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

                                                                    Exhibit 23.3


                    [Letterhead of DeGolyer and MacNaughton]


                                January 11, 2001


Vintage Petroleum, Inc.
110 West Seventh Street
Tulsa, Oklahoma 74119

Gentlemen:

          We hereby consent to the inclusion of the information incorporated by
reference in this Form S-8 Registration Statement with respect to the Bolivian
oil and gas reserves, as of December 31, 1999, of Vintage Petroleum, Inc., (the
"Company"), the future net revenues from such reserves, and the present value
thereof, as set forth in our "Appraisal Report as of December 31, 1999, on
Reserves of Certain Properties in Bolivia Operated by Vintage Petroleum, Inc.,"
which information has been incorporated by reference in this Form S-8
Registration Statement in reliance upon such report of this firm and upon the
authority of this firm as experts in petroleum engineering.  However, we are
necessarily unable to verify (i) the accuracy of future net revenues and
discounted present value of future net revenues incorporated by reference from
the Company's filings because our estimates of future net revenues and
discounted present value of future net revenues have been combined with
estimates prepared by other petroleum engineers,  and (ii) the accuracy of
reserves estimates and the basis for changes to reserves estimates prior to
December 31, 1999.  We hereby further consent to all references to our firm in
this Form S-8 Registration Statement.

                                        Very truly yours,

                                        /s/ DeGolyer and MacNaughton

                                        DeGOLYER and MacNAUGHTON
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Estella G. Barrientos, individually * From the County Court at Law No. 2

and independent administratix of the of Ector County,

Estate of Donato Lujan Barrientos; Trial Court No. 19,744-09.

Vivian Barrientos; Eva Barrientos;

and Eusebio Barrientos,

Vs. No. 11-22-00147-CV * September 14, 2023

Modesto L. Barrientos, *Opinion by Trotter, J.

 (Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

 Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

 

 

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by 

reason of this appeal are taxed against Estella G. Barrientos, individually and 

independent administratix of the Estate of Donato Lujan Barrientos; Vivian 

Barrientos; Eva Barrientos; and Eusebio Barrientos.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Judge Christine M. Arguello

Criminal Case No. 11-cr-00430-CMA-02

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

2. MARIE DALTON,

Defendant.

PRELIMINARY ORDER OF FORFEITURE

AND FORFEITURE MONEY JUDGMENT

This matter is before the Court on the United States’ Motion for Preliminary Order

of Forfeiture and Forfeiture Money Judgment (Doc. # 170). The Court having read said

Motion and being fully advised in the premises finds:

The United States and Defendant Marie Dalton entered into a Plea Agreement,

which provides a factual basis and cause to issue a forfeiture order under 18 U.S.C.

§ 981(a)(1)(C), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), and Rule 32.2(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure;

THAT prior to the disposition of the assets, the United States is required to

seize the forfeited property and provide notice to any third parties pursuant to 21

U.S.C. § 853(n).
2

THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, DECREED AND ADJUDGED:

THAT Defendant Marie Dalton’s interest in the following:

a. a $5,000,000.00 money judgment, representing the amount of

proceeds obtained by the Defendant; 

b. 927 Cole Street, Golden, Colorado; 

c. one Webber OM Guitar with case S/N 2310; and

d. one 1.05 Carat diamond, currently part of a 14KT Yellow Gold ring,

is forfeited to the United States in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), and 28

U.S.C. § 2461(c). Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(b)(4), this Preliminary Order of

Forfeiture shall become final as to Defendant Marie Dalton at the time of sentencing and

shall be made part of the sentence and included in the judgment;

THAT the United States Marshal, or its designated sub-custodian, is directed to

seize the property subject to forfeiture, and further to make your return as provided by

law;

THAT the United States shall publish notice of this Preliminary Order of

Forfeiture in accordance with 21 U.S.C. § 853(n) via a government website for thirty

consecutive days;

THAT upon adjudication of all third-party interests, if any, the Court will enter a

Final Order of Forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C), 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), and

Rule 32.2(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, in which all interests will be

addressed.
3

The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce this Order and adjudicate the

interests of all third-parties in ancillary proceedings. 

SO ORDERED this 7th day of May, 2013.

BY THE COURT:

_______________________________

CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO

United States District Judge
**Exhibit 21**

 

 

*Link to searchable text of slide shown above*

 

 

**Searchable text section ofgraphics shown above**

 

----

 

**Or****ganizational Chart**

 
| SAFETY INSURANCE  GROUP, INC.        |
|--------------------------------------|
| 100%                                 |
|                                 |   |   |
| 100%                                 |   | 100% |
| SAFETY INSURANCE  COMPANY            |   | WHITESHIRTS  MANAGEMENT  CORPORATION |
|                                 |   |   |
| 100%                                 |   | 100% |
| SAFETY INDEMNITY  INSURANCE  COMPANY |   | WHITESHIRTS ASSET  MANAGEMENT  CORPORATION |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JAN-2-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-5-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                JUL-4-1999
<CASH>                                           8,228
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   83,655
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (5,141)
<INVENTORY>                                     45,864
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               146,072
<PP&E>                                         102,634
<DEPRECIATION>                                (56,850)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 211,965
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          182,952
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           116
<OTHER-SE>                                      17,034
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   211,965
<SALES>                                        129,833
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               202,504
<CGS>                                           94,134
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  158,463
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                46,884
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,615
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,458)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        13
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (8,471)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (8,471)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.73)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>

This schedule  contains summary financial  information  extracted from Investors
First-Staged  Equity L.P.  2000 Third  Quarter  10-QSB and is  qualified  in its
entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                               0000768834
<NAME>                              Investors First-Staged Equity L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>                                           1,000


<S>                                   <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                      JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                                 2,270
<SECURITIES>                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            459
<ALLOWANCES>                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                           0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                                36,280
<DEPRECIATION>                                        22,469
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                        17,642
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                      0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                               38,024
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                0
<COMMON>                                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                           (22,242)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                          17,642
<SALES>                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                       4,689
<CGS>                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      12,540
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     9,675
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                          (7,851)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (477.95)<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                              0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


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

Supreme Court No. DA 20-0322

TYLER JACK SNIDER,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MONTANA,

Respondent and Appellee.

GRANT OF EXTENSION

Pursuant to authority granted under Mont. R. App. P. 26(1), the

Appellant is given an extension of time until October 28, 2020 to

prepare, file, and serve the Appellant’s Opening brief. 

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 28 2020

09/28/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0322
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-6615

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERT CY MANN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District

Judge. (CR-98-47)

Submitted: January 25, 2006 Decided: February 14, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Cy Mann, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Special

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Robert Cy Mann seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders of February 17, 2005, and April 22, 2005, denying his

motions to reconsider. The orders, which derive from the denial of

a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), are not appealable unless

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363,

369 (4th Cir. 2004). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his

constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Mann has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exhibit  32.2

Certification of Chief Financial Officer of Bluegate Corporation, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and Section 1350 of 18 U.S.C. 63.

I, Greg J. Micek, the Chief Financial Officer of Bluegate Corporation hereby
certify that Bluegate Corporation's periodic report on Form 10-QSB and the
financial statements contained therein fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or
78o(d) and that information contained in the periodic report on Form 10-QSB and
the financial statements contained therein fairly represents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of the operations of Bluegate
Corporation.

Date:  May  13,  2005


/s/  Greg  J.  Micek
Greg  J.  Micek
CFO  of  Bluegate  Corporation


A signed original of this written statement has been provided to Bluegate
Corporation and will be retained by Bluegate Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Notices 61799 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 08–88] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 08–88 

with attached transmittal, policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

Dated: October 7, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
61800 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Notices 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN17OC08.024</GPH> 
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Notices 61801 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN17OC08.025</GPH> 
61802 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Notices 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN17OC08.026</GPH> 
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Notices 61803 

[FR Doc. E8–24453 Filed 10–16–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICESEN17OC08.027</GPH> 
61804 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 202 / Friday, October 17, 2008 / Notices 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal Nos. 08–99] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 1996. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 601– 

3740. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittals 08–99 

with attached transmittal, policy 

justification, and Sensitivity of 

Technology. 

Dated: October 7, 2008. 

Patricia L. Toppings, 

OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, 

Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-31222 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ROBERT EARL LEE, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 95-CR-30029

- - - - - - - - - - March 5, 1998 Before JONES, SMITH and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Robert Earl Lee appeals his jury conviction for four counts of making a false statement on a United States Treasury Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) Form 4473 and four counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Lee argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions. We have reviewed the record and find that as to counts one and two, a reasonable trier of fact could find the evidence established the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. SeeNo. 96-31222 -2- United States v. Alix , 86 F.3d 429, 435 (5th Cir. 1996). As to counts three through eight, we find that the record is not “so devoid of evidence pointing to guilt” or “so tenuous that his conviction is viewed as shocking.” See United States v. Vaquero , 997 F.2d 78, 82 (5th Cir. 1993). Lee also contends that the district court erroneously believed that it lacked the authority to depart downward under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines § 5K2.0 based on Lee’s poor health. Because the district court properly considered its authority and discretion under the Guidelines and determined that a downward departure was not warranted under the circumstances, we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of a downward departure. See United States v. DiMarco , 46 F.3d 476, 477 (5th Cir. 1995).
AFFIRMED.
#### MANSFIELD v. FLORIDA SANITARIUM & BENEVOLENT ASS’N.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June Term 1953.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
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.                  

###### Office of the United States Trade Representative

# AGENCY:

Office of the United States Trade Representative.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The following staff members have been appointed to serve on the Performance Review Board:

## Performance Review Board (PRB)

*Chair:*                         Florizelle Liser                    

*Alternate Chair:*                         Barbara Weisel                    

*Member:*                         Christopher Wilson                    

*Member:*                         Lewis Karesh                    

*Executive Secretary:*                         Susan Buck                    

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         August 12, 2010.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Questions regarding this submission should be directed to Lorraine Green, Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Administration and Director of Human Resources (202) 395-7360.

Lorraine Green,

Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Administration and Director of Human Resources.

[FR Doc. 2010-21371 Filed 8-26-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190-W0-P
#### Jimmy Lewis BROADNAX, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 44351.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 7, 1971.

*469Tom L. Zachry, Fort Worth, for appellant.

Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

DALLY, Commissioner.

The conviction is for robbery by assault; the punishment, twenty years.

A plea of not guilty before a jury was entered.

A taxicab driver testified that the appellant robbed him. The cab driver had known the appellant for four or five years. Appellant shot the driver three times. The last shot was fired into the cab driver’s back, while he was lying on the ground. The cab driver’s billfold containing $40 was taken from him. The appellant fled from the scene in the taxicab.

It appears the appellant was well represented at the trial by court-appointed counsel. The same attorney now represents him by appointment on appeal.

Counsel has filed a brief stating that he has examined the record and has consulted with appellant concerning the case. Counsel finds no grounds of error which may be urged for reversal of this case.

The record contains a witnessed certificate signed by the appellant, acknowledging receipt of a copy of counsel’s brief and “a copy of the Transcript and Statement of Facts prepared for this appeal.”

The appellant’s pro se brief urges several grounds of error concerning alleged conflicts in the testimony of the witnesses. An example of the nature of the conflicting testimony is that one witness testified appellant had on shoes and another testified he had on sandals. These alleged conflicts in the testimony were before the jury for their consideration and have been resolved by their verdict.

A careful examination of the entire record before us has been made and we find that the appeal is frivolous.

The requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 and Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Cr.App.1969) have been fully complied with.

The judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.