alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION. AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 OFFICIAL BUSINESS 

### STATE OF TEXAS •. •Alj."umuaBH»n«l 7 PITNEY BOWES 

### $ 00.28s

NOV 26 2014 

### 11/26/2014PR8VATE USE . r BRYANT, STEPHEN DWAYNE 

### The Court has dismissed your application forwriji'of habeas corpus without written order; the sentence has been discharged' See Exparte Harrington, 310 S.W.3d 452 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010). 

## so&gffW ZlW-F82?45*-oi

iEBiMSB 75202 Abel Acosta, Clerk STEPHEN DWAYNE BRYANT 

# ((ciVM TO SttiO&i 

# 0TINDALLAS'CWNTY AIL
#### § 9.6 Sanctions for noncompliance.

In the event that any party fails to file any document or make any appearance which is required under this part, the Commission may, in its discretion, and upon its own motion or upon the motion of any party to the proceeding, dismiss the proceeding before it, or, based on the record before it, affirm, modify, set aside, or remand for further proceedings, in whole or in part, the decision of the exchange.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2551

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Pigment Yellow 175. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 23, 2005

Mr. LANGEVIN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Pigment 

Yellow 175.

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

3 SECTION 1. PIGMENT YELLOW 175. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.32.19 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 Pigment Yellow 175) is amended by striking ‘‘12/31/

7 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2008’’. 

8 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

9 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 
2

•HR 2551 IH 

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of enactment of this Act.

Æ
#### Strickland *v.*Strickland *et al.*

May 16, 1912.

Petition for injunction. Before Judge Thomas. Lowndes superior court. November 6, 1911.

*Hendricks <& Christian*and *W. G. Harrison,*for plaintiff.

*O. M. Smith,*for defendants.

Lumpkin, J.

An equitable petition sought to enjoin a sale which was advertised to be held under a decree rendered in a former proceeding also of an equitable character. It was alleged that the plaintiff in the present case was the plaintiff in the former case, but was absent when it came on for trial, and that the decree was taken by consent of counsel, without his - authority. Certain detached excerpts from the former decree were set out and attacked as illegal; but the decree as a whole was not set out, nor was the former litigation set forth at all, either by attaching a copy of the record as an exhibit or by stating its substance; and it is impossible to understand its nature, allegations, and prayers. It appeared that the former decree was rendered more than three years before the present petition was filed. There was nothing to show when the plaintiff first had knowledge of its rendition, or whether he acquiesced in it, or why he had not sooner moved to set it aside, if it was improperly rendered. There was no prayer to set it aside in the present petition. The presiding judge refused to sanction the petition or to grant any order on it. *Held,*that while some of the excerpts from the former decree appear to be peculiar, and perhaps not in accord with the law as to determining amounts and making sales, this court is unable, under the fragmentary and uncertain allegations of the petition, to hold that the presiding judge erred.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

 Case Nos.: C 08-04227 JSW MEJ and C 08-04942 JSW MEJ 

1

RON E. SHULMAN, State Bar No. 178263 

rshulman@wsgr.com 

TERRY KEARNEY, State Bar No. 160054 

tkearney@wsgr.com 

JULIE M. HOLLOWAY, State Bar No. 196942 

jholloway@wsgr.com 

S. MICHAEL SONG State Bar No. 198656 

msong@wsgr.com 

TUNG-ON KONG, State Bar No. 205871 

tkong@wsgr.com 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 

650 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 

Telephone: (650) 493-9300 

Facsimile: (650) 565-5100 

 

M. CRAIG TYLER (Pro Hac Vice) ctyler@wsgr.com 

WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 

900 South Capital of Texas Highway 

Las Cimas IV, Fifth Floor 

Austin, Texas 78746-5546 

Telephone: (512) 338.5400 

Facsimile: (512) 338.5499 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 

NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ECOPY, INC. et al., AND CONSOLIDATED 

CASE 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

)

)

Case No.: C 08-04227 JSW MEJ 

Consolidated with C 08-04942 JSW MEJ 

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING 

PLAINTIFF NUANCE 

COMMUNICATIONS INC.’S 

REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF 

LUIZ VON PAUMGARTTEN AS 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF. 

 

 

Case3:08-cv-04227-JSW Document174-1 Filed05/27/10 Page1 of 2 Case 3:08-cv-04227-JSW Document 176 Filed 05/28/10 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

[PROPOSED] ORDER

 Case Nos.: C 08-04227 JSW MEJ and C 08-04942 JSW MEJ 

2

The Court, having considered the Request for Withdrawal of Plaintiff Nuance 

Communications, Inc. (“Nuance”) to withdraw Luiz von Paumgartten as Attorney for Nuance, 

and for good cause appearing therein, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Luiz von Paumgartten be withdrawn as attorney for 

Nuance and that Mr. Paumgartten, at lpaumgartten@wsgr.com, be removed from the Court’s 

ECF e-mail service list for this matter. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati remains counsel of 

record for Nuance. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 Dated______________, 2010 ______________________________ 

JEFFREY S. WHITE 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 

 

Case3:08-cv-04227-JSW Document174-1 Filed05/27/10 Page2 of 2

May 28

Case 3:08-cv-04227-JSW Document 176 Filed 05/28/10 Page 2 of 2
###### Editorial Note on Part 40

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 40 appear at 71 FR 34520 and 34521, June 15, 2006.

#### § 40.105 Former citizens who renounced citizenship to avoid taxation.

An alien who is a former citizen of the United States, who on or after September 30, 1996, has officially renounced United States citizenship and who has been determined by the Secretary of Homeland Security to have renounced citizenship to avoid United States taxation, is ineligible for a visa under INA 212(a)(10)(E).

[62 FR 67568, Dec. 29, 1997]
109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2630

AN ACT

To redesignate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1927 Sangamon Avenue in Springfield, 

Illinois, as the ‘‘J.M. Dietrich Northeast Annex’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2

•HR 2630 EH 

1 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION. 

2 The facility of the United States Postal Service lo3 cated at 1927 Sangamon Avenue in Springfield, Illinois, 

4 and known as the Northeast Annex, shall be known and 

5 designated as the ‘‘J.M. Dietrich Northeast Annex’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

9 referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 

10 to the ‘‘J.M. Dietrich Northeast Annex’’.

Passed the House of Representatives July 13, 2005. 

Attest:

Clerk. 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2630

AN ACT

To redesignate the facility of the United States 

Northeast Annex’’.in Springfield, Illinois, as the ‘‘J.M. Dietrich Postal Service located at 1927 Sangamon Avenue
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-6866

KELLY HARPER,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OF SFF HAZELTON,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at 

Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00072-JPB-JPM)

Submitted: November 17, 2022 Decided: November 23, 2022

Before KING, QUATTLEBAUM, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kelly Harper, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6866 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/23/2022 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Kelly Harper, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing with 

prejudice her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in which she challenged the execution of her 

sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s order, Harper v. Warden of SFF Hazelton, No. 5:22-cv-00072-

JPB-JPM (N.D.W. Va. July 7, 2022), but modify the order to reflect that the dismissal is 

without prejudice, see Moss v. Harwood, 19 F.4th 614, 623 n.3 (4th Cir. 2021) (noting 

district court’s dismissal without prejudice of prisoner’s civil rights claim for failure to 

exhaust administrative remedies was “[c]onsistent with precedent” and citing cases). We 

deny Harper’s motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6866 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/23/2022 Pg: 2 of 2
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Leon Charles Scott, Appellant, v Louis Greco, as Warden of the New York City Correctional Institution for Men, Respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on September 23, 1976, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. Concur—Evans, Lynch, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.; Silverman, J. P., concurs in the following memorandum: Relator was arrested on April 2, 1976. The Governor’s extradition warrant was signed July 7, 1976. Relator’s petition for habeas corpus was denied on September 23, 1976. Yet this appeal was not brought on for hearing until the February 1978 Term. "In the interim the relator remained incarcerated with no progress made toward the resolution either of his opposition to extradition, or of the underlying criminal prosecution in the demanding State * * * 'By immemorial tradition the aim of habeas corpus is a justice that is swift and summary. If that be the aim, there was here a signal failure to attain it’ *(People ex rel. McCanliss v McCanliss,*255 NY 456, 459 [CARDOZO, Ch. J.].” *(People ex rel. Drake v Oslwyn,*51 AD2d 240, 242.) I suggest that both the tradition of habeas corpus and the special needs of extradition require that such appeals be brought on very promptly, and that the District Attorney *965and defendant’s attorney should take appropriate action to monitor such appeals and to see to it that they are heard promptly. This may involve direction to the reporter to get the minutes out promptly, and appropriate motions either to dismiss appeals or to have them heard on an expedited basis.
#### The People of the State of New York, Appellant, v Stephen Licastri and Richard L. Del Pesce, Respondents.

Appeal by the People from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated May 26,1977, which, after a hearing, granted defendants’ motion to suppress certain physical evidence. Case remanded to Criminal Term to hear and report on the issue of the information acted on by the police and appeal held in abeyance in the interim. Upon the suppression hearing, it developed that one David Rezac telephoned the police and informed them that "there was a gentleman in the house with a gun, with a shotgun.” Police officers subsequently appeared at the scene, but Mr. Rezac did not speak with them. Upon cross-examination, he testified that he had reported to the police only that a person had a shotgun. The officer who had been the recorder testified that he received a radio alarm to be on the lookout for a silver Mark IV Continental automobile occupied by two white males in connection with menacing with a shotgun in the 122nd Precinct. The issue presented concerns the details of the "911” call. Was the information upon which the police acted given by a witness or were the descriptions the results of intramural police conversations? The source of the information must be delineated (see *People v Johnson,*30 NY2d 929; *People v Plunkett,*56 AD2d *1003878). A gap exists in the record in this regard which must be supplied in order to determine whether there was justification for the police action. Hopkins, J. P., Suozzi, Hargett and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
/



### SERVE D NOVEMBE R9 , 2 0 OER^^RTMENTO F IHANSPORTATIOi- i :.C:;K;:T0!^ERAT1C)I-! S 

### 20! l NO V ! 0 P n n •-''i->^1''~''.^,t'''!tii.-«MT' ;

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C I N TH E MATTE RO F 

### CARLIL E TRANSPORTATIO N SYSTEM S

FA A DOCKE T No . CP10AL000 3 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DMSNo . FAA-20IO-078 9 

### ORDE R O F DISMISSA L O n Septembe r

2 . 2010 , (he Federal Aviatio n Administratio n ("Complainant" ) filedaComplain t

i n tlii s matter . Re.sponden t Carlil e Transportatio n System s ("Respondent" ) hadearlie r requeste dahearing . O n Novembe r 2 , 2011 , Complainan t withdre w it s Complaint , requestin g tha t th e proceedin g b e terminate dwit h prejudice . 1 4 C.F.R . § 13.21 5 slates : "A t any tim e befor e or

durin g ahearing , a

n agenc y attorne y ma

y withdra w acomplain t

o r party may withdraw areques t fo r ahearin g withou t th e consen t

of th e administrativ e la

w judge . I

f a n agenc y attorne y withdraw s th e complain t

or aparty withdraw s th e reques t fo r ahearin g an

dth e answer , th e administrativ e law judg e shal l dismis s th e proceeding s under thi s subpar t wit h prejudice. " WHEREFORE , th e withi n file dWithdrawa l o f Complain t

havin g bee n readand considered , i

t i s ORDERE D a s follows : I . Complainant' s Withdrawal o f Complain t

b e andi s hereb y granted ; and2 . Thi s proceedin g he andi s hereb y dismisse dwit h preiudice . S O ORDERED . 

# 0 RichardC . Goodwi n U.S . Administrativ e La

w Judg e Attachmen t

- Servic e Lis t; / FA A Docke t No . CP10AL000 3 (Civi l Penalt y Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L & ON E COP Y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Ro y L . Longacre , Respondent' s Counse l Longacr e La w Offices , Ltd . 42 5 0 Street , Suit e 91 0 Anchorage , A K

9950 1 TEL : 907-276-635 4 FAX : 907-279-468 5 Howar dL . Martin , Jr. , Complainant' s Counse l Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l Alaska n Regio n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n 22 2 W . 7*

^ Avenu e #1 4 Anchorage , A L 99513-758 7 TEL . 907-271-526 9 FAX ; 907-271-280 0 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwin , Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : 202-366-213 9 Attorney-Adviso r 202-366-512 1 Lega l Assistan t FAX : 202-366-753 6

' Service wa

s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n person o r b y expeditedcourier , us e (li

e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration , 600 Independence Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Wasliington , D C 20591 ; Altenlion : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk, AGC^30 .
#### § 513.420 Scope of suspension.

The scope of a suspension is the same as the scope of a debarment (see § 513.325), except that the procedures of §§ 513.410 through 513.413 shall be used in imposing a suspension.
### §3141. Grants for public works and economic development

#### (a) In general

On the application of an eligible recipient, the Secretary may make grants for—

(1) acquisition or development of land and improvements for use for a public works, public service, or development facility; and

(2) acquisition, design and engineering, construction, rehabilitation, alteration, expansion, or improvement of such a facility, including related machinery and equipment.

#### (b) Criteria for grant

The Secretary may make a grant under this section only if the Secretary determines that—

(1) the project for which the grant is applied for will, directly or indirectly—

(A) improve the opportunities, in the area where the project is or will be located, for the successful establishment or expansion of industrial or commercial plants or facilities;

(B) assist in the creation of additional long-term employment opportunities in the area; or

(C) primarily benefit the long-term unemployed and members of low-income families;

(2) the project for which the grant is applied for will fulfill a pressing need of the area, or a part of the area, in which the project is or will be located; and

(3) the area for which the project is to be carried out has a comprehensive economic development strategy and the project is consistent with the strategy.

#### (c) Maximum assistance for each State

Not more than 15 percent of the amounts made available to carry out this section may be expended in any 1 State.

(Pub. L. 89–136, title II, §201, as added Pub. L. 105–393, title I, §102(a), Nov. 13, 1998, 112 Stat. 3601.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Prior Provisions

A prior section 3141, Pub. L. 89–136, title II, §201, Aug. 26, 1965, 79 Stat. 554; Pub. L. 91–304, §1(b), July 6, 1970, 84 Stat. 375; Pub. L. 92–65, title I, §104, Aug. 5, 1971, 85 Stat. 167; Pub. L. 93–46, §2, June 18, 1973, 87 Stat. 96; Pub. L. 93–423, §4(a), Sept. 27, 1974, 88 Stat. 1158; Pub. L. 94–487, title I, §107(a), (b), Oct. 12, 1976, 90 Stat. 2332; Pub. L. 96–506, §1(3), Dec. 8, 1980, 94 Stat. 2745; Pub. L. 97–35, title XVIII, §1821(a)(2), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 766, authorized public works and development facility loans, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 105–393, §102(a).

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Feb. 11, 1999, see section 105 of Pub. L. 105–393, set out as a note under section 3121 of this title.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MICHAEL S. GILLILAND**

 

On this day, Sabre Holdings Corporation (the “Company”)filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005 (the “Report”).

 

Thiswritten statement accompanied the Report.

 

I, Michael S. Gilliland, the Chief ExecutiveOfficer of the Company, hereby certify that:

 

(1)        The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)        The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ MICHAEL S. GILLILAND |   |
|-----------------------------------------|--------|
| Michael S. Gilliland                    |
| President and Chief  Executive Officer  |
| August 5, 2005                          |

 

1

----
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John E. Kwiatkowski, Appellant, v Gary F. Hodges, as Superintendent of Gowanda Correctional Facility, Respondent.

[722 NYS2d 191]

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Counsel’s motion to be relieved of assignment granted *(see, People v Crawford,*71 AD2d 38). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Michalek, J. — Habeas Corpus.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Hayes, Wisner and Kehoe, JJ.
### §2322. Appraisal of property

The Commission shall proceed to secure appraisals of all property at the community which is to be sold pursuant to this chapter. The appraisals shall be made by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development or his designee. The Secretary of Housing and Urban Development shall be reimbursed from the Community Disposal Operations Fund for the cost of such appraisals. Appraisals made under this section shall be the appraisals on which the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development may insure any mortgage or loan under the National Housing Act [12 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.] until such time as he finds that the appraisal values generally in the community no longer represent the fair market values of the properties.

(Aug. 4, 1955, ch. 543, ch. 3, §32, 69 Stat. 474; Pub. L. 87–719, §5, Sept. 28, 1962, 76 Stat. 664; Pub. L. 90–19, §11, May 25, 1967, 81 Stat. 23.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The National Housing Act, referred to in text, is act June 27, 1934, ch. 847, 48 Stat. 1246, which is classified principally to chapter 13 (§1701 et seq.) of Title 12, Banks and Banking. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see section 1701 of Title 12 and Tables.

#### Amendments

1967—Pub. L. 90–19 substituted "Secretary of Housing and Urban Development" for "Federal Housing Commissioner" wherever appearing.

1962—Pub. L. 87–719 substituted "The Federal Housing Commissioner shall be reimbursed from the Community Disposal Operations Fund for the cost of such appraisals" for "The Commission shall reimburse the Federal Housing Commissioner for the cost of such appraisals".

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Transfer of Functions

Atomic Energy Commission abolished and functions transferred by sections 5814 and 5841 of this title. See also Transfer of Functions notes set out under those sections.
M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 83RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF VAL VERDE COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on April 22, 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise

or reverse your judgment between

City of Del Rio, Appellant

V.

Daniel Jalomos, Appellee

No. 04-14-00381-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 31037

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the

order granting the plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing the suit filed by the

City of Del Rio is AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that Appellee Daniel Jalomos

recover his costs of appeal from Appellant City of Del Rio.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on July 1, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-14-00381-CV

City of Del Rio

v.

Daniel Jalomos

(NO. 31037 IN 83RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF VAL VERDE COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

MOTION FEE

CLERK'S RECORD

REPORTER'S RECORD

FILING

STATEWIDE EFILING FEE

INDIGENT

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51

FEE

$10.00

$62.00

$873.00

$100.00

$20.00

$25.00

$50.00

E-PAID

PAID

PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

MANUEL QUINTO-POZOS

CITY OF DEL RIO

CITY OF DEL RIO

SUZANNE WEST

SUZANNE WEST

SUZANNE WEST

SUZANNE WEST

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this July 1, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
### §3796ff–4. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section 3796ff–4 was editorially reclassified as section 10425 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.