.A.
 Calle 35
No. 7-21 Piso 1
 Bogota,
D.C. Colombia
  Ladies and
Gentlemen:
  WeherebyconsenttothereferencestoDeGolyer and MacNaughtonas set forthunder the headings “Presentation of
Information Concerning Reserves,” “Item 4 – Information on the Company—Business
Overview,” and “Item 19—Exhibits” in the Annual Report on Form 20-F of Ecopetrol
S.A. for the year ended December 31, 2009 (the “Annual Report”). We further
consent to the inclusion of our third party letter report dated June 24, 2010
(our “Third Party Letter Report”) as Exhibit 99.3 in the Annual Report. The
Third Party Letter Report contains opinions regarding our estimates of the
proved oil, condensate, natural gas, and oil equivalent reserves of certain
selected properties owned by Ecopetrol S.A. in Colombia and in the United States
of America.
 
 We further consent to the references to
DeGolyer and MacNaughton, as set forth in the Ecopetrol S.A. Registration
Statement on Form F–3,filed with the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 12, 2010 (the “Form F-3”),under the heading “Experts”, and to the
incorporation by reference ofthis consent and our Third Party Letter
Report  in the Form F-3.
   
  Very truly yours,
  /s/ DeGOLYER
and MacNAUGHTON
  DeGOLYER and
MacNAUGHTON
 Texas Registered Engineering Firm
F-716
Aaron MALIN, Appellant, v. MID-MISSOURI UNIFIED STRIKE TEAM AND NARCOTICS GROUP (MUSTANG), et al., Respondents.

WD 81179

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Order filed: September 11, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied October 23, 2018 Application for Transfer Denied December 18, 2018

David Roland, for Appellant.

Michael G. Berry, Jefferson City, for Respondent Mid-Missouri Unified Strike Team and Narcotics Group.

Lawrence R. Smith, Clayton, for Respondent Kenneth Burton.

Before Division Three: Anthony Rex Gabbert, Presiding Judge, Victor C. Howard, Judge and Alok Ahuja, Judge

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM:

Aaron Malin appeals from the judgment of the Cole County Circuit Court. He claims on appeal that trial court erred in (1) denying his motions to strike answers; (2) denying his motion for default judgment; (3) finding that the defendant complied with Sunshine Law requests; (4) failing to make specific findings of facts; (5) denying his motion to amend pleadings; and (6) entering an order in favor of one defendant in his wrong official capacity. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, a memorandum has been provided to the parties. The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 4.29
 Stephen Scott
Group General Counsel and Company Secretary
    
    (VODAFONE LOGO)
  
  CONFIRMATION OF INDEMNIFICATION OF DIRECTORS
    (i)
    
    The Company will provide funds to cover costs as incurred by you in defending legal
proceedings brought against you in your capacity as, or as a result of your being or having
been, a Director of the Company including criminal proceedings and proceedings brought by the
Company itself or an Associated Company;(ii)
    
    The Company will indemnify you in respect of any proceedings brought by third parties,
including both legal and financial costs of an adverse judgment brought against you in your
capacity as, or as a result of your being or having been, a Director of the Company; and(iii)
    
    The Company will indemnify you for liability incurred in connection with any application
made to a court for relief from liability, where the court grants such relief.
  (i)
    
    Unsuccessful defence of criminal proceedings, in which instance the Company would seek
reimbursement for any funds advanced;(ii)
    
    Unsuccessful defence of an action brought by the Company itself or an Associated Company, in
which instance the Company would seek reimbursement for any funds advanced;
 Vodafone Group PlcCompany Secretarys & Legal Department
    
    Our ref: SRS/jeOne Kingdom Street, Paddington Central, London W2 6BY, England
    
    T +44 1635 673915T +44 (0)1635 33251 F +44 (0)1635 580857 www.vodafone.com
    
    F +44 1635 233743stephen.scott@vodafone.comRegistered Office: Vodafone House, The Connection, Newbury, Berkshire RG142FN, England. Registered in England No. 1833679




---



##### 



(iii)
    
    Fines imposed by regulatory bodies;(iv)
    
    Fines imposed in criminal proceedings; and(v)
    
    Liability incurred in connection with any application under Section 661(3) or (4) of the
Companies Act 2006 (acquisition of shares by innocent nominee) or section 1157 of the
Companies Act 2006 (general power to grant relief in case of honest and reasonable conduct),
where the court refuses to grant you relief, and such refusal is final. (For reference, a
summary of these sections is appended to this letter).
         
   2




---



##### 



Appendix
 Section 661(3) and (4) Companies Act 2006
  Section 1157 Companies Act 2006
   3
LIVE ENTERTAINMENT INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                                
                CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS
                                
                                
                                
                Consent of Independent Auditors


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration 
Statements (Forms S-8 and S-3 No. 33-30862 and No. 33-38902, respectively) 
pertaining to the 1988 Stock Option and Stock Appreciation Rights Plan, and 
in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-34489) pertaining to the LIVE 
Incentive Savings Plan of LIVE Entertainment Inc. and in the Related
Prospectuses of our report dated March 11, 1996, with respect to the 
consolidated financial statements and schedule of LIVE Entertainment Inc. 
included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1995.





Century City
Los Angeles, California
March 18, 1996
Third Amendment to ARAMARK Holdings Corporation


 Exhibit 10.4 
 THIRD AMENDMENT TO 
 ARAMARK HOLDINGS CORPORATION

 2007 MANAGEMENT STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 Pursuant to resolutions duly adopted by the Board of Directors (“Board”) of ARAMARK Holdings Corporation (the “Company”) on March 1, 2010, and in accordance with Article X of the
ARAMARK Holdings Corporation 2007 Management Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), the Plan is amended as follows, effective as of the date hereof: 
 The following language shall be added to the end of Section 3.3(b): 
 “;
provided, however, that the Committee may also delegate, at any time and from time to time, to any sub-committee of the Committee and the Board may also delegate, at any time and from time to time, to any other committee of the Board (in either case
which shall consist of one or more members of the Committee or Board, respectively, and may consist solely of the Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation so long as he or she is a member of the Committee or Board, respectively) (an “Award
Committee”), subject to such guidelines as the Board, the Committee or the Award Committee may establish from time to time, the authority to grant Awards under the Plan.” 
 Except as hereby expressly amended and modified, the terms and provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Board has caused this Amendment to be executed by a duly authorized officer of the Company this
1st day of March, 2010. 
  

			
	 /s/ LYNN B. MCKEE

	Name:	 	Lynn B. Mckee
	Title:	 	 Executive Vice President,
 Human Resources
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification of CFO under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002

 

*I certify that this periodic report containing theissuer’s financial statements fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78mor 78o(d)) and that information contained in this periodic report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the issuer.*

 

 
| * * | * *                               | * * | *By:*                                                                          | */s/ John F. Coger* |
|----------|----------------------------------------|----------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|
|     |                                   |     |                                                                           |                |
|     |                                   |     |                                                                           |                |
|     |                                   |     | Executive  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer |
|     |                                   |     |                                                                           |                |
|     |                                   |     |                                                                           |                |
|     | Date:  August 14,  2009 |     |                                                                           |

 

----
Exhibit
10.2


 


FIRST
AMENDMENT TO


RED ROBIN
GOURMET BURGERS, INC.


AMENDED
AND RESTATED


2007
PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN


 


1.                                       The Amended and Restated 2007 Performance
Incentive Plan of Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), was
approved by the Board of Directors on April 10, 2008, and submitted for
approval by the Company’s stockholders, and approved, on May 29, 2008 (the
“Plan”).


 


2.                                       This First Amendment to Red Robin Gourmet
Burgers, Inc. Amended and Restated 2007 Performance Incentive Plan (this “First
Amendment”) was approved by
the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors on March 3,
2010.  Capitalized terms not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in the Plan.


 


3.                                       Section 3.2(g) of
the Plan is hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:


 


(g)                                 adjust the number of shares of Common
Stock subject to any award, adjust the price of any or all outstanding awards
or otherwise change previously imposed terms and conditions, in such
circumstances as the Administrator may deem appropriate, in each case subject
to Sections 4 and 8.6 and the prohibition on repricing set forth in Section 8.14;


 


4.                                       The following new 8.14
shall be added to the Plan, effective immediately:


 


8.14                           Prohibition on Repricing.  Subject to Section 4, the
Administrator shall not, without the approval of the stockholders of the
Corporation, (i) authorize the amendment of any outstanding award to
reduce the price per share, (ii) authorize the cancellation of any
outstanding award in exchange for the grant of an award having a lesser price
per share, or (iii) authorize the cancellation of any outstanding option
or SAR in exchange for cash, restricted stock or any other award.


 


4.                                       Except as provided in this First Amendment,
the Plan shall remain unchanged and continue in full force and effect.


 


[Signature page follows.]


 

















 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First
Amendment has been executed by a duly authorized officer of the Company as of
the date specified below and effective as set forth herein.


 


	
   

  	
  RED ROBIN GOURMET
  BURGERS, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Annita M. Menogan

  
	
   

  	
  Name: Annita M. Menogan

  
	
   

  	
  Title: Senior Vice
  President and Chief Legal Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Dated: March 3,
  2010

  	
   

  



 


2
Dismiss and Opinion Filed December 8, 2023

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 23

- 00388

- CV

JAMES JOHNSON AND BE RNARD WARREN , Appellants
V. JASQ PROPERTIES, LLC , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 23

- 01939

- E

MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Nowell, Miskel, and Kennedy Opinion by Justice Nowell
Appellants ’ brief in this case is overdue. After a ppellant s failed to respond to

our inquiry regarding the reporter’s record, we ordered the appeal submitted without

a reporter’s record and for appellants ’ brief to be filed by October 20 , 2023. By

postcard dated October 24 , 2023, we informed appellant s t heir brief was overdue

and directed them to file a brief within ten days. We cautioned appellant s that failure

to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. See T EX

.

R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a)(1). To date, appellant s ha ve not fil ed their brief or otherwise

corresponded with the Court regarding the status of this appeal.– 2

–

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8 (a)(1); 42.3(b),

(c).

2303 88f.p05 /Erin A. Nowell/
ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE– 3

– 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

JAMES JOHNSON AND BERNARD WARREN, Appellants

No. 05

- 23

- 00388

- CV V.

JASQ PROPERTIES, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 23

- 01939

- E. Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell. Justices Miskel and Kennedy participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED

.

Judgment entered this 8 th day of December

, 2023

.
**Exhibit 32.1**

Certification of CEO under Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

*Icertify that this periodic report containing the issuer’s financial statementsfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that informationcontained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.*
| * * | *By: /s/ Keith C. Robbins*         | * *            |
|----------|------------------------------------|---------------------|
| * * | * *                           |
|     | President, Chief Executive Officer |
|     |                               |
| * * | *Date:*                            | *November 10, 2006* | * * |
|          |                                    |                     |  |  |

 

----
<PAGE>
                                                                    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 Noble Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, James C. Day, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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) 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.



August 9, 2004                              /s/ JAMES C. DAY
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            James C. Day
                                            Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                            of Noble Corporation
**Exhibit 31.2**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. SECTION 7241, AS ADOPTED 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE 

SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002 

I, Michael A. Gerlich, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gastar Exploration, Ltd. (the “Registrant”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this 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 report; 

4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as definedin Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and we have: 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theRegistrant’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 report based on such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring 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 controlover financial reporting; and 

5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the 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 arereasonably 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: November 14, 2006
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 29, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134366 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: 134366 

 COA: 274292 

Wayne CC: 99-012574-01 

WILLIAM STEWART,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 11, 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). 

s1022 

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. 

October 29, 2007 

 Clerk
Sterling EVANS, Appellant, v. Ann PRECYTHE and Matthew Pierce, Respondents.

WD 81826

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: January 22, 2019 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied February 26, 2019

Sterling M. Evans, Bonne Terre, appellant pro se.

Peter Houser, Jefferson City for respondents.

Before Division Two: Alok Ahuja, P.J., and Thomas H. Newton and Mark D. Pfeiffer, JJ.

**ORDER**

PER CURIAM:

In May 2014, Appellant Sterling Evans was an inmate at the Farmington Correctional Center. He was investigated for alleged misconduct, which resulted in prison discipline, but no criminal charges. Evans filed a petition for expungement of the records of the prison misconduct investigation pursuant to § 610.122, RSMo. The circuit court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, because Evans did not seek expungement of the sort of "records of arrest" addressed in § 610.122, RSMo, and because he was ineligible for expungement because he had been previously convicted of a felony. Evans *459appeals. We affirm. Because a published opinion would have no precedential value, we have provided the parties an unpublished memorandum setting forth the reasons for this order. Rule 84.16(b).
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. X A V I E R F R A N K L I N , a . k. a . Z aybo, D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 10- 50616 D . C. N o . 2 : 0 8 - c r - 0 0 5 5 9 - V BF ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia V a l e r i e B a ke rF a i rbank, D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng

S ubm i tt e d A pr i l 17, 2012 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , P A E Z , an dB E A , C i rcu i tJu d g es. X a vi e rF r a nkl i n appe a l s f r om hi s gui l ty - pl e ac onvi c t i on and 24 0-m on th sent ence for di stribu t i on of cocai ne base i n the form of cr ac k cocai ne, i n vi ol a t i on of

21 U . S . C . § 841( a ) ( 1) , ( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) . P ur s uantt o A nder s v .

# FI LED APR25 2 012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS10- 50616 2 Ca lifo rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 73 8 (19 67 ), F rank l i n’ s c ou nselhas f i l ed a bri ef

st at i ng there a r e n o g r o u n d s f

o rr e lie f , a lo n g w ith am o tio n to w ith d r aw a s c o u n s e l o f r e c o r d . We h a v e p r o v i d e dF r a n k l i n th e o p p o rtu n i tyt o f i l e ap r o s e s up p l e m e n t a l b r i e f . No pr o s e s uppl e m e nt a l br i e f ora ns w e r i ng br i e f

ha s be e n f

i l e d. F r a nkl i n w a i ve d hi s r i ghtt o appe a l hi s s e nt e nc e w i th the e xc e pt i on of the c ourt ’ s c a l c ul a t i on of

hi s c r i m i na l hi s t oryc a t e gorya nd the i m pos i t i on of c ondi t i ons of s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e . O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P enson v. O h io , 4 8 8 U .S . 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o a r g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f a s to F r a n k lin ’s c o n v ic tio n a n din d ic a te s th a t th e ap p e a l w a iv e ris o p e r a tiv e . A c c or di ngl y , w e a f

f i rm F r a nkl i n’ s c onvi c t i on and di s m i s s the appe a l of the s e n te n c e in p a rt. See U ni ted States v. N

gu ye n , 23 5 F . 3d 11 79 , 11 82 (9th C i r. 2000) . W i th r e ga r d t o the c ourt ’ s c a l c ul a t i on of the c r i m i na l hi s t oryc a t e gorya nd i t s i m pos i t i on of

c ondi t i ons of

s upe rvi s e d r e l e a s e , ouri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c o r dd i s c l o s e s n o a r g u ab l e g r o u n d s f o rr e l i e f o n d i r e c tap p e a l , a n dw e a f f i rm. C o u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED . T h e co n v i ct i o n i s A FFI R M ED , an dth e ap p e a l o f th e s e n te n c e is D I SM I SSED i n pa rta nd A FFI R M ED in p art.