alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 26, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50311-50312]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19788]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

RIN: 0648-XJ99


North Pacific Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of a public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Joint 
Protocol Committee of the Alaska Board of Fisheries and Council will 
meet in Anchorage, AK.

DATES: The meeting will be held on September 12, 2008, from 9 a.m. to 
12 noon.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Anchorage Hilton Hotel, 500 
W 3rd Avenue, Dillingham Room, Anchorage, AK.
    Council address: North Pacific Fishery Management Council, 605 W. 
4th Ave., Suite 306, Anchorage, AK 99501-2252.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Council staff, telephone: (907) 271-
2809.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting agenda: Annual catch limits 
(ABC/TAC) and possible revisions to scallop and crab management; salmon 
bycatch amendments; subsistence halibut program bycatch retention; Gulf 
of Alaska (GOA) issues including the Pacific cod sector split, fixed 
gear LLP recency, and state/federal options for Pacific cod jig gear 
fisheries; parallel waters licensing and catch accounting issues; State 
report on state/federal data collection differences on octopus; and 
Board of Fisheries agenda change requests.
    Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come 
before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-
Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), 
those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this 
meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically 
identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of 
this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the 
Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the 
Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for

[[Page 50312]]

sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed 
to Gail Bendixen at (907) 271-2809 at least 7 working days prior to the 
meeting date.

    Dated: August 21, 2008.
Emily H. Menashes,
Acting Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine 
Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. E8-19788 Filed 8-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 27, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00194

- CV

Jose PEREZ , Jr.

, Appellant

v.

Salud CAZARES

, Appellee

From the 83rd Judicial District Court, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 3287CCL Robert Cadena, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

A filing fee of $205.00 was due when this appeal was filed but it was not paid. See

T EXAS S UPREME C OURT O RDER R EGARDING F EES C HARGED I N THE S UPREME C OURT

, I N C IVIL
C ASES I N THE C OURTS OF A PPEALS

, AND B EFORE THE J UDICIAL P AN EL ON M ULTIDISTRICT
L ITIGATION (Misc. Docket No. 14

- 9158, Aug. 28, 2015). The clerk of the court notified appellant of this deficiency in a letter dated April 5, 2016 . The fee remains unpaid. Rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides:

A party who is not excused by statute or these rules from paying costs must pay

– at the time an item is presented for filing

– whatever fees are required by statute or Supreme Court order. The appellate court may enforce this rule by any order that is just

.

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 5.

We therefore order appellant, not later than May 9, 2016 to either (1) pay the applicable filing fee, or (2) provide wr itten proof to this court that he is indigent or otherwise excused by statute or the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure from paying the fee. See T EX

. R.

A PP

. P. 20.1 (providing that indigent party who complies with provisions of that rule may proceed without advance payment of costs). If appellant fails to respond satisfactorily wit hin the time ordered, this appeal will be dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3.________ _________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 27th day of April, 2016

.

_______ ____________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Exhibit 23.2





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS





As independent petroleum engineers, Netherland, Sewell & Associates, Inc. hereby consents to the inclusion or incorporation by reference in the registration statements on Form S-8 (File No. 333-149190), Form S-3 (No. 333-159888), Form S-3/A (No. 333-153579) and Form S-4 (No. 333-171773), and the 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K of BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P. of information from our firm’s reserve report dated January 25, 2011, entitled Estimates of Reserves and Future Revenue to the BreitBurn Operating L.P. Interest in Certain Oil and Gas Properties located in California, Florida and Wyoming as of December 31, 2010 and all references to our firm included in or made part of the BreitBurn Energy Partners L.P. 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K.





NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.





By: /s/ J. Carter Henson, Jr., P.E.





J. Carter Henson, Jr., P.E.


Senior Vice President


Houston, Texas


March 9, 2011
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

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


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Applera Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Tony L. White, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.


/s/ Tony L. White
-----------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer

Date:  November 14, 2002
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

TROY HAMILTON SCOTT , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 18

- 368 2

[ November 20, 2019 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, Okeechobee County ; Michael C. Heisey

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 471985CF000256A

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul Edward Petillo, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Matthew Steven Ocksrider, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Appellant Troy Scott appeals an order denying his motion to vacate sentence based on Miller v. Alabama , 567 U.S. 460, 132 S. Ct. 2455, 183
L. Ed. 2d 407 (2012), and Graham v. Florida , 560 U.S. 48, 130 S. Ct. 2011, 176 L. Ed. 2d 825 (2010). We reverse and remand upon accepting the State’s concession that the issue is controlled by our decision in Jones v. State

, 279 So.3d 172 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019).

In Jones , the defendant moved for resentencing based on Miller and Graham

. Jones

, 279 So. 3d at 173 . The trial court granted the motion and ordered resentencing. Significantly, the State did not seek rehearing or appeal. Before resentencing occurred, and after a change in the law, the State changed its position and objected to Jones’ s resentencing. See Franklin v. State , 258 So. 3d 1239 (Fla. 2018); State v. Michel , 257 So. 3d 3 (Fla. 2018), cert. denied

, ––– U.S.

–––– , 139 S. Ct. 1401, 203 L. Ed.2d 630 (2019) . The circuit court agreed with the State and vacated the order granting resentencing. Jones

, 279 So. 3d at 173

.2 We reversed that order in Jones because the circuit court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider the earlier order granting resentencing. Id

. at 174 ( citing Simmons v. State , 274 So. 3d 468 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019) (holding that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rescind an order granting resentencing once it became a final, appealable order, and neither party timely moved for rehearing of the orde r under Fl orida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(1)(B)).

As in Jones , we reverse the order on appeal and remand with directions that the trial court reinstate the order granting a ppellant’s rule 3.800(a) motion. The trial court should then resentence a ppellant to a lawful sentence. As in Jones

, we decline to address the substantive challenges appellant raises as to the current sentencing law.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.

W ARNER , T AYLOR and G ERBER , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
DISMISS; and Opinion Filed November 3, 2015. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 15

- 01282

- CR
LARRY TOLES , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F04

- 73841

- L


### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Myers Opinion by Justice Bridges After Larry Toles pleaded guilty to burglary of a habitation , the trial court deferred adjudicating guilt, placed appellant on three years’ community supervision, and assessed a $2,000 fine. The State moved to adjudicate guilt, but by order dated August 17, 2015, the trial court denied the motion and continued appellan t on community supervision. Appellant filed a pro se notice of appeal from the August 17, 2015 order. The order continuing appellant on community supervision is not an appealable order. See Basaldua v. State , 558 S.W.2d 2, 5 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977). We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47

151282F.U05 /David L. Bridges/ DAVID L. BRIDGES JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

LARRY TOLES, Appellant

No. 05

- 15

- 01282

- CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 5, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F04

- 73841

- L. Opinion delivered by Justice Bridges, Justices Francis and Myers participating.
Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 3rd day of November, 2015.
EXHIBIT
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO


SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Annual Report of Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A-3 for the period ending December 31, 2007, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Raymond P.L. Cannefax, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my
knowledge:





(a)
            the Report
      fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and





(b)
            the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respect, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





/s/ Raymond P.L.
      CannefaxDate:
      September 26, 2008
            Raymond P.L.
      CannefaxPresident and
      Chief Executive Officer
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 30443 Summary Calendar

JESSE CLARENCE BROWN, SR. ESTATE; RENE FELIPPE BROWN; DELICIA CARRIE MARSHALL; DANNA DERRELL BROWN; JESSE CLARENCE BROWN, JR.,

Plaintiffs

- Appellants

v.
NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY , Defendant

- Appellee

Appeal from the United States Dis trict Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:17

- CV

- 1486

Before CLEMENT, E LROD, and OLDHAM, Circuit Judges

. PER CURIAM: * Plaintiffs appeal the entry of summary judgment in this insurance

coverage dispute. The district court had subject

- matter jurisdiction because the defendant properly removed the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The court held plaintiffs are not entitled to lif e
- insurance benefits because the policy

owner stopped paying the premiums fifteen years before he died. After carefully considering the eight issues raised in the plaintiffs’ briefs, the record,

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 15, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-30443 Document: 00515273616 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/15/2020No. 19

- 30443

2 and the applicable law, we agree with the district court. Its judgment is
AFFIRMED. Case: 19-30443 Document: 00515273616 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/15/2020
#### R. V. Grooms v. State

No. 25440.

November 7, 1951.

Rehearing Denied December 12, 1951.

*505Hon. Joe L. Mays, Judge Presiding.

*Wm. E. Davenport,*San Angelo, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was fined the sum of $50.00 upon a charge of driving an automobile while intoxicated.

There are two bills of exception in the record, both being in the same condition. They relate to what occurred at the time the highway patrolman arrived at the scene of the accident where appellant was arrested and afterwards charged with the offense mentioned.

Bill of Exception No. 1 is an objection to the state’s witness saying anything as to what occurred after the officer arrived at the scene of the accident in question herein. The bill itself shows that the officer did not testify to anything that took place after he arrived at the scene of the accident. Therefore, the bill is insufficient in that it fails to show what the objectionable testimony was, if any. Under the general rule laid down in 4 Tex. Jur. p. 303, secs. 210 and 211, we think the bill evidences no error.

Bill of Exception No. 2 is an objection to the arresting officer making the statement that “Grooms admitted he was driving the pick-up.” If there was any error in admitting such statement, it was cured by the fact that Grooms himself took the stand and admitted that he was driving the pick-up at such time. We think that this bill is without merit. See 4 Tex. Jur. p. 587, sec. 414, and numerous authorities there cited.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

*506MORRISON, Judge.

On motion for rehearing, appellant presents what to us is a novel contention. He sets forth that portion of the court’s charge in which the court defined intoxication. He does not complain about the same, not having objected thereto in the trial court, but now says that the proof offered by the state does not meet the definition contained in the charge.

The charge read as follows: “A person is deemed intoxicated within the meaning of the law defining the offense charged against the defendant, when such person does not have the normal use of his physical and mental faculties by reason of the use of intoxicating liquor.”

This court has held that such a definition is not necessary, but that giving one, substantially the same as shown above, is not error. Lockhart v. State, 108 Tex. Cr. R. 597, 1 S. W. (2d) 894. However, we call attention to the fact that the arresting officer testified, in part, as follows: “When I stood about one foot distant from Grooms I smelled liquor, Grooms was thick tongued and didn’t talk coherently. I concluded that he was drunk.”

Appellant’s contention may best be answered by a proper realization of what determines the issue in a criminal case. The issue is determined by the indictment or information and appellant’s plea thereto. The charge of the court cannot change or limit the issue thus joined.

Appellant’s motion for rehearing is overruled.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS 

OF THE STATE OF TEXAS 

PD-___________________ 

REGINALD TURON HILL § 

Appellant § On Petition for Review of 

v. § No. 14-14-00376-CR

§ Court of Appeals 

§ Fourteenth District of Texas 

THE STATE OF TEXAS § 

Appellee 

PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S MOTION TO EXTEND TIME 

TO FILE PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW 

Petitioner/Appellant Reginald Turon Hill, moves for an extension of time to file 

his petition for discretionary review, under TEX. R. APP. P. 10.5(b). 

I. LOWER COURT PROCEEDINGS 

Judgment in this case was entered on May 8, 2014. The court of appeals affirmed 

on August 25, 2015. No motion for rehearing was filed. 

II. PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT 

Mr. Hill’s petition is due on September 24, 2015. No previous extensions have 

been requested. 

III. REASONS FOR REQUEST 

Since the court of appeals handed down its judgment, counsel has been working 

to complete briefs in Margaret Mayer v. State, Cause No. 14-14-01011-CR, which is 

subject to abatement; Herman Whitfield v. State, Cause No. 01-15-00274-CR; Eric Samuel 

PD-1260-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 9/24/2015 12:40:48 PM

Accepted 9/24/2015 4:36:49 PM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
2

Tucker v. State, Cause No. 01-15-00274-CR; and Bo Daniel Shafer v. State, Cause No. 14-

15-00372-CR; as well as applications for writs of habeas corpus arising from juvenile 

certification issues brought to light by the Moon/Guerrero/Yado line of cases. 

IV. FILING OF MOTION

In the exercise of due diligence, counsel could not complete Mr. Hill’s petition

by the deadline. This motion is not filed for purposes of delay, but so justice may be 

done.

PRAYER

Mr. Hill respectfully requests that this motion be granted and that the Court 

permit an extension of time until October 24, 2015, to file his petition for discretionary 

review.

Respectfully submitted,

ALEXANDER BUNIN

Chief Public Defender

Harris County Texas 

/s/ Cheri Duncan

______________________________

CHERI DUNCAN

Assistant Public Defender 

Harris County Texas

State Bar No. 06210500

1201 Franklin, 13th Floor

Houston Texas 77002

(713) 368-0016

(713) 368-9278 (Fax)

cheri.duncan@pdo.hctx.net
3

Attorney for Petitioner/Appellant,

REGINAL TURON HILL

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a copy of Appellant’s Motion to Extend Time to File Petition was 

served on the State of Texas by electronic delivery to the Appellate Division of the 

Harris County District Attorney’s Office and the State Prosecuting Attorney, 

September 24, 2015.

/s/ Cheri Duncan

_________________________

CHERI DUNCAN
#### JONES v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.

No. 5688.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

April 1, 1938.

Brunswig Sholars and Jas. H. Dormon, both of Monroe, for appellant.

Madison, Madison & Fuller, of Bastrop, and Jackson, Smith & Mayer, of .Shreveport, for appellee.

DREW, Judge.

In this cause the appellant has filed the following motion:

> “Now into this Honorable Court comes Herbert W. Jones, plaintiff-appellant in the above styled cause, through his undersigned counsel, appearing herein solely for the purpose of this motion, and says:

> “1. That judgment has been rendered in this cause by the Fourth Judicial District Court in favor of defendant, rejecting plaintiff’s demands at his cost.

> “2. That this judgment was read, signed and filed; that orders of appeal were granted, on plaintiff’s motion in open court, to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.

> “3. That the amount in controversy at the time this case was submitted to the District Court for decision was $2000.00, plus the sum of $500.00 as attorney’s fees.

> “4. That after orders of appeal were granted to the Supreme Court, as aforesaid, plaintiff, through his counsel, appeared in open court and requested that the orders of appeal to the Supreme Court be set aside; that the Court granted this request and set the orders of appeal aside; that plaintiff’s counsel then dictated into the record a minute entry entering' or granting a remittitur to defendant of the sum of $501.00, and thereby reduced the total amount of plaintiff’s claim to $1999.-00; that then plaintiff requested orders of appeal to this Honorable Court which was granted. •

> “5. That this cause has been docketed and fixed for argument in this court on April 4, 1938.

> “6. That subsequent to the perfection of this appeal, this Court decided the case of Rockefeller v. Eggleston, 177 So. 124, his honor, Judge Drew, being the organ of the court; that this case held that the amount in controversy at the time a case is submitted to the district court for decision determines the appellate jurisdiction; that consent of the parties cannot confer jurisdiction ratione materiae and the case was ordered transferred to the Supreme Court.

> “7. That when the case at bar was submitted to the district court for decision, the amount in controversy was in excess of $2000.00, and that therefore "the Supreme *182Court, under the decision above referred to, has jurisdiction of the appeal.

> “Wherefore, appearer moves and prays that this cause be ordered transferred to the Supreme Court of Louisiana.”

Appellee has concurred in the above motion. The facts alleged therein are correct, as shown by the record.

It therefore is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that this case be transferred to the Supreme Court of this state, and that appellant be granted and allowed thirty days from the date this judgment becomes final to perfect his appeal to said court, in accordance with its rules.