alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
QUIPP, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
                                   EXHIBIT 11
                 SCHEDULE OF COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME PER SHARE
                  YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000, 1999 AND 1998

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

         Diluted                                                              2000             1999              1998
         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                                           <C>               <C>              <C>
         Net Income                                                           $5,012,674        $3,672,689       $3,347,645

                                                                        ====================================================

         Basic weighted average number of common
             shares outstanding during the year                                1,891,928         1,822,783        1,630,706

         Add-common equivalent shares (determined using the
             "treasury stock" method) representing shares
             issuable upon exercise of employee stock options                     57,028            39,333           76,660
                                                                        ----------------------------------------------------

         Diluted Weighted average number of shares used
            in calculation of net income per share                             1,948,956         1,862,116        1,707,366
                                                                        ----------------------------------------------------

         Diluted income per common and common
             equivalent share                                                      $2.57             $1.97            $1.96
         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

VS CASE NO. 5:02cr32-RH

CLAY VON TURNER

REFERRAL AND ORDER

The motion/pleading was filed by defendant on 06/22/2005 (document #92), and referred

to Magistrate Judge William C. Sherrill on 06/22/2005.

Summary of motion/pleading: MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT

WILLIAM M. MCCOOL, CLERK OF COURT

s/ Pamela Lourcey

DEPUTY CLERK

ORDER OF COURT

Upon consideration of the foregoing, it is ORDERED this 14th day of July, 2005, the

requested relief is GRANTED. Absent objection from the Government filed no later than

August 15, 2005, the court will consider the supplement with the 2255 motion. Defendant is

advised any future requests to add or clarify claims shall be in the form of a motion to amend. 

The clerk shall forward a copy of Local Rule 15.1 to Defendant with this order.

S/ William C. Sherrill

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGEA

Case 5:02-cr-00032-RH-WCS Document 93 Filed 07/14/05 Page 1 of 1
159 So.2d 687

#### STATE of Louisiana v. James Edward HICKS.

No. 46778.

Jan. 20, 1964.

Thomas M. Comegys, Jr., Shreveport, for defendant-appellant.

Jack P. F. Gremillion, Atty. Gen., M. E. Culligan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Billy R. Robinson, Attorney for City of Bossier City, Bossier City, for appellee.

McCALEB, Justice.

Appellant was charged, tried and convicted in the City Court of Bossier City for simple battery and sentenced to serve one year imprisonment. He applied for a new trial and reserved a bill of exceptions to the overruling of his motion. On his appeal he relies solely on this bill for a reversal of his conviction.

The motion for a new trial sets forth certain factual complaints which present nothing for review and are not pressed in this Court.

The sole contention, according .to the brief filed here, is that one Guy Clark, who was arrested with appellant and incarcerated at the same time but later released, was informed by one of the law enforcement officers that, if he gave testimony for appellant at the trial, he would be rearrested and prosecuted on a charge of disturbing the peace. It is further alleged that, nevertheless, Clark did testify for appellant and that, after giving his testimony, the threat of his arrest was actually carried out, the said Clark being taken to jail where he remained confined until he was able to make bond.

Counsel for defendant theorizes that the evidence of Clark to the effect that he was threatened and intimidated was uncontroverted and this fact denied appellant a fair and impartial trial as guaranteed by the Constitution since, under, the circum*596stances, a serious doubt was thereby cast on the integrity of the State’s case.

We find no merit in the contention and, indeed, the complaint presents nothing for review. Inasmuch as it appears from the motion for a new trial that the alleged threats directed to Clark did not deter him from testifying for appellant, it is difficult to perceive that the latter has been prejudiced in any respect. See State v. Thomas, 240 La. 419 at page 434, 123 So.2d 872 at page 877.

The conviction and sentence are affirmed.
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 1 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 2 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 3 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 4 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 5 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 6 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 7 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 8 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 9 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 10 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 11 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 12 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 13 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 14 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 15 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 16 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 17 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 18 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 19 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 20 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 21 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 22 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 23 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 24 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 25 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 26 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 27 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 28 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 29 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 30 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 31 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 32 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 33 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 34 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 35 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 36 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 37 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 38 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 39 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 40 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 41 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 42 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 43 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 44 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 45 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 46 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 47 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 48 of 49
Case 5:00-cv-00201-SPM Document 2 Filed 08/16/00 Page 49 of 49
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

BRANDACE BAKER,

Appellant,

v.

ROBERT P. MURPHY, ACD HOLDINGS, LLC, LOUIS DEVALEIX, an 

individual, VALEO RESOURCES LLC, a Florida limited liability 

company, REDITAS MEDICAL BILLING LLC, a Florida limited liability 

company, ETR3 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, HARMONY 

RECOVERY CENTERS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, VALEO 

LABFORCE PERSONNEL, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, ETR3, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, PARAGON DIAGNOSTICS, 

LLC, a Florida limited liability company, MELIOR HEALTH PARTNERS, 

LLC, a Florida limited liability company, 

Appellees.

No. 4D21-3034

[May 19, 2022]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; James Nutt, Judge; L.T. Case No. 50-2018-CA-012672-

XXXX-MB.

Kevin F. Richardson of Clyatt & Richardson, P.A., West Palm Beach, 

for appellant.

Daniel Desouza of Desouza Law, P.A., Coral Springs, for appellee 

Robert P. Murphy.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

LEVINE, FORST and KLINGENSMITH, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. CASE NO. 4:03cr51-SPM

TOMAS BELLAMY,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF PRESENTENCE REPORT

This cause comes before the Court on the motion filed on behalf of

Defendant Tomas Bellamy by the Federal Public Defender and Evelyn Brown,

Mr. Bellamy’s mother. Doc. 118. In the motion, it is requested that the

Presentence Investigation Report and the Statement of Reasons be disclosed to

the Federal Public Defender for a determination of whether Mr. Bellamy is eligible

for a sentence reduction under the retroactive guideline amendments for crack

cocaine.

A review of this case shows that application of the crack cocaine guideline

amendments would not result in any change to Mr. Bellamy’s sentencing range

due to his designation as an Armed Career Criminal and a Career Offender. 

Accordingly, Mr. Bellamy does not qualify for a sentence reduction and the 

Case 4:03-cr-00051-RH-CAS Document 119 Filed 05/28/08 Page 1 of 2
Page 2 of 2

CASE NO. 4:03cr51-SPM

requested disclosure is unnecessary. Based on the foregoing, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion to Authorize Disclosure of

the Presentence Report (doc. 118) is denied.

DONE AND ORDERED this 28th day of May, 2008.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

United States District Judge

Case 4:03-cr-00051-RH-CAS Document 119 Filed 05/28/08 Page 2 of 2
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

MARIA DOMINIQUE TURNER

n/k/a MARIA THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO.: 5:20-cv-00199-MCR-MJF

DONALD EDENFIELD, in his

official capacity as Sheriff of

Jackson County, Florida, and

ZACHARY WESTER, individually

Defendants.

JOINT STIPULATION FOR VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL

The parties, through their respective counsel, and pursuant to the 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a), hereby stipulate to the dismissal of all 

claims with prejudice against Donald Edenfield, in his official capacity as 

Sheriff of Jackson County, Florida, and Zachary Wester, individually.1 Each 

party is to bear their attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses incurred in this 

action.

1 All individual capacity claims against Louis S. Roberts, III, the former Sheriff of Jackson 

County, Florida were previously dismissed pursuant to Plaintiff’s Response to the Sheriff’s 

Motion for Summary Judgment. [ECF 47].
Page 2 of 2

DATED this 28th day of November 2022.

WARNER LAW FIRM, P. A.

/s/ Adrian Mendiondo_______ 

Adrian Mendiondo, Esq

Kentucky Bar No.: 90676

J. Ryan Will

Florida Bar No.: 0024122

Morgan and Morgan, P.A.

333 West Vine Street, Suite 1200

Lexington, Kentucky 40507

444 Seabreeze Boulevard, Suite 100

Daytona Beach, Florida 32118

amendiondo@forthepeople.com

rwill@forthepeople.com

Counsel for Plaintiff

/s/ Alyssa M. Yarbrough_________

Alyssa M. Yarbrough, Esq. 

Florida Bar No.: 103407 

Warner Law Firm, P.A. 

501 West 11th Street, Suite A 

Post Office Box 1820 (32402)

Panama City, Florida 32401

pleadings@warnerlaw.us

Counsel for Defendant Sheriff

/s/ Riley Landy_________________

Riley Landy, Esq.

Florida Bar No.: 84411 

Andrews, Crabtree, Knox, & 

Longfellow, LLP

1558 Village Square Boulevard, Suite 1

Tallahassee, Florida 32309

rlandy@andrewscrabtree.com

jhunter@andrewscrabtree.com

mwise@andrewscrabtree.com

mhoman@andrewscrabtree.com

Counsel for Defendant Wester

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing was filed via CM/ECF 

this 28th day of November 2022, which will serve a copy to all counsel of 

record. 

/s/ Alyssa M. Yarbrough

ALYSSA M. YARBROUGH

Florida Bar No. 0103407
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR ENDED MAY 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-KSB.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       2,599,342
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  382,038
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (41,033)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,197,248
<PP&E>                                       1,443,629
<DEPRECIATION>                               (977,541)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,897,255
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,545,838
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      3,072
<COMMON>                                        73,563
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,897,255
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,206,467
<CGS>                                        7,131,269
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,168,926
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             (116,953)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (3,960)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,019,265
<INCOME-TAX>                                    13,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,006,265
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,006,265
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.10


</TABLE>
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA
F OURTH D ISTRICT

BRANDACE BAKER , Appellant,

v.

ROBERT P. MURPHY, ACD HOLDINGS, LLC, LOUIS DEVALEIX, an individual, VALEO RESOURCES LLC, a Florida limited liability

company, REDITAS MEDICAL BILLING LLC, a Florida limited liability

company, ETR3 LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, HARMONY RECOVERY CENTERS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, VALEO LABFORCE PERSONNEL, LLC , a Flo rida limited liability company, ETR

3, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, PARAGON DIAGNOSTICS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, MELIOR HEALTH PARTNERS, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, Appellee s

.

No. 4D 21

- 3034

[ May 1 9 , 2022 ]

Ap peal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; James Nutt , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2018

- CA

- 012672

- XXXX

- MB

.

Kevin F. Richardson of Clyatt & R ichardson , P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Daniel Desouza of Desouza Law, P.A., Coral Springs

, for appellee Robert P. Murphy.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

L EVINE , F ORST and K LINGENSMITH
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 30, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 73983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30077]


========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================


Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 229 / Tuesday, November 30, 2010 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 73983]]



FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 327

RIN 3064-AD66


Assessments, Large Bank Pricing

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document corrects the preamble to a proposed rule 
published in the Federal Register of November 24, 2010, regarding 
Assessments, Large Bank Pricing. This correction clarifies that the 
comment period for the Assessments, Large Bank Pricing ends January 3, 
2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Ryu, Chief, Large Bank Pricing 
Section, Division of Insurance and Research, (202) 898-3538; Christine 
Bradley, Senior Policy Analyst, Banking and Regulatory Policy Section, 
Division of Insurance and Research, (202) 898-8951; Brenda Bruno, 
Senior Financial Analyst, Division of Insurance and Research, (630) 
241-0359 x 8312; Robert L. Burns, Chief, Exam Support and Analysis, 
Division of Supervision and Consumer Protection (704) 333-3132 x 4215; 
Christopher Bellotto, Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 898-3801; Sheikha 
Kapoor, Counsel, Legal Division, (202) 898-3960.

Correction

    In proposed rule FR Doc. 2010-29138, beginning on page 72612 in the 
issue of November 24, 2010, make the following correction, the DATES 
section is corrected to read:

``DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 3, 2011.''

    Dated: November 24, 2010.

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation,
Robert E. Feldman,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-30077 Filed 11-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6741-01-P
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Leon Lewis, Appellant.

— Motion to relieve assigned counsel denied. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Appellant. Sullivan and Ross, JJ.
16.405-2 Cost-plus-award-fee contracts.       A cost-plus-award-fee contract is a cost-reimbursement contract that provides for a fee consisting of (1) a base amount fixed at inception of the contract, if applicable and at the discretion of the contracting officer, and (2) an award amount that the contractor may earn in whole or in part during performance and that is sufficient to provide motivation for excellence in the areas of cost, schedule, and technical performance. See 16.401(e) for the requirements relative to utilizing this contract type.    **Parent topic:** 16.405 Cost-reimbursement incentive contracts.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1994
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1995
<CASH>                                          11,180
<SECURITIES>                                     5,312
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,714
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,928)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,204
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 1,803
<PP&E>                                          13,347
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (8,973)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  38,018
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,862
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            93
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      26,160
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    38,018
<SALES>                                         60,444
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,444
<CGS>                                           15,099
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,099
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,737
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  66
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,540
<INCOME-TAX>                                       762
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,778
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,778
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.20
        

</TABLE>
Order filed March 3, 2020 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00372-CR

____________

HOLLY LYNN HARRISON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 368th District Court

Williamson County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 16-0276-K368

ORDER

On January 28, 2020, this Court rendered its judgment reversing the trial court’s 

judgment and ordering a new trial. On January 28, 2020, appellant, Holly Lynn Harrison, 

filed a motion requesting this Court to set reasonable bail. Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 

44.04(h). We find that we have jurisdiction to set bail following a reversal of the trial 

court’s judgment. See Tex. R. App. P. 51.2(c)(1).

We find appellant’s motion meritorious, grant the motion, and ORDER the appellant, 

Holly Lynn Harrison, released on bail upon her giving good and sufficient bond, signed by 
appellant as principal and with sureties as required by law, in the sum of $35,000, total,

pending final disposition by the trial court below. See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 44.04(h). 

Any conditions on bail must be set by the trial court, and any sureties on bail must be 

approved by the trial court. Foreman v. State, 565 S.W.3d 371, 373 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 2018, no pet.) (citing Tex. Code Crim. Proc. arts. 17.40–.49 (allowing magistrate 

to set conditions on bail), 44.04(h) (requiring trial court to approve sureties); Leonard v. State, 

376 S.W.3d 886, 890 (Tex. App.–Fort Worth 2012, pet. ref’d) (holding trial court has 

authority to set reasonable conditions for bail set under section 44.04(h)))

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer.