alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 24.5  
 

  SI DIAMOND TECHNOLOGY, INC.  POWER OF ATTORNEY

SI DIAMOND TECHNOLOGY, INC. ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB

             The undersigned, in his capacity as a director of SI Diamond  Technology, Inc. (the "Company"), after reviewing the Company's Form 10-KSB,  does hereby appoint Douglas P. Baker, his true and lawful attorney to execute in his  name, place and stead, in his capacity as a Director of said Company, the  Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31,  2001, and all instruments necessary or incidental in connection therewith,  including all amendments, and to file the same with the Securities and Exchange  Commission. Said attorney shall have the full power and authority to do and  perform, in the name and on behalf of the undersigned, in any and all  capacities, every act whatsoever requisite or necessary to be done in the  premises, as fully and to all intents and purposes as the undersigned might or  could do in person, the undersigned hereby ratifying and approving the acts of  said attorney.

             IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this instrument this  13th day of March, 2002.

                                              /s/ Philip C. Shaffer                                              Philip C. Shaffer
MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-11-00511-CV

IN RE BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice 

Rebecca Simmons, Justice

Delivered and Filed: August 17, 2011

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On July 20, 2011, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. Then, on July 22, 2011, 

the trial court entered a final judgment in the case, and August 1, 2011 relator filed a notice of 

appeal. This court has determined that relator has an adequate remedy by appeal. See In re 

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding) (holding that 

to be entitled to mandamus relief relator must establish it lacks an adequate remedy by appeal). 

Therefore, the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2010-CVF-000798-D1, styled BP America Production Co. v. Carlos M. 

Zaffirini, Sr., et al., pending in the 49th Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable Jose A. Lopez

presiding.
The District Court of the 21st Judicial District. County of Ravalli.

#### STATE OF MONTANA Plaintiff, vs. SYDNI STICHT, Defendant.

CAUSE NO. DC-07-157 DECISION

On November 5, 2009, the defendant was sentenced for violation of the conditions of a deferred sentence for the offense of Negligent Vehicular Assault, a felony, to a commitment to the Department of Corrections for a period of eight (8) years with five (5) years suspended. The Department of Corrections shall screen Defendant for the appropriate Passages Program, *26followed by a pre-release program. Defendant shall attend and complete the Passages or Passages ADT Program, and all required aftercare in pre-release.

On April 2, 2010, the defendant’s application for review of that sentence was heard by the Sentence Review Division of the Montana Supreme Court.

The defendant was present via videoconference and was represented by Kris Copenhaver. The state was represented by John Bell who appeared via videoconference.

Before hearing the application, the defendant was advised that the Sentence Review Division has the authority not only to reduce the sentence or affirm it, but also increase it. The defendant was further advised that there is no appeal from a decision of the Sentence Review Division. The defendant acknowledged that she understood this and stated that she wished to proceed.

Rule 17 of the Rules of the Sentence Review Division of the Supreme Court of Montana provides that “the sentence imposed by the District Court is presumed correct, and the sentence will not be reduced or increased unless it is deemed clearly inadequate or excessive.” (§46-18-904(3), MCA).

The Division finds that the reasons advanced for modification are insufficient to hold that the sentence imposed by the District Court is inadequate or excessive.

Therefore, it is the unanimous decision of the Sentence Review Division that the sentence shall be affirmed.

Done in open Court this 2nd day of April, 2010.

DATED this 19th day of April, 2010.

Chairperson, Hon. Blair Jones, Member, Hon. Richard Simonton and Member, Hon. Ray Dayton.
#### In the Matter of Harold Flanders, Petitioner, v Brian Fischer, as Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, Respondent.

[962 NYS2d 827]

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following an investigation into an alleged drug ring, petitioner was charged in a misbehavior report with smuggling and drug *1239possession. He was found guilty as charged after a tier III disciplinary hearing, and the determination was affirmed upon administrative appeal. This CPLR article 78 proceeding ensued.

We confirm. The misbehavior report, testimony of the correction lieutenant who authored it, and confidential information provide substantial evidence to support the determination of guilt *(see Matter of Brown v Fischer,*98 AD3d 778, 779 [2012]; *Matter of Boyle v Fischer,*89 AD3d 1268, 1268 [2011]). Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the lieutenant’s testimony regarding the confidential information and detailed nature of the information itself permitted the Hearing Officer to independently assess its reliability and credibility *(see Matter of Vassell v Fischer,*48 AD3d 876, 876 [2008]; *Matter of Sheppard v Goord,*292 AD2d 694, 695 [2002]). Petitioner’s remaining contentions, to the extent they are preserved for our review, have been examined and found to lack merit.

Mercure, J.P, Rose, Spain and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE QUARTER ENDED JUNE 27, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-27-1998
<CASH>                                             122
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,901
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,104
<INVENTORY>                                     24,818
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,603
<PP&E>                                          41,898
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,077
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  72,934
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           99,970
<BONDS>                                          1,046
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         2,287
<OTHER-SE>                                    (30,369)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    72,934
<SALES>                                         88,423
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                88,423
<CGS>                                           95,992
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   95,992
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,765
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,007
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (19,341)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (19,341)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (19,341)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.11)
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RODNEY JEROME WOMACK, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

J. WINDSOR, MD; et al., 

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 18-15764 

D.C. No. 2:15-cv-00533-MCE-KJN 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Morrison C. England, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 21, 2019**

Before: THOMAS, Chief Judge, and FRIEDLAND and BENNETT, Circuit 

Judges.

Rodney Jerome Womack, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the 

district court’s summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging 

deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs. We have jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1056 (9th 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

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

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

FILED

MAY 30 2019

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 18-15764 

Cir. 2004). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Womack 

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendants were 

deliberately indifferent to his ankle pain. See id. 1057-60 (a prison official is 

deliberately indifferent only if he or she knows of and disregards an excessive risk 

to inmate health; a difference of opinion concerning the course of treatment does 

not amount to deliberate indifference); see also Peralta v. Dillard, 744 F.3d 1076, 

1087 (9th Cir. 2014) (reliance on the decisions of qualified providers does not 

constitute deliberate indifference); Jett v. Penner, 439 F.3d 1091, 1098 (9th Cir. 

2006) (delays must result in substantial harm to constitute deliberate indifference).

We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued 

in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.
BILL OF SALE
                                  ------------

We, Dan Patrie Exploration Ltd., a company incorporated  pursuant to the laws of
Ontario,  in consideration of the  sum of US$3,500,  hereby sell and transfer to
Dynamic Gold Inc. a 100%  interest in the  following  mineral  claims located in
the Red Lake area, Ontario, with the following claims details:

                                                                 Assessment Work
              Claim Number          No. of Claim Units              Due Date

                 3004508                    7                  February 16, 2006
                 3004509                    9                  November 14, 2005
                 3004510                    4                  November 14, 2005
                 3004511                    4                  November 14, 2005

DATED:  JUNE 16, 2003


DAN PATRIE EXPLORATION LTD.

per: /s/ Bryan Patrie
---------------------------------
Bryan Patrie, Exploration Manager
CERTIFICATION

     Pursuant  to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  (Subsections
(a)and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b)  of  section  1350,  chapter  63 of  title  18,  United  States  Code),  the
undersigned officer of eContent,  Inc., a Delaware  corporation (the "Company"),
does hereby certify, to such officers' knowledge, that:

The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10QSB for the  quarter  ended March 31, 2003 (the
"Form 10QSB") of the Company fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section
13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and information  contained
in the Form 10QSB fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the  financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: May 23, 2003


by: /s/ Daniel P. Cannon
Daniel P. Cannon,  CEO/Director







<PAGE>



                                  CERTIFICATION

     Pursuant  to Section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  (Subsections
(a)and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and
(b)  of  section  1350,  chapter  63 of  title  18,  United  States  Code),  the
undersigned officer of eContent,  Inc., a Delaware  corporation (the "Company"),
does hereby certify, to such officers' knowledge, that:

The  Quarterly  Report on Form 10QSB for the  quarter  ended March 31, 2003 (the
"Form 10QSB") of the Company fully  complies  with the  requirements  of section
13(a)or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and information  contained
in the Form 10QSB fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the  financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: May 23, 2003


by: /s/ William H. Campbell
William H. Campbell, Chief Financial Officer
Order entered April 10, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01462-CV

IN RE CAROL M. KAM

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-11-01368-3

ORDER

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY the petition for writ of 

mandamus. We ORDER Carol M. Kam to bear the costs of this original 

proceeding. 

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 24.2


                            SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY


           The undersigned constitutes and appoints Vincent Hren and William
Crowell, and each of them, his true and lawful attorney-in-fact and agent with
full power of substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place,
and stead, in any and all capacities, to sign the Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000, for filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission by Microtest, Inc., a Delaware corporation, together with
any and all amendments to such Form 10-K, and to file the same with all exhibits
thereto, and all documents in connection therewith, with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, granting to such attorneys-in-fact and agents, and each of
them, full power and authority to do and perform each and every act and thing
requisite and necessary to be done in and about the premises, as fully and to
all intents and purposes as he might or could do in person, hereby ratifying and
confirming all that such attorneys-in-fact and agents, or each of them, may
lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

           DATED:    March 27, 2001



            /s/ Roger Hackett
           ------------------
           Roger Hackett
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Katherine Beatriz NAVARRO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 05-13970

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Oct. 25, 2006.

Robin J. Farnsworth, Lauderdale, FL, Kathleen M. Williams, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Anne R. Schultz, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before BIRCH, CARNES and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robin J. Farnsworth, appointed counsel for Katherine Beatriz Navarro in this appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and has filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Navarro’s conviction and resulting sentence are AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, James C. Flores, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer of Plains Exploration & Production Company, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Plains Exploration &Production Company; 

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) [omitted in accordance with section III.E. of SEC Release No. 34-47986] for the registrant and we have: 

 

a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b. [omitted in accordance with section III.E. of SEC Release No. 34-47986]; 

 

c. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report, based on such evaluation; and 

 

d. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s control over financial reporting; and

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 

 

a. all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controls over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrols over financial reporting.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                   5
<MULTIPLIER>                                1
<CURRENCY>                                  U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                                                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                    12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                           DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                              JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                                DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                       1
<CASH>                                                          709,026
<SECURITIES>                                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                   174,601
<ALLOWANCES>                                                   (60,000)
<INVENTORY>                                                      40,969
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                939,050
<PP&E>                                                        1,267,593
<DEPRECIATION>                                                (563,054)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                2,539,116
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                           859,275
<BONDS>                                                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                                           0
<COMMON>                                                         29,438
<OTHER-SE>                                                    1,593,245
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                  2,539,116
<SALES>                                                       1,099,130
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                              1,099,130
<CGS>                                                           551,393
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                   551,393
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              2,419,826
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                               16,193
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             (1,897,401)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         (1,897,401)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                       0
<CHANGES>                                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                                (1,897,401)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                     (.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     (.65)
        

</TABLE>