alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Compa ss



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

January 15, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00874

- CV

Juan Alberto CASTILLO and Ana L. Perez,

Appellant s

v.

COMPASS BANK,

Appellee

From the County Court at Law No 2, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2 014

- CVD

- 000024

- L2

Honorable Jesus Garza, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The court reporter ’ s notification of late record is GRANTED. The reporter ’ s record is

due on February 6, 2015.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREO F, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 15th day of January, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 10, 2019

NO. 03-17-00748-CR

Travis Marpoe, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 450TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment of conviction. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment of 

conviction. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs 

is made.
### §346. Repealed. Pub. L. 105–185, title I, §103(f)(1), June 23, 1998, 112 Stat. 528

Section, acts May 8, 1914, ch. 79, §6, 38 Stat. 374; June 26, 1953, ch. 157, §1, 67 Stat. 85; Pub. L. 87–749, §1(g), Oct. 5, 1962, 76 Stat. 745, related to report of nonentitlement to President, retention of amount involved in Treasury, appeal from determination, and disposition of sum.
#### In the Matter of Charles Meinecke, Respondent, v. John M. Beckmann, as Police Commissioner of Nassau County, Appellant.

Motion to dismiss appeal denied on condition that appellant argue or submit the appeal at the December Term, beginning November 28, 1960; the appeal is ordered to be placed on the calendar for said term. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before November 14,1960. Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23.2

LEE KEELING AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

PETROLEUM
CONSULTANTS



|                                                                                                                             |  |                                                                                                                                      
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|TULSA OFFICE First Place Tower 15 East Fifth StreetSuite 3500 Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-4350 (918) 587-5521Fax: (918) 587-2881 |  | HOUSTON OFFICE Kellog Brown and Root Tower 601 Jefferson Ave.Suite 3690 Houston, Texas 77002-7912 (713) 651-8006Fax: (281) 754-4934

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS

As
independent petroleum engineers, Lee Keeling and Associates, Inc. hereby consents to all references to our firm included in or made a part of the EXCO Resources, Inc. Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 and further
consents to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-159930, 333-156086, 333-132551, 333-133481, and 333-146376) and on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-142361 and 333-145885) of EXCO Resources, Inc. of information from
our reserve report dated January 8, 2010 on the estimated proved oil and natural gas reserve quantities of EXCO Resources, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries presented as of December 31, 2009.

/s/ LEE KEELING AND ASSOCIATES, INC.

Tulsa,
Oklahoma

February 16, 2010
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. John Doe (Arnold Rice), Appellant.

Motion by appellant to dispense with printing on an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Special Sessions of the City of New York, Kings County, rendered May 1, 1963, convicting him of unlawful assembly. On the court’s own motion, the appeal and the motion are transferred to the Appellate Term of the Supreme Court, Second Judicial Department. That court is now vested with the jurisdiction to determine this appeal and all motions incident thereto (see order of this court No. 47, dated July 12, 1962; N. Y. Const., art. VI, § 5, subd. b; § 8, subd. d). Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Christ, Brennan and Hill, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q OF THE ELDER-BEERMAN STORES CORP. FOR THE PERIOD
ENDED AUGUST 1, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-01-1998
<CASH>                                           7,123
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  119,675
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,447
<INVENTORY>                                    192,534
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               337,688
<PP&E>                                          80,446
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 440,104
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,080
<BONDS>                                        191,726
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       201,234
<OTHER-SE>                                    (55,352)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   440,104
<SALES>                                        252,188
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               264,863
<CGS>                                          182,829
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  182,829
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,689
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,784
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (328)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (121)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (197)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (197)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
<FN>
THIS SCHEDULE SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO BE FILED FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 11 OF THE
SECURITIES ACT OF 1933, SECTION 18 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND
SECTION 323 OF THE TRUST INDENTURE ACT OF 1939, OR OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THE
LIABILITIES OF SUCH SECTIONS, NOR SHALL IT BE DEEMED A PART OF ANY REGISTRATION
STATEMENT TO WHICH IT RELATES.
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 12(b)
            ELIZABETHTOWN WATER COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY
         Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                       and Preferred Dividends
                    (In Thousands Except Ratios)

                                             Three Months Ended Six Months Ended
                                                   June 30,        June 30,
                                                 1999    1998     1999    1998
EARNINGS:

Net income                                     $ 6,343 $ 5,687 $ 10,626 $10,332
Federal income taxes                             3,369   3,017    5,630   5,473
Interest charges                                 4,163   3,878    8,028   7,714
                                               ---------------------------------
Earnings available to cover fixed charges       13,875  12,582   24,284  23,519
                                               ---------------------------------


FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED DIVIDENDS:

Interest on long-term debt                       3,862   3,713    7,619   7,337
Preferred dividend requirement (1)                 311     311      621     621
Other interest                                     315     192      378     398
Amortization of debt discount - net                 98      98      196     195
                                               ---------------------------------
Total fixed charges                            $ 4,586   4,314    8,814   8,551
                                               ---------------------------------
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
 and Preferred Dividends                          3.03    2.92     2.76    2.75
                                               =================================


(1) Preferred Dividend Requirement:

Preferred dividends                                203     203      406     406
Effective tax rate                               34.69%  34.66%  34.63%   34.63%
                                               ---------------------------------
Preferred dividend requirement                 $   311  $  311  $   621  $  621
                                               =================================



Earnings to Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends represents the sum of
Net Income, Federal income taxes and Interest
Charges (which is reduced by Allowance for Debt Funds Used During
Construction), divided by Fixed Charges.  Fixed Charges and Preferred
Dividends consist of interest on long and short-term debt (which is not
reduced by Allowance for Debt Funds Used During Construction), dividends
on Preferred Stock on a pre-tax basis and Amortization of debt discount.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. John W. Holland, Appellant, v. Edward J. O’Hara, as Warden of Nassau County Jail, Respondent.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, relator appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered December 22, 1960 after a hearing, which dismissed the writ and remanded him to the custody of respondent. Order affirmed. The contention advanced by relator that the court on resentenee on May 22, 1953 failed to comply with section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is contrary to the record. While compliance with section 480 is mandatory and the failure to do so entitles a defendant to relief in a habeas corpus proceeding *(People ex rel. Miller*v. *Man-tin,*1 N Y 2d 406; *People ex rel. Ennanuel*v. *McMann,*7 N Y 2d 342), such compliance is required only on *“*judgment day ” and not on resentenee *(People ex rel. Wilkinson*v. *McMann,*11 A D 2d 569; *People*v. *Sevic,*1 Mise 2d 180). Moreover, the contention of noncompliance with section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which was based on the resentencing court’s failure to hear and determine relator’s assertion as to the Assistant District Attorney’s unkept promise of a lighter sentence upon relator’s plea, has been determined adversely to the relator for lack of merit after a hearing in a prior *coram nobis*proceeding; and that determination was affirmed by this court *(People*v. *Holland,*15 A D 2d 809). Under the circumstances, relator is not entitled to- be heard anew on the very question heretofore passed upon by an appellate court *(People ex rel. Baumgart*v. *Martin,*9 N Y 2d 351, cert, denied 368 U. S. 962; *People*v. *Walker,*16 A D 2d 706; *People ex rel. Pannone*v. *Fay,*16 A D 2d 946). The further contention that upon the original sentence on August 3, 1951 and upon the resentenee on May 22, 1953 the court failed to comply with section 472 of *643the Code of Criminal Procedure is refuted by the record. All the other questions raised by the relator, personally and through Ms counsel, have been considered and found to be untenable. [For other prior appeals by relator, see *People*v. *Holland,*279 App. Div. 1098, revd. 305 1ST. T. 617; *People*v. *Holland,*10 A D 2d 884.] Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-27-1998
<CASH>                                             470
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,426
<ALLOWANCES>                                       360
<INVENTORY>                                      3,233
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,781
<PP&E>                                          10,061
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,086
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  30,721
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            6,489
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,361
<COMMON>                                         3,527
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    30,721
<SALES>                                         20,931
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                20,931
<CGS>                                           13,251
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,849
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   115
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 966
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,750
<INCOME-TAX>                                       604
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,095
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,095
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.26
        

</TABLE>
#### Peter B. Scott et al., Respondents, v. Board of Education of the De Ruyter Central Rural School, Defendant, and Richard Berish, Appellant.

The record would sustain a verdict either for assault or negligence, and there is no contention that either is against the weight of evidence; but the record does not sustain a verdict found on both negligence and assault and is thus inconsistent. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, with costs to plaintiffs, and a new trial ordered unless within 10 days from notice of entry of the order herein, plaintiffs stipulate to a modification to base the judgment either on assault or negligence, in which event the judgment as thus modified is affirmed. Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Herlihy, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7029** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. DON EDDLON KNOX, a/k/a D , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Ea stern District of Virginia , at Richmond
. Robert E. Payne , Senior District Judge. ( 3:97

- cr - 00262

- REP

- 11 ; 3:11

- cv - 00440

- REP )

Submitted : December 20, 2011 Decided: December 23, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un pub lished per curiam opinion
. Don Eddlon Knox, Appellant Pro Se. James Brien Comey, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia; John Staige Davis, V, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not bind ing precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Don Eddlon Knox seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing in part his “Motion for Relief Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582[,] 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2201, 2202 and Appendix,” a s a successive 28 U.S.C. A. § 225 5 ( West Supp. 2011 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (B) (200 6 ). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutio nal claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive pr ocedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Knox has not made the requisite showing. According ly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss3 the appeal. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.

DISMI SSED

* To the extent Knox appeals the district court’s denial of his motions pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2006) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2201, 2201 (2006), we find no reversible error and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.
§ 552.93 Permit deadline and duration. ( a ) Permits will be issued 0700-1900 hours daily and may be obtained no earlier than six months prior to the event date. Permits for authorized activities may be requested and issued on the day of the event, but must be in hand prior to individual or group entry on to the range complex.
( b ) Permits for one-time events are valid for the duration of the event. Otherwise, permits are valid for six months and are not renewable. When a permit expires, the holder must reapply as described in this section.
( c ) Access hours are thirty minutes after daylight to thirty minutes before dark, except for authorized overnight activities and as outlined in FL Reg 215-1.
### §421. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act July 3, 1926, ch. 769, §1, 44 Stat. 840, directed Secretary of Agriculture to establish a dairying and livestock experiment station in Mandan, North Dakota, and was omitted from the Code as obsolete.
EXHIBIT 32.1

# CERTIFICATION PURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Esterline Technologies Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
January 28, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Robert W.
Cremin, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

(1)       
          The Form 10-Q 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 Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|                      |  |     |                                                                
|--------------------- |  | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated:  March 4, 2005 |  | By: | /s/  Robert W. Cremin                                          
|                      |  |     | Robert W. CreminChairman,
President and Chief Executive Officer
|                      |  |     |                                                                



---
Israel
      Technology Acquisition Corp. 

    7
      Gush Etzion, 3rd Floor

    Givaat
      Shmuel, Israel 54030 

    


    


    April
      4,
      2006

    


    


    


    


    Continental
      Stock Transfer & Trust Company

    17
      Battery Place 

    New
      York,
      New York 10004

    Attn: Steven
      G.
      Nelson

    


    EarlyBirdCapital,
      Inc.

    275
      Madison Avenue, Suite 1203

    New
      York, New York 10016

    Attn: Steven
      Levine

    


    


    Re: Investment
      Management Trust Agreement

    


    Gentlemen:

    


    Reference
      is made to that certain Investment Management Trust Agreement (the “Agreement”),
      dated as of July 12, 2005, between Israel Technology Acquisition Corp.
      (“Company”) and Continental Stock Transfer & Trust Company. Section 1(c) is
      hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:

    


    


    “(c) In
      a
      timely manner, upon the instruction of the Company, to invest and reinvest
      the
      Property in United States “government securities” within the meaning of Section
      2(a)(16) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 having a maturity of 180 days
      or
      less, and/or in any open ended investment company registered under the
      Investment Company Act of 1940 that holds itself out as a money market fund
      selected by the Company meeting the conditions of paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3)
      and
      (c)(4) of Rule 2a-7 promulgated under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as
      determined by the Company;”

    


     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        
        

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    
 

    Except
      as
      indicated above, the Agreement shall remain in full force and
      effect.

    
      	 	 	 
	 	
              ISRAEL
                TECHNOLOGY

              ACQUISITION CORP. 

            
	 
 	 
 	 
 
	 	By:  	/s/ Israel
              Frieder
	 	
              

            
	 	
              Name:
                Israel Frieder

              Title:
                Chief Executive Officer

            


    

    Acknowledged
      and agreed this 

    4th
      day of
      April, 2006

    


    
      CONTINENTAL
        STOCK TRANSFER &

      TRUST
        COMPANY

    

    
      


    

    
      	 	 	 	 
	By:
              /s/ Frank Di Paolo	 	 	 
	
              

            	 	 	
            
	
              Name:
                Frank Di Paolo

              Title:
                CFO

            	 	 	 


    

     

    The
      undersigned is required to consent to this amendment pursuant to Section 5(c)
      of
      the Investment Management Trust Agreement and hereby does so.

     

    EARLYBIRDCAPITAL,
      INC.

     

     

    
      
        	 	 	 	 
	By:
                /s/ Steven Levine	 	 	 
	
                

              	 	 	
              
	
                Name:
                  Steven Levine 

                Title:
                  Managing Director