alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FIRST AMENDMENT TO AMERICOMM

                   CHEYENNE RIVER PROSPECT AGREEMENT


This Agreement (Amendment), made and entered into this 9th day
of April, 1998, amends the Americomm Cheyenne River Prospect
Agreement entered into March 4, 1998, by and between Fred S.
Jensen, Richard H. Bate, A. R. Briggs and Thomas L. Thompson, First
Parties, (JBB&T) and Americomm Resources Corporation, a Delaware
Corporation, Second Party (Americomm) (Agreement);

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, since the Agreement was entered into, certain changes
of circumstance have occurred which necessitate modification of the
Agreement;

NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree, in consideration of their
past performance of the Agreement, as follows:

In paragraph 2 of the Agreement, the Entire Prospect is deemed
an AMI and is outlined on Exhibit B to the Agreement.  The parties
have agreed to enlarge the Entire Prospect by the inclusion of
additional acreage, as shown on Exhibit A to this amendment and
the parties agree that the Entire Prospect and the Area of Mutual
Interest (AMI) shall be enlarged to include all land covered by
Exhibit A to this Amendment; provided, however, that, because
United Utilities Corporation has elected to retain the acreage
which it owns within the United Block, the AMI established by this
Agreement shall be subject to the prior AMI covering the United
Block.  Any acreage acquired by any party to this Amendment within
the United Block shall first be offered to United Utilities
Corporation.  If United Utilities Corporation elects not to acquire
such tendered acreage, then such acreage shall be subject to the
AMI established by this Amendment and shall be offered to Americomm
in accordance with paragraph 2 of the Agreement.  Nothing herein
shall have any application after the expiration of the respective
AMI's.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands
the day and year first above written.


AMERICOMM RESOURCES CORPORATION



Thomas R. Bradley
Thomas R. Bradley, President

Fred S. Jensen

Richard H. Bate, individually and
as Trustee for Americomm Resources
Corporation

A. R. Briggs

Thomas L. Thompson
MR. CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK, FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

301 FANNIN

HOUSTON, TX 77002

RE: Case No. 14-0811 DATE: 11/20/2015

COA #: 01-13-00357-CV TC#: 2011-36224

STYLE:ENDURING RESOURCES, LLC

v. TALISMAN ENERGY USA INC. AND STATOIL TEXAS

ONSHORE PROPERTIES, LLC

Today the Supreme Court of Texas denied the

petition for review in the above-referenced case.

FILE COPY
* 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.

1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 00-60372 Summary Calendar

___________________________

LURLENE ROBERTS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

WALTHALL COUNTY GENERAL HOSPITAL; JAMES GRAVES, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Administrator of Walthall County General Hospital; ROBERT LEE HOBGOOD, LARRY MARTIN, TRUETT SIMMONS, IVERSON DAVIS and LOUIE HUHN, Individually and in their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Trustees of

Walthall County General Hospital,

Defendants-Appellees.

___________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court For the Southern District of Mississippi

2:99-CV-298-PG

___________________________________________________ December 1, 2000

Before DAVIS, JONES, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

We agree with the district court that Roberts was an at-will

employee and had no right to notice and a hearing before being

termi nated. Miss. Code Ann. Supp. § 41-13-35(5)(n)(1999) gives

the board of trustees at Walthall County General Hospital

(“Hospital”) the power to enter into an employment contract, but it2

d oes not r equire the board to contract with its employees.

Therefore, in the absence of an employment contract, Roberts does

not have a property interest in her employment that entitles her to

notice and a hearing before being terminated. Accordingly,

essentially for the reasons stated by the district court in its May

4, 2000 Memorandum Opinion and Order, the judgment of the district

court is AFFIRMED.
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the Form
10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods
presented in the Form 10-Q.
 Dated: May 12, 2008
    /s/ Raymond J. MerkRaymond J. MerkChief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 35.1



World Omni Financial Corp.

Servicer Compliance Statement

Pursuant to Item 1123

of Regulation AB





I, Victor A. De Jesus,
do hereby certify that I am the Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of World Omni Financial Corp., a Florida corporation,
and further certify on behalf of World Omni Financial Corp. in its capacity as servicer (the "Servicer") under the Sale
and Servicing Agreement, dated as of May 29, 2013 (the “Agreement”), among World Omni Auto Receivables Trust 2013-A,
as Issuing Entity, World Omni Auto Receivables LLC, as Depositor, and the Servicer, as follows:



(i)          A
review of the activities of the Servicer during the period covered by the issuing entity’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance under the Agreement, has been
made under my supervision.



(ii)         To
the best of my knowledge, based on the review described above, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement
in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.



| |  | IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand as of March 14, 2014.
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



| | WORLD OMNI FINANCIAL CORP.                          
| | ----------------------------------------------------
| |                                                     
| | By:                                                 
| | Name:  Victor A. De Jesus                           
| | Title:  Vice President, Finance and Administration /
| | Chief Financial Officer                             











WORLD OMNI FINANCIAL CORP.

190 Jim Moran Boulevard

Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442

954-429-2000



March 27, 2014



Securities and Exchange Commission

100 F Street, N.E.

Washington, D.C. 20549

Attn: Filing Desk



| | Re: | World Omni Auto Receivables Trust 2013-A
| | --- | ----------------------------------------



Gentlemen:



Enclosed on behalf
of World Omni Auto Receivables Trust 2013-A (the "Company") is one copy, with exhibits, of the Company's Annual Report
on Form 10-K being filed pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the rules thereunder,
including Rule 101 of Regulation S-T. This report is for the period ending December 31, 2013.



| | Sincerely,                           
| | -------------------------------------
| |                                      
| | /s/ Alan Browdy                      
| | Alan Browdy                          
| | Vice President - Corporate Controller
| | JM Family Enterprises, Inc.          



|cc: | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP                 
|--- | -------------------------------------------
|    | Patricia Roach - World Omni Financial Corp.
1

The Honorable John F. Nangle, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-3991

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, * 

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Raymond L. White, also known as *

Bang, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 13, 2003

Filed: May 22, 2003 

___________

Before WOLLMAN and BEAM, Circuit Judges, and NANGLE,1

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

On August 16, 2002, Raymond White plead guilty to conspiracy to distribute

more than 50 grams of cocaine base. At a sentencing hearing on November 8, 2002,

he argued that he was a "minor participant" in the conspiracy and requested a

reduction in his offense level pursuant to United States Sentencing Guidelines section
2

The Honorable Lyle E. Strom, United States District Judge for the District of

Nebraska.

3

Amendment 640 provides a maximum base offense level of 30 for defendants

who receive a mitigating role adjustment. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual

supp. to app. C at 263-64. But that does not alter our analysis in determining, in the

first place, whether a defendant is entitled to the adjustment, and the district court

correctly noted this point.

-2-

3B1.2(b). The district court2

 denied his request and sentenced him to 145 months in

prison. White appeals. We affirm.

The district court's determination of whether a defendant qualifies for a role

reduction is a question of fact to be reviewed for clear error. United States v. Monk,

312 F.3d 389, 390 (8th Cir. 2002). Section 3B1.2(b) provides for a two-level

decrease if "the defendant was a minor participant" in criminal activity, and the

application notes define a "minor participant" as a defendant "who is less culpable

than most other participants." U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3B1.2(b) n.5.

We have held that a minor participant reduction is inappropriate when the district

court bases the offense level only on drug quantities directly attributable to the

defendant. United States v. Thurmon, 278 F.3d 790, 792-93 (8th Cir. 2002). The

sentence in that circumstance will already reflect the defendant's smaller role in

relation to the quantities attributable to the larger conspiracy. Id. at 793. White's

argument that the November 1, 2002, amendment to section 3B1.2 overrides this

well-established rule is inapposite.3

 

White concedes that his sentence was based solely on the amount of cocaine

base for which he was directly responsible. We find no clear error and affirm the

district court's denial of White's request for a minor participant reduction.
-3-

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
ALD

- 023 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________ No. 13

- 3601

___________
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. JEFFREY RIGGINS, Appellant

____________________________________ On Appeal from the United State s District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (D.C. C rim. No. 2

- 06

- cr - 00700

- 001 ) District Judge: Honorable Juan R. Sanchez

____________________________________ Submitted for Possible Summary Action Pursuant to Third Circuit LAR 27.4 and I.O.P. 10 .6

October 31, 2013

Before: RENDELL, FISHER and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed : November 21, 2013 )2 _________ O P I N I O N

_________ PER CURIAM Jeffrey Riggins appeals the District Court’s order denying his motion to correct a clerical error in his criminal judgment. For the reasons below, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. Riggins was convicted in 2007 of twenty

- five counts of possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute as well as one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). He was sentenced to 432 months in prison. Because Riggins had at least three previous convictions for serious drug offenses or violent felonies, he was subject to a mandatory minimum sentence of fifteen years in prison for the § 922(g) conviction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 924(e). On direct appeal, we affirmed Riggins’s conviction and sentence. United States v. Riggins , 319 F. App’x 180 (3d Cir. 2009). In July 2013, Riggins filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 to correct a purported clerical error in his criminal judgment. He argued that the judgment was inaccurate because it failed to refer to the sentencing enhance ment under § 924(e). The District Court determined that the absence of a reference to § 924(e) was not an error that required correction. It denied the motion, and Riggins filed a notice of appeal. Under Rule 36, a District Court may correct a clerical error in a judgment at any time. The purported error here does not involve a failure to accurately record an action or3

statement by the District Court. See United States v. Bennett , 423 F.3d 271, 277

- 78 (3d Cir. 2005). Riggins has not alleged that the s entence on the criminal judgment does not reflect the sentence imposed by the District Court at sentencing. Because there was no clerical error to be corrected, the District Court did not err in denying Riggins’s Rule 36
motion. Summary action is appropr iate if there is no substantial question presented in the appeal. See Third Circuit LAR 27.4. For the above reasons, as well as those set forth by the District Court, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s order. See Third Circuit
I.O.P. 10.6.
| (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 result of operations of the      registrant. |

|  Date:  April      21, 2008 | /S/ Fernando      Juan                                                          |
|--------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                       | Fernando      Juan                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           |
|                                       | Chief      Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      |
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

________________________

No. 07-18-00277-CV 

________________________

STEPHEN PATRICK BLACK, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

BRIAN THOMAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 154th District Court 

Lamb County, Texas 

Trial Court No. DCV-19,873-18; Honorable Felix Klein, Presiding 

 

August 8, 2018 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. 

Pending before this court is a motion to dismiss filed by Appellant, Stephen Patrick 

Black, proceeding in forma pauperis. Without passing on the merits of the appeal, 

Appellant’s motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1). 

Having dismissed this appeal at Appellant’s request, no motion for rehearing will be 

entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Per Curiam
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 1 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. CON. RES. 1

   Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax is not in the 
                economic interest of the United States.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 7, 2015

  Mr. Vitter submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
   Expressing the sense of Congress that a carbon tax is not in the 
                economic interest of the United States.

Whereas a carbon tax is regressive in nature and would unfairly burden those 
        vulnerable individuals and families in the United States that are 
        already struggling with increasing electricity rates and a slow economic 
        recovery;
Whereas a carbon tax would increase the cost of every good manufactured in the 
        United States;
Whereas a carbon tax would harm the entire United States manufacturing sector;
Whereas European nations that have adopted carbon policies and regulatory 
        regimes have forced energy poverty on their citizens and undermined 
        their economies;
Whereas the increase in production of domestic fossil energy resources on 
        private and State-owned land has created significant job growth and 
        private capital investment; and
Whereas affordable and reliable energy sources are critical to maintaining the 
        United States global competitiveness: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress that a carbon tax would be detrimental 
to families and businesses in the United States, and is not in the 
interest of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
J

- S64007

- 17

NON

- PRECEDENTIAL DECISION

- SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Appellant

v.

DHRUV PATEL :
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
: IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 682 MDA 2017
Appeal from the Order Entered March 21, 2017 In the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County Criminal Division at No(s): CP

- 06

- CR

- 0001435

- 2016

BEFORE: PANELLA, J., SHOGAN, J., and FITZGERALD*, J.

JUDGMENT ORDER BY PANELLA, J. FILED DECEMBER 08, 2017

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania appeals from an order

suppressing the results of a blood test administered after A ppellee, Dhruv

Patel, was arrested for suspicion of driving under the influence. The

Commonwealth argues Birc hfield v. North Dakota , 136 S.Ct. 2160

(2016), does not invalidate Pennsylvania’s doctrine of implied consent when

the defendant is charged with driving under the influence of narcotics. 1

However, the Commonwealth concedes that Commonwealth v. Ennels ,

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

1 The factual record before the suppression court consisted entirely of a six sentence stipulation of facts and the DL

- 26 (Chemical Testing Warnings) form signed by Patel. Neither of these documents reference the narcotics which were revealed in the blood test.

* Former Justice specially assigned to the Superior Court.J

- S64007

- 17

- 2

-

167 A.3d 716 (Pa. Super. 2017) , controls the outcome in this case. See

Appellant’s Brief, at 4. The Commonwealth indicates that it desired to

preserve the issue while its petition for reargument en banc in Ennels was
pending.

That petition was denied, and Enn els thus stands as controlling

precedent in this case

. See Sorber v. American Motorists Ins. Co. , 680

A.2d 881, 882 (Pa. Super. 1996). As the Commonwealth recognizes , Ennels

rejected the argument it raises in this appeal. We therefore conclude that no

relief is due.

Order affirmed.

Judgment Entered.

Joseph D. Seletyn, Esq. Prothonotary

Date: 10/10/2017J

- S64007

- 17

- 3

-
<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 on Form 10-Q of Health Fitness
Corporation (the "Company") for the period ended March 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 15, 2003 (the "Periodic Report"),
I, Jerry V. Noyce, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1.   The Periodic Report 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

     2.   The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in
          all material respects, the financial condition and results of
          operations of the Company.



/s/      Jerry V. Noyce


Jerry V. Noyce
Chief Executive Officer
Health Fitness Corporation
May 15, 2003
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned officer of DATATRAK International, Inc. (the Company),
does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



| | 1. |  | the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended September 30, 2003 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | -- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | 2. |  | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in
the Form 10-Q.               

|                         |  |                                                             
|------------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 10, 2003 |  | /s/ Jeffrey A. GreenJeffrey A. Green
Chief Executive Officer