alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY

#### Abukar Yarrow v. Commonwealth of Virginia

August 20, 1998

Case No. (Chancery) 155266

By Judge Arthur B. Vieregg

This case came before the court upon the petition of Mr. Abukar Yarrow, pursuant to Virginia Code § 19.2-392.2, for expungement of police and court records related to his prosecution for the felony of aggravated sexual battery. *See*Fairfax Circuit Court Criminal No. 92536. At a hearing held on August 4, 1998, the Commonwealth’s Attorney did not oppose the expungement. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the existence of police and court records might be an impediment to Mr. Yarrow’s attempts to seek employment.

Virginia Code § 19.2-392.2 authorizes a circuit court to expunge a felony record *only*where it is shown that the continued existence of such records will constitute “a manifest injustice.” *See generally Brown*v. *Commonwealth,*8 Va. App. 126, 132 (1989) (stating that “manifest injustice results when a person is sentenced for a crime other than for that which he was convicted.”); *Duck v. Commonwealth,*8 Va. App. 567, 571 (1989) (holding that denial of due process is a manifest injustice). In this case, a review of the file suggests that the case involved a complaint by a hospitalized minor that she was inappropriately touched by Mr. Yarrow, a hospital employee. Furthermore, a true bill had been returned by a grand jury, and, more significantly, the facts were sufficient for the case to go to the jury for deliberation. Although the Commonwealth was unable to convince a jury of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and he was found not guilty, under these circumstances, the petitioner has not satisfied the high standards of manifest injustice necessary for expungement in the case of a felony. The petition is accordingly denied.
EXHIBIT 23.2







      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS AND CONSULTANTS


As independent petroleum consultants,  we hereby consent to the incorporation of
our  reports   included  in  this  Form  10-K  into  Snyder  Oil   Corporation's
Registration  Statement  Nos.  33-34446,   33-45213,  33-  54809,  33-64219  and
333-09877.




                               NETHERLAND, SEWELL & ASSOCIATES, INC.



                               By:/s/ Frederic D. Sewell
                                  -----------------------------------
                                  Frederic D.  Sewell
                                  President




Dallas, Texas
March 11, 1997
SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

Case No. 6D23-1690

Lower Tribunal No. 2022-CA-002363-OC

_____________________________

EVA JACQUELINE ESPINOSA a/k/a JACKIE ESPINOSA,

Appellant, 

v.

OSCEOLA COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD, CHERYL GRIEB, AND CARLOS IRIZARRY, SR.,

Appellees.

_____________________________

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Osceola County.

Lisa T. Munyon, Judge.

November 14, 2023

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

TRAVER, C.J., and STARGEL and WOZNIAK, JJ., concur.

Neil L. Henrichsen, of Henrichsen Law Group, Jacksonville, for Appellant.

John T. LaVia, III, of Gardner, Bist, Bowden, Dee, LaVia, Wright, Perry & Harper, P.A., 

Tallahassee, and Ronald A. Labasky, Brewton Plante, P.A., Tallahassee, for Appellee, 

Osceola County Canvassing Board.

Christian W. Waugh and Mary A. Norberg, of Waugh Grant PLLC, Orlando, for Appellee, 

Cheryl Grieb.
2

James Ippoliti, of Widerman Malek, P.L., Celebration, for Appellee, Carlos Irizarry, Sr.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2662 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2662

  To dedicate a portion of the rental fees from wind and solar energy 
 projects on Federal land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land 
Management for the administrative costs of processing applications for 
          new wind and solar projects, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 2, 2009

  Mr. Heinrich (for himself, Mr. Bishop of Utah, Mr. Blumenauer, Mr. 
Inslee, Mr. Lujan, Ms. Markey of Colorado, Mr. Minnick, Mr. Teague, and 
  Ms. Titus) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                     Committee on Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To dedicate a portion of the rental fees from wind and solar energy 
 projects on Federal land under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land 
Management for the administrative costs of processing applications for 
          new wind and solar projects, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Clean Energy Promotion Act''.

SEC. 2. DEPOSIT AND USE OF ANNUAL WIND ENERGY AND SOLAR ENERGY RIGHT-
              OF-WAY AUTHORIZATION RENTAL FEES.

    (a) Deposit of Annual Wind Energy and Solar Energy Right-of-Way 
Authorization Rental Fees.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
amounts received up to $5,000,000 each fiscal year by the United States 
as annual wind energy and solar energy right-of-way authorization fees 
required under section 504(g) of the Federal Land Policy and Management 
Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1764(g)) shall be deposited into a separate 
account in the Treasury to be known as the ``BLM Wind Energy and Solar 
Energy Permit Processing Improvement Fund''.
    (b) Use of Deposits.--Amounts deposited under subsection (a) shall 
be available to the Secretary of the Interior for expenditure, without 
further appropriation and without fiscal year limitation, for salaries 
and expenses related to the Bureau of Land Management offices dedicated 
to the coordination and processing of wind energy and solar energy 
permit applications.
    (c) Transfer of Funds.--For the purposes of coordination and 
processing of wind energy and solar energy permit applications on 
public lands, the Secretary of the Interior may authorize the 
expenditure or transfer of such amounts deposited under subsection (a) 
as are necessary to--
            (1) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
            (2) the Environmental Protection Agency; and
            (3) State agencies involved in processing of wind and solar 
        permits on Federal lands under the jurisdiction of the Bureau 
        of Land Management.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.2**CERTIFICATION****PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES OXLEY ACT OF 2002**I, I. Michael Sweatman, certify that: 1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of JMAR Technologies, Inc.;  2) Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;  3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,and for, the periods presented in this annual report;  4) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is beingprepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this annual report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this annual report (based on such evaluation);and  c) disclosed in this annual report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and 5) The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors: a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 managementor other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.         By: /s/ I. Michael Sweatman             I. Michael Sweatman      Chief Financial Officer  March 30, 2007
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3365 

To reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 4, 2011 

Mrs. LUMMIS (for herself, Mr. HEINRICH, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. GOSAR, 

Mr. PEARCE, Mr. SIMPSON, and Mr. LUJA ́N) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation 

Act, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Federal Land Trans5 action Facilitation Act Reauthorization of 2011’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FEDERAL LAND TRANSACTION FACILITATION ACT. 

7 The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act is 

8 amended— 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3365 IH

1 (1) in section 203(2) (43 U.S.C. 2302(2)), by 

2 striking ‘‘on the date of enactment of this Act was’’ 

3 and inserting ‘‘is’’; 

4 (2) in section 205 (43 U.S.C. 2304)— 

5 (A) in subsection (a), by striking ‘‘this 

6 Act’’ and inserting ‘‘the Federal Land Trans7 action Facilitation Act Reauthorization of 

8 2011’’; and 

9 (B) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘11’’ and 

10 inserting ‘‘18’’; 

11 (3) in section 206 (43 U.S.C. 2305), by striking 

12 subsection (f); and 

13 (4) in section 207(b) (43 U.S.C. 2306(b))— 

14 (A) in paragraph (1)— 

15 (i) by striking ‘‘96–568’’ and insert16 ing ‘‘96–586’’; and 

17 (ii) by striking ‘‘; or’’ and inserting a 

18 semicolon; 

19 (B) in paragraph (2)— 

20 (i) by inserting ‘‘Public Law 105– 

21 263;’’ before ‘‘112 Stat.’’; and 

22 (ii) by striking the period at the end 

23 and inserting a semicolon; and 

24 (C) by adding at the end the following: 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 3365 IH

1 ‘‘(3) the White Pine County Conservation, 

2 Recreation, and Development Act of 2006 (Public 

3 Law 109–432; 120 Stat. 3028); 

4 ‘‘(4) the Lincoln County Conservation, Recre5 ation, and Development Act of 2004 (Public Law 

6 108–424; 118 Stat. 2403); 

7 ‘‘(5) subtitle F of title I of the Omnibus Public 

8 Land Management Act of 2009 (16 U.S.C. 1132 

9 note; Public Law 111–11); 

10 ‘‘(6) subtitle O of title I of the Omnibus Public 

11 Land Management Act of 2009 (16 U.S.C. 460www 

12 note, 1132 note; Public Law 111–11); 

13 ‘‘(7) section 2601 of the Omnibus Public Land 

14 Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–11; 123 

15 Stat. 1108); or 

16 ‘‘(8) section 2606 of the Omnibus Public Land 

17 Management Act of 2009 (Public Law 111–11; 123 

18 Stat. 1121).’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-09-149-CV

IN RE SADIQ ADELEKE	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered Relator Sadiq Adeleke’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  

	To the extent that Relator complains of matters pertaining to his final conviction, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has exclusive jurisdiction.  See Board of Pardons & Paroles ex. rel. Keene v. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Dist., 910 S.W.2d 481, 483 (Tex. Crim. App.1995); In re Briscoe, 230 S.W.3d 196, 196 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2006, orig. proceeding) (stating that courts of appeal have no jurisdiction over post-conviction writs of habeas corpus in felony cases); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2008).  

	To the extent that Relator complains of the trial court’s failure to conduct a hearing on his motion for DNA testing, Chapter 64 does not expressly require a hearing before the trial court determines whether to order DNA testing; rather it appears to contemplate that the decision may be made on the basis of the applicant’s motion and supporting affidavit and the State’s written response.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.03 (Vernon Supp. 2008); In re Fain, 83 S.W.3d 885, 888 (Tex. App.—Austin 2002, no pet.).  To the extent that Relator complains of the trial court’s denial of his motion for DNA testing on December 11, 2008, the denial of a motion for DNA testing is appealable.  See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.05 (Vernon 2006); Reger v. State, 222 S.W.3d 510, 513 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, pet. ref’d); Lopez v. State, 114 S.W.3d 711, 714 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2003, no pet.).  Accordingly, Relator had an adequate remedy by appeal but failed to pursue it.

	To the extent that Relator complains of the trial court’s failure to conduct a hearing on his motion for new trial, nothing in the record indicates that this motion has been presented to the trial court.  Presentment of the motion to the trial court is a prerequisite to mandamus relief.  See O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 97 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding) (“Mandamus will issue when there is a legal duty to perform a non-discretionary act, a demand for performance, and a refusal.”); In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding) (“Indeed, one can hardly be faulted for doing nothing if he were never aware of the need to act.”).  Additionally, whether a trial court abuses its discretion by not holding a hearing on a motion for new trial is appealable.  See, e.g., Lemmons v. State, No. 02-04-00086-CR, 2005 WL 1356270, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth June 9, 2005, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (holding trial court did not abuse discretion by not holding hearing). 

	Accordingly, Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:  MCCOY, GARDNER, and WALKER, JJ. 

DELIVERED:  July 28, 2009
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 316 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 316

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 5, 2012

  Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
                   For the relief of Esther Karinge.

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

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR ESTHER KARINGE.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of section 
201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Esther Karinge shall be 
eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for adjustment of status 
to that of an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence upon 
filing an application for issuance of an immigrant visa under section 
204 of such Act or for adjustment of status to lawful permanent 
resident.
    (b) Adjustment of Status.--If Esther Karinge enters the United 
States before the filing deadline specified in subsection (c), she 
shall be considered to have entered and remained lawfully and shall, if 
otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment of status under section 
245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act as of the date of the 
enactment of this Act.
    (c) Deadline for Application and Payment of Fees.--Subsections (a) 
and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance of an 
immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status is filed 
with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act.
    (d) Reduction of Immigrant Visa Number.--Upon the granting of an 
immigrant visa or permanent residence to Esther Karinge, the Secretary 
of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce by 1, during the 
current or next following fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 
visas that are made available to natives of the country of the alien's 
birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, 
if applicable, the total number of immigrant visas that are made 
available to natives of the country of the alien's birth under section 
202(e) of such Act.
    (e) Denial of Preferential Immigration Treatment for Certain 
Relatives.--The natural parents, brothers, and sisters of Esther 
Karinge shall not, by virtue of such relationship, be accorded any 
right, privilege, or status under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 4, 2012.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000879815
<NAME> GEODYNE ENERGY INCOME LIMITED PARTNERSHIP III-G
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         315,955
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  408,115
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               724,070
<PP&E>                                      10,593,739
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,442,854
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,977,730
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          153,759
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,737,118
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,977,730
<SALES>                                      1,962,555
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,031,845
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,604,696
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                427,149
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            427,149
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   427,149
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit



EXHIBIT 10.5



AMENDMENT NUMBER THREE TO 
THE COCA-COLA COMPANY SEVERANCE PAY PLAN
(As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2012)


WHEREAS, The Coca-Cola Company established The Coca-Cola Company Severance Pay Plan (“Plan”); and 
WHEREAS, The Coca-Cola Company Benefits Committee (“Benefits Committee”) is authorized to amend the Plan at any time; and
WHEREAS, the Benefits Committee wishes to amend the Plan. 
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as follows, effective as provided herein:


		
	1.
	Effective March 23, 2018, a new Section 7.7 Restriction on Venue shall be added following Section 7.6, and the following paragraphs shall be renumbered accordingly:




“7.7    Restriction on Venue. Any legal action in connection with the Plan by an Employee, Participant, Beneficiary, Joint Annuitant, or other interested party shall only be brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta, Georgia.”


		
	2.
	Effective March 23, 2018, the following sentence shall be added to the end of Section 5.4 Limitation on Action.




“All suits must be brought in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta, Georgia in accordance with Section 7.7.”


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Benefits Committee has caused this Amendment to be signed by its duly authorized member as of this      day of March 2018.


THE COCA-COLA COMPANY
BENEFITS COMMITTEE




BY:_________________________________
Allison O’Sullivan


1,356,109
<PAGE>   1





                                   EXHIBIT 11
<PAGE>   2

                   SOUTHFIRST BANCSHARES, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY

             Statement Regarding Computation of Per Share Earnings


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              1996                             1995
                                                              ----                             ----
<S>                                                        <C>                               <C>
PRIMARY:
Average shares outstanding(1)                                853,537                          520,740
ESOP shares, unallocated
   and not committed to be released                          (42,540)                             __

Total                                                        810,997                          520,740
                                                           =========                         ========

Net Income (loss)                                          $ (16,656)                        $611,385
                                                           =========                         ========

Earnings (loss) per share                                  $    (.02)                        $   1.17

FULLY-DILUTED:

Average shares outstanding(1)                                853,537                          520,740
ESOP shares, unallocated
   and not committed to be released                          (42,540)                             __

Total                                                        810,997                          520,740
                                                           =========                         ========

Net Income (loss)                                          $ (16,656)                        $611,385
                                                           =========                         ========

Earnings (loss) per share                                  $    (.02)                        $   1.17
</TABLE>

------------------------------------
(1)  The average shares outstanding is based on the issuance date of the
     initial public offering of February 13, 1995 and, therefore, only
     reflects the shares outstanding for 199 days.  Weighted average shares
     outstanding in 1996 reflects shares outstanding, net of treasury
     shares, for the entire year.