alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.2

                   CONSENT OF H.J. GRUY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.


We hereby consent to the use of the name H.J. Gruy and Associates, Inc., and of
references to H. J. Gruy and Associates, Inc. and to the inclusion of and
references to our two reports, or information contained therein, both dated
March 9, 2001, prepared for Stocker Resources, Inc. in the Plains Resources Inc.
Annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000, for the filing
dated April 2, 2001, and the incorporation by reference into the applicable
previous filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


                                    H.J. GRUY AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
                                    Texas Registration Number F-000637



                                    By:  /s/ Marilyn Wilson
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                    Marilyn Wilson, PE
                                    President and Chief Operating Officer


March 28,  2001
Houston, Texas
#### Kim MCADOO, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Roy CASTRO, Respondent—Appellee.

No. 03-17247.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Feb. 18, 2005.

Decided March 3, 2005.

*128Kim McAdoo, Susanville, CA, pro se.

Suzanne A. Luban, Esq., Law Offices of Suzanne A. Luban, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Glenn R. Pruden, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: THOMAS, PAEZ, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Petitioner Kim McAdoo appeals the district court order denying his habeas petition. We affirm. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of the case, we will not recount it here. We review the district court’s decision to deny a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition de novo. *Taylor v. Maddox,*366 F.3d 992, 997 (9th Cir.2004).

Alleged errors in state court jury instructions do not provide a basis for federal habeas relief unless the instructions infect the entire trial such that due process has been denied. *Estelle v. McGuire,*502 U.S. 62, 71-72, 112 S.Ct. 475, 116 L.Ed.2d 385 (1991). To find constitutional error, we must find a “ ‘reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way’ that violates the Constitution.” *Id.*at 72, 112 S.Ct. 475 (quoting *Boyde v. California,*494 U.S. 370, 380, 110 S.Ct. 1190, 108 L.Ed.2d 316 (1990)). Even if constitutional instructional error has occurred, we must still ascertain whether the constitutional error “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” *Brecht v. Abrahamson,*507 U.S. 619, 637, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993).

After a careful examination of the record and the instructions as a whole, we conclude that given the separate aiding and abetting instruction and the absence of argument concerning the “natural and probable consequence” instruction, it was not reasonably likely that the jury relied on the natural and probable consequences jury instruction in reaching its verdicts. The giving of the “natural and probable consequence” instruction did not have a substantial or injurious effect or influence on the jury verdict.

PETITION DENIED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
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.                  

###### National Archives and Records Administration

# AGENCY:

National Archives and Records Administration. 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) announces a meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Electronic Records Archives (ACERA). The committee serves as a deliberative body to advise the Archivist of the United States on technical, mission, and service issues related to the Electronic Records Archives (ERA). This includes, but is not limited to, advising and making recommendations to the Archivist on issues related to the development, implementation, and use of the ERA system. 

*Date of Meeting:*                         November 30, 2005.                     

*Time of Meeting:*                         9 a.m.-4 p.m.                     

*Place of Meeting:*                         700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. Washington, DC 20408-0001.                     

                        This meeting will be open to the public. However, due to space limitations and access procedures, the name and telephone number of individuals planning to attend must be submitted to the Electronic Records Archives Program at                         *era.program@nara.gov.*

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

## Agenda 

    - Committee organization and rules.
    - Review of NARA's mission and activities in the electronic records arena.
    - Development of a plan of action for the committee.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lewis Bellardo, Deputy Archivist of the United States/Chief of Staff; (301) 837-1600. 

Mary Ann Hadyka, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05-22579 Filed 11-14-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7515-01-P
ANTIONE RONNELL 

WATERS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-2047

_____________________________/

Opinion filed January 5, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Waddell A. Wallace, Judge.

Carlos J. Martinez, Public Defender, and Stephen J. Weinbaum, Assistant Public 

Defender, Miami, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

BENTON, LEWIS and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
#### FIRST AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK, Plaintiff, v. STRAIGHT CREEK PROCESSING COMPANY, et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 3:90CV00580.

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division.

Feb. 28, 1991.

*946Jacob Stroman, IV, William Harry Schwarzschild, III, Robert Edward Eicher, Williams, Mullen, Christian & Dobbins, Richmond, Va., for plaintiff.

James Winston Tredway, III, Christian, Barton, Epps, Brent and Chappel, Richmond, Va., for George R. Desko, Everette F. Thaxton, Barbara P. Wulfmeier, Des-coals, Inc.

Everette G. Allen, Jr., Michael Paul Fal-zone, Hirschler, Fleischer, Weinberg, Cox and Allen, Richmond, Va., for William S. Floyd, Walter B. Ford, Peter W. Stroh, A.T. Hastings.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICHARD L. WILLIAMS, District Judge.

This matter is before the Court on Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Rules of Civil Procedure.

Defendants allege, and Plaintiff does not contest, that two limited partners of Defendant Straight Creek Processing Company are citizens of Tennessee. Plaintiff First American is also a citizen of Tennessee. It is the established law of this Circuit that “for the purposes of diversity the citizenship of a limited partnership is determined by considering the citizenship of all its partners, both general and limited.” *New York State Teachers Retirement System v. Kalkus,*764 F.2d 1015, 1019 (4th Cir.1985). In the absence of complete diversity, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Plaintiff does not dispute the law, but moves the Court to dismiss the nondiverse parties in order to preserve jurisdiction. In answer to Defendants’ claim that this dismissal might produce subsequent litigation, Plaintiff argues that Straight Creek can be joined as a third party defendant under the Court’s ancillary jurisdiction. The proper scope of ancillary jurisdiction in third-party practice has been fully briefed by the parties.

The Court will not reach the issue of third party joinder, however, because it finds that it has no jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the non-diverse parties. Before the Court can exercise ancillary jurisdiction, it must have jurisdiction over the principal action. *See*Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure, § 3523, 82 (1984). A finding that the Court lacks jurisdiction deprives it of the power to take action in the case. *Stewart v. United States,*199 F.2d 517 (7th Cir.1952). Once a Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction in a case, the only option available to the Court is dismissal.

Neither the convenience of the litigants nor considerations of judicial economy permit a Court to flout the statutory command of diversity. *Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger,*437 U.S. 365, 377, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 2404, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978). The Plaintiff cannot remedy a jurisdictional defect with a motion to dismiss.

*947For these reasons, this action will be DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
EXHIBIT 12(a)


COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO FIXED CHARGES
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES




<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


(millions, except ratios)



Years Ended
<S>					                             	<C>   			<C>    		<C>    		<C>   		<C>
						                                 1999	   		1998	   	1997  		1996  		1995
Fixed Charges:
  Interest and amortization of
  debt discount and expense on
  all indebtedness                					$1,268			$1,423	 	$1,409  	$1,365 	$1,373

  Add interest element implicit
         in rentals			                    133  	   144  	   147  	   121 	   119
                                 						 1,401		 	1,567	 	 1,556    1,486 	 1,492
  Interest capitalized			           			     5 		     5 		     3  	     5 	     4
Total fixed charges 	             					$1,406  	$1,572  	$1,559 	 $1,491 	$1,496

Income:
  Income from continuing operations				$1,453			$1,072		 $1,188  	$1,271 	$1,025
  Deduct undistributed net income
  (loss) of unconsolidated companies			    (5) 	    11 		    13 	      8 	     9
                                 						 1,458			 1,061		  1,175  	 1,263 	 1,016
Add
  Fixed charges (excluding interest
    capitalized)                      	 1,401			 1,567	 	 1,556  	 1,486 	 1,492
  Income taxes 			                  			   904 		   766 		   912  	   834 	   703
     Income before fixed charges and
         Income taxes				            		$3,763 		$3,394 		$3,643  	$3,583 	$3,211

Ratio of income to fixed charges 			 		  2.68 		  2.16  	  2.34 	  2.40 	   2.15

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. GRIFFIN

No. 83 PC.

Case below: 18 N.C. App. 146.

Petition for writ of certiorari to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 12 July 1973.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67495-67496]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22072]


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

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 the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Drug Abuse Special 
Emphasis Panel, Program Project.
    Date: December 1, 2005.
    Time: 3 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6101 Executive Boulevard, 
Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Mark Swieter, PhD, Chief, Training and Special 
Projects Review Branch, Office of Extramural Affiars, National 
Institute on Drug Abuse, NIH, DHHS, 6101 Executive Boulevard, Suite 
220, Bethesda, MD 20892-8401, (301) 435-1389, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#19746a21296159777071377e766f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d4b9a7ece4ac94babdbcfab3bba2">[email protected]</span></a>.

(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)


[[Page 67496]]


    Dated: October 31, 2005.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-22072 Filed 11-4-05; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### ANNE E. ASHWORTH JOHNSON, AS SURVIVING PARENT, PETITIONER-DEFENDANT IN CERTIORARI, v. NEWARK GLASS COMPANY, RESPONDENT-PROSECUTOR IN CERTIORARI.

Submitted October 17, 1981

Decided April 18, 1932.

Before Justices Trenoiiakd, Daly and Donges.

*566For the defendant in *certiorari, Meyer Q. Kessel (James F. X. O’Brien,*of counsel).

For the prosecutor in *certiorari, Joseph 0. Paul.*

Per Curiam.

This writ of *certiorari*brings up for review an order made by the deputy commissioner of the workmen’s compensation bureau directing payments under the Workmen’s Compensation act to be paid to the widow, the petitioner, for and in behalf of the minor children.

The right of the commissioner to make that order is challenged.

There is no dispute as to the amount to be paid or the right of those named in the order to receive the amount set opposite their names. As we have pointed out the petitioner was the only surviving parent.

We think the order was justified. *Pamph. L.*1928, *ch.*135, *p.*287, provides that “payment on behalf of infants shall be made to the surviving parent, if any, or to the statutory or testamentary guardian.” So, too, *Pamph. L.*1919,. *ch.*93, ^ 19, provides:

“In case of death compensation payments may be made directly to dependents of full age and on behalf of infants to the surviving parents, if any * * Moreover, chapter 136 of the laws of 1928 gives the commissioner the right to appoint a representative with power to act for the person who may be entitled to compensation, but is legally unable to-properly receive or disburse the compensation. The prosecutor complains that the order did not require the petitioner to-give a bond. But this was a matter of discretion *(Pamph. L.*1919, *ch.*93), and it appears in the order that the deputy commisioner instituted an investigation and found that the-petitioner was a capable and fit person to receive the compensation payments for the benefit of the children.

So we find no fault with the order and this view is supported by the case of *Mountain Ice Co.*v. *Durkin,*105 *N. J.**567*L.*636; 147 *Atl. Rep.*451, where the widow filed a petition for herself and mentioned the children in the pleadings. There the court pointed to the language of the statute that “payment on behalf of infants should be made to the surviving parent, if any, or to the statutory or testamentary guardian,” and said, “the mother being alive she had the right to sue, as she did, and it was lawful to make compensation for the children, and provide for its distribution * * * as the judgment did.” The order and judgment under review will be affirmed, with costs.
KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
New Jersey Headquarters
150 John F. Kennedy Parkway
Short Hills, NJ 07078






                          Independent Auditors' Report



The Partners
Kamine/Besicorp Natural Dam L.P.

We have audited the acompanying  balance sheets of  Kamine/Besicorp  Natural Dam
L.P. as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related statements of operations,
partners'  equity  (deficiency),  and cash  flows  for each of the  years in the
three-year  period ended December 31, 1997.  These financial  statements are the
responsibility  of the general  partners.  Our  responsibility  is to express an
opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

We  conducted  our  audits  in  accordance  with  generally   accepted  auditing
standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement.  An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting
the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  An audit also includes
assessing the  accounting  principles  used and  significant  estimates  made by
management,  as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion,  the financial  statements  referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects,  the financial  position of  Kamine/Besicorp  Natural Dam
L.P. as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the results of its operations and its
cash flows for each of the years in the  three-year  period  ended  December 31,
1997 in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.



                                                       /s/KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP



February 24, 1998
#### Shaw’s Jewelry Shop, Incorporated, Respondent, *v.*New York Herald Company, Appellant.

*Shaw’s Jewelry Shop, Inc.,*v. *N. Y. Herald Co.,*170 App. Div. 504, affirmed.

(Submitted November 19, 1918;

decided December 3, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 10, 1916, modifying and affirming as modified a judgment in favor óf plaintiff entered upon a decision of the court on trial at Special Term, which judgment restrained and enjoined the defendant from maintaining on the westerly wall of its building a contrivance known as an automatic playograph or any similar contrivance and of stereopticon pictures, diagrams and views by means of stereopticon, moving picture machine, screen or otherwise, and awarded the plaintiff damages for alleged loss, occasioned him through obstruction by crowds to the entrance to his place of business, which crowds gathered to watch the display on defendant’s building The Appellate Division affirmed so much of the judgment as awarded damages and reversed so much thereof as afforded injunctive relief.

*Robert W. Candler*and *John H. Bogardus*for appellant.

*Benjamin Reass, Hugo Hirsh*and *Emanuel Newman*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Andrews, JJ. ■
# L_2007210EN.01000501.xml

| 10.8.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 210/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.8.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 210/5

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 948/2007

of 9 August 2007

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 900/2007

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 of 27 July 2007 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2007/2008 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 of 27 July 2007 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2007/2008 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 9 August 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 9 August 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 9 August 2007, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 shall be 41,751 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 10 August 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 9 August 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 247/2007 (OJ L 69, 9.3.2007, p. 3).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 196, 28.7.2007, p. 26.

2

---