alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**IndependentAuditors’ Consent**

The Board ofDirectors Ocean Energy, Inc.:

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the following registrationstatements of Ocean Energy, Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated January28, 2003, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Ocean Energy, Inc.and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidatedstatements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for each ofthe years in the three–year period ended December 31, 2002, which report appearsin the December 31, 2002, annual report on Form 10–K of Ocean Energy, Inc. andsubsidiaries.

Ourreport refers to a change in the method of accounting for derivative financial instruments, effectiveJanuary 1, 2001.

- Form S–8, Seagull Energy Corporation 1981 Non–Qualified and Incentive Stock Option Plan (2–80834).  Form S–8, Seagull Energy Corporation 1983 Stock Option Plan, as amended (2–93087).Forms S–8 and S–3, Seagull Energy Corporation 1986 Stock Option Plan (33–22475).
- Form S–8, Seagull Energy Corporation 1990 Stock Option Plan, as amended (33–43483).  Form S–8, Seagull Energy Corporation 1993 Stock Option Plan, as amended         (33–50643).Form S–8, Seagull Energy Corporation 1993 Nonemployee Directors’ Stock         Option Plan, as amended (33–50645).
- Form S–8, Seagull Energy Corporation 1995 Omnibus Stock Plan, as amended (33–64041).  Form S–8, Global Natural Resources Inc. 1989 Key Employee Stock Option         Plan and Global Natural Resources, Inc. 1992 Stock Option Plan, as amended (333–13393).Form S–8, Seagull Energy Corporation 1998 Omnibus Stock Plan, as amended         (333–71375).
- Form S–8, Ocean Energy, Inc. 1999 Long–Term Incentive Plan, as amended         (333–95507).  Form S–8, Ocean Energy, Inc. 1996 Long–Term Incentive Plan, Ocean         Energy, Inc. 1994 Long–Term Incentive Plan, and United Meridian Corporation 1994 Outside Directors’         Nonqualified Stock Option Plan, as amended (333–78255).Form S–8, Ocean Energy, Inc. 1998 Long–Term Incentive         Plan, Ocean Energy, Inc. Long–Term Incentive Plan For Nonexecutive Employees, United Meridian         Corporation 1994 Employee Nonqualified Stock Option Plan, and United Meridian Corporation 1987         Nonqualified Stock Option Plan, as amended (333–68679).
- Form S–8, Ocean Energy, Inc. 2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, as amended         (333–49756).  Form S–3, Ocean Energy, Inc. $1 Billion Debt Securities, Common Stock, Preferred         Stock, Depository Shares, Warrants, Guarantees of Debt Securities, Stock Purchase Contracts and Stock         Purchase Units, as amended (333–67136).Form S–8, Ocean Energy, Inc. Retirement Savings Plan, Ocean Energy Inc. Retirement Savings Plus Plan,         Ocean Energy Inc. Supplemental Benefit Plan and Ocean Energy Inc. Outside Directors Deferred Fee Plan         (333–75268).
- Form S–8, Ocean Energy, Inc. 2001 Long–Term Incentive Plan (333–75270).  Form S–8, Ocean Energy, Inc. Long–Term Incentive Plan for Non–Executive Employees (333–100903).
/s/ KPMG LLP

Houston,Texas
A!JM ti-:,. ,j 

U.S. Department of Labor 

X COM-L 4 

Employment Standards Administration 

Office of Workers' Compensation Programs 

Division of Longshore and 

, 

Harbor Workers' Compensation 

October 1, 1983 

No. 56 

NOTICE TO INSURANCE CARRIERS, SELF-INSURED EMPLOYERS UNDER 

THE LONGSHOREMEN'S AND HARBOR WORKERS' COMPENSATION ACT, AND 

OTHER INTERESTED PERSONS 

Subject: Maximum and Minimum Compensation Rates Under 

Longshore Act, Effective October 1, 19831 

Adjustments of Permanent Total Disability 

and Death Cases 

Section 6(b) (3) of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers·• 

Compensation Act provides that prior to October 1 of each 

year, based on the national average weekly wage for the 

three calendar quarters ending June 30 of that year, the 

Secretary of Labor shall determine the national average 

weekly wage to be applicable for the period beginning October 

1, of the current year, and ending with September 30 of the 

next year. It has been determined that the applicable 

national average weekly wage for the period beginning October 

1, 1983, and ending September 30, 1984, is $274.17. 

Section 6(b) (1) (D) provides that for the period October 1, 

1983 through September 30, 1984, the maximum rate of compensation under this Act shall not exceed 200 percent of the 

national average weekly wage. The maximum compensation rate 

for total disability for injuries sustained during this 

period is $548.34 (200 percent of $274.17). Compensation 

for disability subject to this maximum should be paid at 

66-2/3 percent of the employee's average weekly wage, as 

determined under Section 10, subject to the foregoing 

limitation. 

The minimum compensation rate payable for disability incurred 

in the above period is $137.09 per week, 50 percent of the 

national average weekly wage. However, if an employee's 

average weekly wage is less than this amount, he or she 

receives the employee's entire average weekly wage as 

compensation for total disability.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense POW/MIA Accounting AgencyFulfilling Our Nation's Promise

Search
Search

Search

              - 
              - 
              - 

-  Home		 
-  Families		 
-  Our Missing    -  Searchable List of the Missing             
  -  Searchable Map of the Missing             
  -  Recently Accounted For             
  -  World War II      -  World War II Summary             
    -  Battle of Tarawa             
    -  Attack on Pearl Harbor 
  -  Korean War      -  Korean War Summary             
    -  Battle of Chosin Reservoir             
    -  Battle of Unsan             
    -  Korean Air Battles             
    -  The Inchon Campaign             
    -  The Pusan Perimeter             
    -  The DMZ Campaigns             
    -  Korean War Disinterments             
    -  Operation Glory             
    -  POW Camps 
  -  Vietnam War      -  Vietnam War Summary             
    -  Vietnam War Identification Project             
    -  Tet Offensive             
    -  Battle of Khe Sanh             
    -  Mayaguez Incident             
    -  Battle of Ia Drang             
    -  Lam Son 
  -  Cold War             
  -  Gulf Wars & Libya             
  -  Unknowns 
-  News & Stories    -  Our Stories             
  -  Press Releases             
  -  DPAA In The News             
  -  Year In Review 
-  Multimedia    -  Livestreams             
  -  Podcast             
  -  Briefing Videos             
  -  Science Videos             
  -  DPAA Laboratory             
  -  Media Gallery 
-  Resources    -  FAQs             
  -  AFMES DNA Laboratory             
  -  Publicly Released Documents             
  -  Family/VSO Update Notes             
  -  Family Member Guide             
  -  POW/MIA Day Toolkit             
  -  USRJC 
-  About    -  Leadership             
  -  Vision-Mission-Values             
  -  DPAA Organizational Chart 
-  Contact    -  Contact Us             
  -  Join Us      -  Careers 
  -  Report a Site             
  -  Donate to the Mission 
-  Volunteer		 

## 

## Image Gallery

Search

Search

                              - Upload Date
                              - Photo Date
                              - Title

Share

----

Download Image: Small ()Medium ()Full Size (3.35 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
#### STATE v. HUGGINS

No. 148 PC.

Case below: 33 N.C. App. 240.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 14 July 1977.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), pursuant to the Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999 (Pub. L. 106-50), Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs will host a second public meeting on November 15-17, 2005. The meeting will take place at the U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416. The meeting on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 and Wednesday, November 16, 2005 will start at 9 a.m. until 5 p.m., in the Eisenhower Conference Room, located on the 2nd floor. The meeting on Thursday, November 17, 2005 will start at 9 a.m. until noon, in the Administration's Conference Room, located on the 7th floor.

                    Anyone wishing to attend must contact Cheryl Clark in writing or by fax. Cheryl Clark, Program Liaison, Office of Veterans Business Development, 409 3rd Street, SW., Washington, DC 204165, phone (202) 205-6773), fax: (202) 481-6085, e-mail:                     *cheryl.clark@sba.gov.*

Matthew K. Becker, 

Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 05-22736 Filed 11-15-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### Kevin R. DOWNING, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Respondent.

No. 05-3100.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: March 4, 2005.

ORDER

Order Vacated, See 128 Fed.Appx. 149. The petitioner having failed to pay the docketing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) and to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the 
Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1995,
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          56,407
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  344,450<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                    20,399
<INVENTORY>                                    111,813
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               541,852
<PP&E>                                         522,669
<DEPRECIATION>                                 304,621
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 826,045
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          280,712
<BONDS>                                         37,388
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         5,736
<OTHER-SE>                                     498,328
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   826,045
<SALES>                                        710,168
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,097,978
<CGS>                                          439,502
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  668,287
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               483,836<F2>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 4,945<F3>
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,198
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (45,348)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (45,348)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (45,348)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.98)
<FN>
<F1>Accounts receivable in the Consolidated Balance Sheet is shown net of
allowances for doubtful accounts.
<F2>Other expenses include Product development expenses, Sales and marketing
expenses, General and administrative expenses, and the Restructuring charge.
<F3>The provision for doubtful accounts is included in Other expenses above.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Nos. DA 20-0406

IN THE MATTER OF:

A.J.,

A Youth in Need of Care.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the State’s Unopposed Motion to Supplement the 

Record on Appeal, submitted by the Appellee, and good cause appearing therefor,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is granted and the record on 

appeal shall be supplemented with the following Thirteenth Judicial District Court 

records: In the Matter of A.J., Cause No. DN 15-002 and In the Matter of A.J.,

Cause No. DN 16-020. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall serve all parties 

of record and the Clerk of District Court, Yellowstone County, with this Order. 

KFS

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 22 2020

10/22/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0406
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. ROBERT N. BRIDGES.

(Filed 14 January, 1966.)

1. CivUninal Law § 65—

Testimony of a witness that “I think” defendant was the culprit is competent, since the want of positiveness of identification goes to the weight and not to the admissibility of the testimony.

2. Robbery § 5—

Where the evidence tends to show a completed robbery accomplished with the use of firearms, the court need not instruct the jury as to its right to return a verdict of guilty of common law robbery.

Appeal by defendant from *Johnson, J.,*August 1965 Criminal Session of Okange.

Defendant was tried upon a bill of indictment charging him with armed robbery (G.S. 14-87). The' State’s evidence tended to show that about 8:00 p.m. on April 20, 1964, defendant, with another person, entered the store of E. G. Merritt. Defendant, who was armed with a .32 automatic pistol, fired a shot into the counter, and threatened to kill Mérritt and Ben Grantham, his son-in-law, if they resisted the “hold-up?’ Defendant’s companion removed *355$133.00’from the cash register and the two men fled. Defendant’s evidence tended to show that he was in the State of Maryland on April 20) 1964, and could not have committed the crime. The judge instructed the jury to return a verdict of guilty as charged or not guilty. íhe verdict was “guilty as charged.” From a judgment of imprisonment defendant appeals.

*Attorney General T. W. Bruton, Charles D. Barham, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, and Wilson B. Partin, Jr., 'for the State.*

*F. Gordon Battle for defendant appellant.*

PER Cubiam.

Ben Grantham’s testimony positively identified defendant as one of the participants in the robbery charged. Mr. Merritt testified, “I think he (defendant) is the man that did it.” His “lack of positiveness” as to the identification of defendant went to the weight and not to the admissibility of the testimony. *State v. Church,*231 N.C. 39, 55 S.E. 2d 792; Stansbury, N. C. Evidence § 129 (2d Ed. 1963). Defendant’s assignment of error based upon an exception to this evidence cannot be sustained.

Defendant’s defense was alibi. All the evidence tends to show a completed robbery accomplished with the use of firearms. There was no evidence from which the jury could find that any of the lesser offenses included within an indictment charging armed robbery were committed. Therefore the judge was not, as defendant contends, required to instruct the jury that it might return a verdict of guilty of common-law robbery. *State v. Bell,*228 N.C. 659, 46 S.E. 2d 834. See *State v. Hicks,*241 N.C. 156, 159-60, 84 S.E. 2d 545, 547-48. The judge’s definition of reasonable doubt was in accord with our decisions. *State v. Hammonds,*241 N.C. 226, 85 S.E. 2d 133.

In the trial we find

No error.
EXHIBIT 23A

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

      We consent to the incorporation in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of AutoInfo, Inc. for the year ended
December 31, 2002, of our report dated February 13, 2003 on the financial
statements of AutoInfo, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2002 by reference
to the Registration Statement under the Securities Act of 1933 (File No.
33-34442) of AutoInfo, Inc.

Shelton, Connecticut                 Dworken, Hillman, LaMorte & Sterczala, P.C.
March 25, 2003
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**533 KA 13-01590** 
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, SCONIERS, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GEORGE CAMPBELL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (SHERRY A. CHASE OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (NATHANIEL C. KAPPERMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Thomas P. Franczyk, J.), rendered May 10, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, driving while intoxicated, a misdemeanor, driving while ability impaired by the combined influence of drugs or of alcohol and any drug or drugs, improper automobile equipment and improper license plates.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of, inter alia, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). We reject defendant’s contention that the evidence is legally insufficient to establish the element of possession with respect to that crime ( see generally People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495). The loaded handgun was discovered inside a sock on the floor under the driver’s seat of the vehicle defendant was driving, and DNA taken from the sock was consistent with defendant’s DNA. That evidence, along with the statutory presumption of possession set forth in Penal Law § 265.15 (3), is legally sufficient to establish defendant’s constructive possession of the handgun ( see People v Ward , 104 AD3d 1323, 1324, lv denied 21 NY3d 1011). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the operability of the weapon ( see People v Gray , 86 NY2d 10, 19). Furthermore, inasmuch as that challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence lacks merit ( see People v Cavines , 70 NY2d 882, 883; see also People v Brown , 107 AD3d 1477, 1478, lv denied 21 NY3d 1040), defense counsel’s failure to preserve it for our review does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel ( see People v Cole , 111 AD3d 1301, 1302). Finally, viewing the evidence in light of**-2- 533 KA 13-01590** 

the elements of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree in this nonjury trial ( see People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342, 349), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence with respect to that crime ( see generally Bleakley , 69 NY2d at 495).

Entered: May 1, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5609 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5609

  To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit any 
registered lobbyist whose clients include foreign governments which are 
   found to be sponsors of international terrorism or include other 
foreign nationals from making contributions and other campaign-related 
             disbursements in elections for public office.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 28, 2010

   Mr. Hall of New York (for himself and Mr. McMahon) introduced the 
     following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House 
                             Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit any 
registered lobbyist whose clients include foreign governments which are 
   found to be sponsors of international terrorism or include other 
foreign nationals from making contributions and other campaign-related 
             disbursements in elections for public office.

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

SECTION 1. PROHIBITING CERTAIN LOBBYISTS FROM MAKING CAMPAIGN-RELATED 
              DISBURSEMENTS IN ELECTIONS FOR PUBLIC OFFICE.

    (a) Prohibition.--Section 319(b) of the Federal Election Campaign 
Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441e(b)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (1);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2) and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(3) any person who is a registered lobbyist under the 
        Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 whose clients under such Act 
        include--
                    ``(A) a country the government of which the 
                Secretary of State has determined, for purposes of 
                section 6(j) of the Export Administration Act of 1979 
                (as continued in effect pursuant to the International 
                Emergency Economic Powers Act), section 40 of the Arms 
                Export Control Act, section 620A of the Foreign 
                Assistance Act of 1961, or any other provision of law, 
                is a government that has repeatedly provided support 
                for acts of international terrorism; or
                    ``(B) any other foreign national described in this 
                subsection.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
take effect upon the expiration of the 30-day period which begins on 
the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```