alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 23.4


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS


     We hereby  consent to the use of our name in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
of Seagull Energy  Corporation  and  Subsidiaries  (the  "Company") for the year
ended December 31, 1997,  and the  incorporation  by reference  thereof into the
Company's registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 2-72014, 2-80834,  33-14463,
33-43483,  33-50643,  33-50645, 33-64041 and 333-13393), Forms S-8 and S-3 (Nos.
2-93087  and  33-22475)  and Form S-3 (Nos.  33-53729,  33-65118,  33-64051  and
333-34841).







                                 By:/s/ Clarence M. Netherland
                                        Clarence M. Netherland, Chairman

                                        NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.


Houston, Texas
March 18, 1998
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.W., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Nashville, TN, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-0791

Issued: January 9, 2024

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

On May 12, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a January 4, 2023 merit decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs. The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned the 

appeal Docket No. 23-0791.

By an undated letter received January 2, 2024, appellant requested that the appeal be 

withdrawn.

The Board has duly considered this matter and concludes that appellant’s request for the 

withdrawal of the appeal should be granted. Accordingly, 
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the withdrawal of this appeal 

is granted. The appeal docketed as No. 23-0791 is dismissed. 

Issued: January 9, 2024

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<CIK>                    350194
<NAME>                   United Systems Technology, Inc.

<S>                      <C>               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            12-MOS         12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>        DEC-31-1997    DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>             DEC-31-1997    DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                        204807          67252
<SECURITIES>                       0              0
<RECEIVABLES>                 216693         253692
<ALLOWANCES>                       0              0
<INVENTORY>                        0              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              427665         321223
<PP&E>                         85940         115738
<DEPRECIATION>                159579         336621
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               1053265        1278480
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>        1210749        1110927
<BONDS>                        50000          50000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0              0
<PREFERRED>                   130000         205000
<COMMON>                     4317803        3796975
<OTHER-SE>                         0              0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 1053265        1278480
<SALES>                       250524         302305
<TOTAL-REVENUES>             1641370        2004747
<CGS>                          97555         124574
<TOTAL-COSTS>                1908681        2625646
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                3243          13726
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              5342           8608
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    0              0
<INCOME-TAX>                       0              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                0              0
<DISCONTINUED>                     0              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0              0
<CHANGES>                          0              0
<NET-INCOME>                 (270554)       (634625)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                  (0.01)         (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      0              0




</TABLE>
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

J.P., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, 

U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, 

U.S. BORDER PATROL, Ferndale, WA, 

Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 23-1004

Issued: October 30, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

On July 24, 2023 appellant filed a timely appeal from a June 22, 2023 merit decision of

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). The Clerk of the Appellate Boards

assigned Docket No. 23-1004.

In a letter dated and received October 17, 2023, appellant requested that the appeal be 

withdrawn.

The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that appellant’s request for the 

withdrawal of the appeal should be granted.1 Accordingly, 

1 The Board’s decisions and orders are final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance. 20 

C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT appellant’s request for the withdrawal of the appeal 

is granted. The appeal docketed as No. 23-1004 is dismissed.

Issued: October 30, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board
#### JACK H. KELLER and JACK STREETER, Appellants, v. WAREHOUSE MARKETS, INC., Respondent.

No. 17392

June 25, 1987

738 P.2d 891

*Hardesty, Moss & Michaels,*Reno, for Appellants.

*McDonald, Carano, Wilson, Bergin, Frankovich and Hicks,*Reno, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

This is a dispute between lessors and lessee relating to the meaning of the term in the lease, “gross sales.” Lessors, Keller and Streeter, claim that the term “gross sales,” was intended by the parties to include income from slot machines operated on the leased premises. The lessee, Warehouse Markets, Inc., claims that the term “gross sales” was not intended to include income from slot machines. The district court granted summary judgment to Warehouse holding that the term “gross sales” cannot, as *321a matter of law, include slot machine revenues. There are issues of fact bearing on the issue of the parties’ understanding of the meaning of “gross sales”; therefore, the summary judgment is reversed.

The lease in question provided for a flat rental charge plus an “additional rental of *llk%*of the gross sales.” Prior to execution of the lease and during negotiations Warehouse offered for consideration by Keller and Streeter a lease provision which contained a phrase restricting gross sales with the language, “not including gaming revenues.” The quoted language in the lease was rejected by Keller and Streeter during negotiations. Warehouse’s inclusion of that phrase as a proposed lease term is certainly some indication that inclusion or exclusion of gaming revenues as an intended part of gross sales was a part of the negotiations and that Warehouse recognized that the simple term “gross sales” was not entirely clear. If it were as clear as Warehouse claims, there would have been no call for language either excluding or including gaming revenues.

Keller and Streeter, in opposition to the motion for summary judgment, claim that they can prove that the parties intended gaming revenues to be included in the computation of gross sales. Warehouse claims that gaming revenues must be excluded and that, as the trial court held, the term gross sales clearly and unequivocally excludes the possibility of gaming revenues being considered as part of gross sales. We disagree with Warehouse and hold that Keller and Streeter are entitled to present their case on the meaning of the questioned lease term, “gross sales.”

Summary judgment is reversed.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 67496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22073]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Drug Abuse; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of a meeting of 
the Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDA.
    The meeting will be closed to the public a indicated below in 
accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of 
individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National 
Institute On Drug Abuse, including consideration of personnel 
qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual 
investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Board of Scientific Counselors, NIDA.
    Date: November 28-30, 2005.
    Time: 2 p.m. to 12 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate personal qualifications and 
performance, and competence of individual investigators.
    Place: Intramural Research Program, National Institute on Drug 
Abuse, NIH, Johns Hopkins Bayview Campus, Bldg. C, 2nd Floor 
Auditorium, Baltimore, MD 21224.
    Contact Person: Stephen J. Heishman, PhD, Research Psychologist, 
Clinical Pharmacology Branch, Intramural Research Program, National 
Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, DHHS, 5500 
Nathan Shock Drive, Baltimore, MD 21224, (410) 550-1547.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 31, 2005.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-22073 Filed 11-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Felipe VASQUEZ-SANCHEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-50747.

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Decided April 20, 2005.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Western District Of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

M. Carolyn Fuentes, Federal Public Defender’s Office Western District of Texas, San Antonio, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before SMITH, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Felipe Vasquez-Sanchez raises arguments that are foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 235, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is 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.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

Certification Pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, UnitedStates Code)

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title18, United States Code), I, William D. Hibbetts, Senior Vice President andChief Financial Officer of Pioneer Drilling Company, a Texas corporation (the“Company”), hereby certify, to my knowledge, that:

 

(1)                                  theCompany’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31,2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 
| Dated: | June 28, 2004 | /s/ William D. Hibbetts                           |   |
|--------|--------------------|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |               | William D. Hibbetts                               |
|   |               | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following (i)
Registration Statement No. 2-82186 on Form S-8 filed March 3, 1983; (ii)
Registration Statement No. 33-48363 on Form S-8 filed June 3, 1992; (iii)
Registration Statement No. 33-79146 on Form S-8 filed May 19, 1994; (iv)
Registration Statement No. 333-06021 on Form S-8 filed June 14, 1996; (v)
Registration Statement No. 333-48697 on Form S-8 filed March 26, 1998; (vi)
Registration Statement No. 333-57585 on Form S-8 filed June 24, 1998; (vii)
Registration Statement No. 333-46726 on Form S-8 filed September 27, 2000;
(viii) Registration Statement No. 333-55574 on Form S-8 filed February 14, 2001,
(ix) Registration Statement No. 333-87676 on Form S-8 filed May 7, 2002, (x)
Registration Statement No. 333-101538 on Form S-8 filed November 27 2002, and
(xi) Registration Statement No. 333-107321 on Form S-3 filed July 24, 2003 and
in the related Prospectuses, of our report dated August 11, 2003 with respect to
the consolidated financial statements and schedule of WMS Industries Inc. and
subsidiaries, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of WMS Industries Inc.
for the year ended June 30, 2003.


                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Chicago, Illinois
September 23, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67178-67179]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22012]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. 2002E-0020] (formerly Docket No. 02E-0020)


Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent 
Extension; ZOMETA; Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice 
that appeared in the Federal Register of February 28, 2003 (68 FR 
9690). The document announced that FDA had determined the regulatory 
review period for ZOMETA. A Request for Revision of Regulatory Review 
Period was filed for the product on May 4, 2005. FDA reviewed its 
records and found that the effective date of the investigational new 
drug application (IND) was incorrect due to a clerical error. 
Therefore, FDA is revising the determination of the regulatory review 
period to reflect the correct effective date for the IND.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia V. Grillo, Office of 
Regulatory Policy (HFD-13), Food and Drug Administration, 5600 Fishers 
Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, 240-453-6681.

[[Page 67179]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 03-4691, appearing on page 9690 
in the Federal Register of February 28, 2003, the following corrections 
are made:
    1. On page 9690, in the third column, in the first complete 
paragraph, in the third line, ``2,810'' is corrected to read ``2,901''; 
in the fourth line, ``2,201'' is corrected to read ``2,292''.
    2. On page 9690, in the third column, in the second complete 
paragraph, beginning in the fourth line, ``December 12, 1993'' is 
corrected to read ``September 12, 1993''; in line 10, ``December 12, 
1993'' is corrected to read ``September 12, 1993''.

    Dated: October 20, 2005.
Jane A. Axelrad,
Associate Director for Policy, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
[FR Doc. 05-22012 Filed 11-3-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
II 

Calendar No. 631 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5390 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 15, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

SEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Reported by Mr. LIEBERMAN, without amendment 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 13301 Smith Road in Cleveland, Ohio, as 

the ‘‘David John Donafee Post Office Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DAVID JOHN DONAFEE POST OFFICE BUILD4 ING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 13301 Smith Road in Cleveland, 

7 Ohio, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘David John 

8 Donafee Post Office Building’’. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

2 

•HR 5390 RS

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘David John Donafee 

5 Post Office Building’’. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS

Calendar No. 631 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5390 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postfice Building’’. land, Ohio, as the ‘‘David John Donafee Post Of- al Service located at 13301 Smith Road in CleveSEPTEMBER 29, 2010 

Reported without amendment 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### JERNIGAN v. R. R. CO.

No. 24 PC.

Case below: 3 N.C. App. 408.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 5 March 1969.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

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

LS/Research

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MARIA METKO,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

SOCIAL SECURITY

ADMINISTRATION; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-17285

D.C. No. 3:07-cv-00226-BESRAM

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Nevada

Brian E. Sandoval, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted January 11, 2010** 

Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Maria Metko appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing

her action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Social Security

FILED

JAN 22 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LS/Research 2

Act (“SSA”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo, Kildare v. Saenz, 325 F.3d 1078, 1082 (9th Cir. 2003), and we affirm.

The district court properly concluded that it lacked subject matter

jurisdiction because Metko failed to exhaust her administrative remedies before

filing this action. See id. at 1082-86 (affirming dismissal for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction where plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the

SSA). We construe the dismissal as without prejudice. See O’Guinn v. Lovelock

Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1063 (9th Cir. 2007) (concluding that dismissal without

prejudice is proper where plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies). 

Metko’s remaining contentions are unavailing.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2

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

   In connection with the Quarterly Report of OptimumBank Holdings, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Richard L. Browdy,
Chief Financial Officer (Principal Accounting Officer) of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of THE Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

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

2.       To my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly
         presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
         of operations of the Company as of and for the period covered by the
         report.

        Date: November 14, 2005                   By: /s/ Richard L. Browdy
              -----------------                       -----------------------
                                                      Richard L. Browdy,
                                                      Chief Financial Officer
### i 1?r Court ofAppaateL'irrict TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS 1517 WEST FRONT STREET TYLER, TEXAS 75702 } } CIVIL ACTION FILE NO C-1228321/C1228525 INEZ MANIGAULT Plaintiff

vs. JANE THORN-HENDERSON and FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP Case No: 12-14-00156-CV

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME TO PAY SECOND HALF OF RECORDERS FEES NOW COMES, Plaintiff, Inez Manigault, moves this Court to extend the time for paying second halfofRecorder's fee. 

### The amount offinancial obligation paid between December and January exceeded the amount planned for. 

### One halfbalance is still owedfor Recorder'srecord. Thebalance can be paidon February 27, 2015, with no further delays. 

### This motion is made in good faith and not merely for purpose ofdelay. I HEREBY CERTIFY,that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing has been furnished 

### via U. S. mail to James E. Hughes, Esquire, 3400 W. Marshall, Suite 402, Longview, 

### Texas, 75604. When contacted, Attorney Hughes stated "he is no longer the attorney of record for the Defendant." Telephoned,the courts who provided me with the name, 

### address andtelephone of the representing attorney.

### Respectfully Submitted this 28th day of January 2015. Inez Manigault (Pjr 

# P.^pox 81922 Atlanta, Georgia 30366 (678) 547-3914

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

### As required by Texas Rule ofAppellate Procedure 10.1(a)(5), I certifythat I have made a reasonable attempt to confer, with all other parties, about the merits ofthis motion with the following results: 

### Please refer to non-opposition attached from the attorney.

Cc: Attorney Adam Allen 205 West Locust Street Tyler Texas, 75702


### Respectfully Submitted this 28, day ofJanuary 2015.1/28/2015 Gmail
- Manigault v. Henderson; 12thCourtofAppeals Inez Manigault <inezmanigault@gmail.com> 

### Manigault v. Henderson; 12th Court ofAppeals 1 message Adam Allen <AAIIen@whiteshaverlaw.com> Wed, Jan 28, 2015 at 4:40 PM To: "inezmanigault@gmail.com" <inezmanigault@gmail.com>

Dear Ms. Manigault, , 

### Please all this e-mail to serve as appellee's non-opposition to .yourrequest foran extension of time to pay for the reporter's record.
Yours very truly,

Adam Allen White-Shaver, P.C.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 24.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation of our
report included in this Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed
Registration Statements on Form S-8 File Nos. 33-30249, 33-38201, 33-45610,
33-45614, 33-80084, 33-60343, 33-60389, 333-69789 and 333-69791, and on Form S-3
File Nos. 33-31409, 33-44769, 33-89178, 333-13859 and 333-34715.

                                                     /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Rochester, New York
   April 16, 2001