alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 36848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13221]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP22-979-000.
    Applicants: WBI Energy Transmission, Inc.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: 2022 Negotiated and Non-
Conforming SA Blue Flint to be effective 7/15/2022.
    Filed Date: 6/14/22.
    Accession Number: 20220614-5030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 6/27/22.

    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 14, 2022.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-13221 Filed 6-17-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
Hernardo MEDINA-VILLEGAS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-5220

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit denied.

Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
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 pane lunani 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 PA TRI CI A LED EZM A - RI V A S, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , Jr ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 07- 73282 A ge nc yN o. A 075- 619- 131 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A ugus t23, 2010 ** B efo re: L E A V Y , H A W K IN S , an dT H O M A S , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P atri ci a L edez m a- R i vas, a nat i ve and ci t i ze n o f M exi co, pet i t i on s f or re vi ew of the B oard of Im m i grat i on A pp ea l s’ order di sm i ss i ng her app ea lfr om an im m ig r a tio n ju d g e ’s d e c is io n d e n y in g h e rap p lic a tio n f o rc an c e llatio n o f

r e m o v a l. W e have j ur i s di c t i on unde r8 U . S . C . § 1252. W e r e vi e w que s t i ons of l aw de novo, 

# FI LED SEP 07 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS07- 73282 2 T ap i a v. G on zales , 430 F . 3d 997, 999 ( 9th C i r . 2005) , and w e de nythe pe t i t i on f or r e v i e w. T he a ge nc ypr ope r l yde t e rm i ne d tha tL e de z m a - R i va s w a s i ne l i gi bl e f or c anc e l l a t i on of

r e m ova lbe c aus e s he f

a i l e d t o m e e tthe s e ve n- y e arc ont i nuous p h y s ic a l p r e s e n c e r e qu ir e m e n t. See 8 U . S . C . § 1 22 9b (a )( 2) (r equi ri ng se ven years o f c o n tin u o u s p r e s e n c e a f te rh av in g b e e n “a d m itte din an ys tatu s ” ) ; s e e al s o 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 ( a ) ( 1 3 ) ( A ) ( d e f in in g “a d m itte d ” a s “th e law f u l e n tryo f

an a lie n in to the U ni t ed S t at es af

t eri nspect i on and autho ri zat i on by an i m m i grat i on offi ce r. ”) . P E T I T I O N F O R R E V I E W D E N I E D .
Exhibit 23.1







Cawley, Gillespie
& Associates, Inc.

petroleum
consultants





|6500 RIVER PLACE BLVD, SUITE 3-200AUSTIN, TEXAS 78730-1111512-249-7000 | 306 WEST SEVENTH STREET, SUITE 302FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102-4987
817- 336-2461www.cgaus.com | 1000 LOUISIANA STREET, SUITE 1900HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-5008713-651-9944
|---------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------







CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS



We hereby
consent to the references to our firm in the form and context in which they are included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K (including
any amendments thereto) filed by PermRock Royalty Trust (“Annual Report”), to our estimates of reserves and value of reserves
and our report on reserves as of December 31, 2021, December 31, 2022 and December 31, 2023 of the underlying properties and
net profits interest owned by PermRock Royalty Trust and to the inclusion of our report dated March 6, 2024 as an Exhibit to the Annual
Report.



|﻿ | CAWLEY, GILLESPIE & ASSOCIATES,
    INC.    | 
|- | ------------------------------------------- | 
|﻿ | Texas Registered Engineering
    Firm F-693 | 
|  | J.
    Zane Meekins, P. E.                  | 
|  | Executive
    Vice President                | 
|  |                                             | 
|  |                                             | 
|  |                                             | 



Fort Worth, Texas

April 1, 2024
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-22-00267-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 153rd District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 153-329343-21

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

PAIGE A. KESTER, Appellant

V.

STATE FARM LLOYDS, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On August 9, 2022, we notified appellant that the trial-court clerk responsible 

for preparing the record in this appeal has informed us that appellant has not arranged 

to pay for the clerk’s record as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 

35.3(a)(2). In our notice, we warned that we would dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution unless, within ten days, appellant arranged to pay for the clerk’s record 

and provided us with proof of payment. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c), 37.3(b), 44.3.

Because appellant has not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s record, 

we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), 

43.2(f).

Appellant must pay all costs of this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 43.4.

Per Curiam

Delivered: September 1, 2022
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1298 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1298

To amend the Export Apple Act to permit the export of apples to Canada 
  in bulk bins without certification by the Department of Agriculture.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 20, 2013

 Mr. Owens (for himself and Mr. Hanna) introduced the following bill; 
           which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Export Apple Act to permit the export of apples to Canada 
  in bulk bins without certification by the Department of Agriculture.

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

SECTION 1. BULK SHIPMENTS OF APPLES TO CANADA.

    (a) Bulk Shipment of Apples to Canada.--Section 4 of the Export 
Apple Act (7 U.S.C. 584) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``Apples in'' and inserting ``(a) Apples 
        in''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(b) Apples may be shipped to Canada in bulk bins without 
complying with the provisions of this Act.''.
    (b) Definition of Bulk Bin.--Section 9 of the Export Apple Act (7 
U.S.C. 589) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
            ``(5) The term `bulk bin' means a bin that contains a 
        quantity of apples weighing more than 100 pounds.''.
    (c) Regulations.--Not later than 60 days after the date of the 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Agriculture shall issue 
regulations to carry out the amendments made by this section.
                                 <all>
```
# C_2017067EN.01000401.xml

| 3.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 67/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 67/4

---

Final Report of the Hearing Officer (1)

1

Mushrooms (Riberebro)

(AT.39965)

(2017/C 67/06)

This case concerns an infringement of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement consisting of price coordination and customer allocation for canned mushrooms throughout the EEA between 1 September 2010 and 28 February 2012. The Commission has already adopted, on 25 June 2014, a decision addressed to the eight legal entities (constituting three undertakings) which opted for the cartel settlement procedure (2). The present draft decision is addressed to Grupo Riberebro Integral S.L. and Riberebro Integral S.A.U. (together ‘Riberebro’), which did not introduce settlement submissions.

2

On 27 May 2015, the Commission adopted a statement of objections (‘SO’) against Riberebro, which was notified to Riberebro the following day. Riberebro was provided on 3 June 2015 with a CD-ROM containing the written documents of the Commission’s investigation file, and was granted a time limit of six weeks to reply to the SO.

In its response to the SO, Riberebro stated that it did not contest the description of the facts nor the legal assessment made by the Commission in the SO, but it made submissions as to the appropriate level of the fine. Riberebro did not request an oral hearing.

Pursuant to Article 16 of Decision 2011/695/EU, I have examined whether the draft decision deals only with objections in respect of which Riberebro has been afforded the opportunity of making known its views. I conclude that it does.

In view of the above, and taking into account that Riberebro has not addressed any requests or complaints to me, I consider that the effective exercise of Riberebro’s procedural rights has been respected.

Brussels, 4 April 2016.

Wouter WILS

---

(1)  Pursuant to Articles 16 and 17 of Decision 2011/695/EU of the President of the European Commission of 13 October 2011 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain competition proceedings (OJ L 275, 20.10.2011, p. 29).

1

(2)  See Commission Decision C(2014) 4227 final of 25 June 2014, Summary publication (OJ C 453, 17.12.2014, p. 21), and Final Report of the Hearing Officer (OJ C 453, 17.12.2014, p. 20).

2

---
# C_2018082EN.01000301.xml

| 5.3.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.3.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/3

---

Special Report No 5/2018

‘Renewable energy for sustainable rural development: significant potential synergies, but mostly unrealised’

(2018/C 82/03)

The European Court of Auditors hereby informs you that Special Report No 5/2018 ‘Renewable energy for sustainable rural development: significant potential synergies, but mostly unrealised’ has just been published.

The report can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the European Court of Auditors’ website: http://eca.europa.eu

---
Bharanidharan PADMANABHAN, Petitioner v. DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION.

No. 19-6436

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit denied.
Sara Ann EDMONDSON, Petitioner v. LILLISTON FORD INC., et al.

No. 19-582

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 27, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.
Exhibit 35.1



Servicer Compliance Statement of AmeriCredit Financial Services,
Inc.



This Annual Statement as to Compliance
is delivered to you pursuant to Section 4.10 (a) of the Sale and Servicing Agreement dated as of January 18, 2018 (the “Agreement”)
and Item 1123 of Regulation AB, executed in connection with the formation of GM Financial Consumer Automobile Receivables Trust
2018-1 (the “Trust”), the issuance of the Notes by the Trust and the closing of the transactions and the execution
and delivery of the various documents by AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc. (the “Servicer”) and AFS SenSub Corp.
in connection therewith. The capitalized terms used herein shall have the same meanings as in the Agreement.



The undersigned certifies
that I am the Executive Vice President, Corporate Controller and Chief Accounting Officer of the Servicer. I further certify as
follows:



| | 1. | I have conducted, or caused to be conducted under my supervision, a review of the Servicer during
the preceding period from January 1, 2019 through December 31, 2019, and its performance under the Agreement.
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, following such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all its obligations
under the Agreement throughout such period, and, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no default in the fulfillment of any
such obligation.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



AmeriCredit Financial Services, Inc.



|By: | /s/ Connie Coffey                       |  | Dated: March 6, 2020
|--- | --------------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|    | Connie Coffey                           |  |                     
|    | Executive Vice President, Corporate     |  |                     
|    | Controller and Chief Accounting Officer |  |
**
Exhibit 31.1 

Certification of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function 

of the Servicer Pursuant to Rule 15d-14(d)

**CERTIFICATION**

I, KevinJ. Cullum, certify that: 

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Nissan Auto Receivables 2018-A Owner Trust(the “Exchange Act periodic reports”); 

2. Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act periodic reports, taken as a whole, do notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 

3. Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act periodic reports; 

4. I amresponsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except asdisclosed in the Exchange Act periodic reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement in all material respects; and 

5. All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports onassessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by thefollowing unaffiliated party: U.S. Bank National Association 

Date: June 27, 2019 

 
By: 
/s/ Kevin J. Cullum
Kevin J. CullumPresident and Chief Executive Officer ofNissan Motor Acceptance Corporation(senior officer in charge of the servicing function)**
**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with this Quarterly Report of Effective Profitable Software, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gary Moore, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 
| 1. | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 , 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 , fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Effective Profitable Software, Inc. |
|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

Dated: July 5, 2006

 

*/s/ Gary Moore*

Gary Moore

Chief Executive Officer

Chief Financial Officer
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

 v. 

DANIEL NAVARRO-CHAVEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 17-50133 

D.C. No. 3:11-cr-00741-LAB

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of California

Larry A. Burns, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 12, 2018**

Before: RAWLINSON, CLIFTON, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.

Daniel Navarro-Chavez appeals from the district court’s judgment granting, 

in part, his motion under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) to reduce his sentence on a drugrelated conviction. We agree with the government that Navarro-Chavez failed to 

file his notice of appeal within the requisite time limit. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b). 

 

* 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).

FILED

JUN 15 2018

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-50133 

Therefore, we dismiss the appeal as untimely. See United States v. Sadler, 480 

F.3d 932, 942 (9th Cir. 2007).

DISMISSED.
Linda SHAO, Petitioner, v. TSAN-KUEN WANG.

No. 19-639

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 21, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeal of California, Sixth Appellate District denied.
xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?


C\_2018228EN.01003601.xml


| | | | |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 29.6.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 228/36 |

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.8979 — PAI Partners/M Group Services)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2018/C 228/09)

1.

On 20 June 2018, the Commission received notification of a proposed concentration pursuant to Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(1)](#ntr1-C_2018228EN.01003601-E0001).

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | PAI Partners SAS (‘PAI Partners’, France), |

| | |
| --- | --- |
| — | M Group Services (United Kingdom), |

PAI Partners acquires within the meaning of Articles 3(1)(b) of the Merger Regulation sole control of M Group Services by the way of purchase of shares.

2.

The business activities of the undertakings concerned are:

—   for PAI Partners: a private equity company that manages and/or advises a number of funds that own companies active in a variety of business sectors, such as business services, food and consumer goods, general industries, healthcare, and retail and distribution,

—   for M Group Services: a provider of various types of services to the regulated utilities, telecoms and transport sectors, including installation and maintenance of network infrastructure, metering and related data services, and the construction, maintenance and repair of road and railway infrastructure.

3.

On preliminary examination, the Commission finds that the notified transaction could fall within the scope of the Merger Regulation. However, the final decision on this point is reserved.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under the Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 [(2)](#ntr2-C_2018228EN.01003601-E0002) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

The Commission invites interested third parties to submit their possible observations on the proposed operation to the Commission.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.8979 — PAI Partners/M Group Services

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

| |
| --- |
| Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu |
| Fax +32 22964301 |
| Postal address: |
| European Commission |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

---

[(1)](#ntc1-C_2018228EN.01003601-E0001)  [OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOL_2004_024_R_TOC) (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

[(2)](#ntc2-C_2018228EN.01003601-E0002)  [OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5](http://publications.europa.eu/resource/oj/JOC_2013_366_R_TOC).

---
Randy CUMMINGS, et al., Petitioners v. Celina BUSSEY, et al.

No. 18-1357

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 28, 2009 

0921 

Order 

 

September 28, 2009 

139098 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139098 

 COA: 283619 

Wayne CC: 06-008613-FC 

MARCUS C. WEDGEWORTH, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 28, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.