alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2014175EN.01004801.xml

| 10.6.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 175/48 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.6.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 175/48

---

Action brought on 19 March 2014 — Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz v OHIM — Reeh (PRIMA KLIMA)

(Case T-195/14)

2014/C 175/66

Language in which the application was lodged: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Compagnie des gaz de pétrole Primagaz SA (Paris, France) (represented by: D. Régnier, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Gerhard Reeh (Radnice, Czech Republic)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 7 January 2014 in case R 2304/2012-1 |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the decision of the First Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market of 7 January 2014 in case R 2304/2012-1

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for the Community trade mark: Gerhard Reeh

Applicant for the Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: Figurative mark including the word elements ‘PRIMA KLIMA’ for goods and services in Classes 11 and 42

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: Applicant

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: Figurative mark including the word element ‘PRIMAGAZ’ and national word marks ‘PRIMALOTISSEMENT’, ‘PRIMACOMPTEUR’, ‘PRIMAVILLAGE’, ‘PRIMAFAMILLE’, ‘PRIMAPAC’, ‘PRIMAENERGY’, ‘PRIMA CHAUFFAGE’, ‘PRIMA CLIM’, ‘PRIMAGRILL’ and ‘PRIMAWATT’, for goods in Class 11

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Reject the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismiss the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Breach of Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 207/2009

Pleas in law:

---
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from R.P. Scherer
Corporation's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
1997, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such Form 10-Q filing.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          27,544
<SECURITIES>                                     3,566
<RECEIVABLES>                                  145,243
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,713
<INVENTORY>                                     67,412
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               250,733
<PP&E>                                         473,923
<DEPRECIATION>                                 126,108
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 784,391
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          123,044
<BONDS>                                        163,024
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           242
<OTHER-SE>                                     384,133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   784,391
<SALES>                                        293,597
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               293,597
<CGS>                                          196,254
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  243,802
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,361
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 46,464
<INCOME-TAX>                                    12,774
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             28,158
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    28,158
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.56
        

</TABLE>
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: “The publication of opinions that

have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on

the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless

expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession.”

Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion

should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 95-10821

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ERIC JOSEPH STAAB,

Defendant-Appellant.

 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Texas

(4:95-CR-48-A)

 

November 28, 1995

Before GARWOOD, JONES and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eric Joseph Staab appeals his sentence on conviction of wire

fraud. He contends solely that the district court erred by

adjusting his offense level upward for his role as a manager or

supervisor. We have reviewed the record and hold that the district

court’s finding that Staab was a manager or supervisor is not

clearly erroneous. See United States v. Palomo, 998 F.2d 253, 257

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S.Ct. 358 (1993).
2

AFFIRMED
#### Lawrence R. ROSANO, Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Appellee.

No. 86-837.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Sept. 16, 1986.

Lawrence R. Rosano, pro se.

Richard K. Willard, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director and George M. Beasley, III, Sr. Trial Counsel, Commercial Litigation Branch, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.C., for appellee.

Before FRIEDMAN, Circuit Judge, COWEN, Senior Circuit Judge, and NIES, Circuit Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the United States Claims Court, granting the motion for summary judgment of the United States and dismissing the complaint, is affirmed on the basis of the opinion of that court, 9 Cl.Ct. 137 (1985).

AFFIRMED.
#### § 1.468B Designated settlement funds.

A designated settlement fund, as defined in section 468B(d)(2), is taxed in the manner described in § 1.468B-2. The rules for transferors to a qualified settlement fund described in § 1.468B-3 apply to transferors to a designated settlement fund. Similarly, the rules for claimants of a qualified settlement fund described in § 1.468B-4 apply to claimants of a designated settlement fund. A fund, account, or trust that does not qualify as a designated settlement fund is, however, a qualified settlement fund if it meets the requirements of a qualified settlement fund described in § 1.468B-1.

[T.D. 8459, 57 FR 60988, Dec. 23, 1992]
p. 1

CBI C Contro l Numbe r 

# 35622 3 RECEIVED OPP T CBI C 20I3SEP2 5 P M 12:0 6 DuPon t Chemical s an d Fluoroproduct

s Chamber s Work s Deepwater , N J 0802 3 Septembe r 18 , 201 3 Director , Chemica

l Contro l Divisio n U S Environmenta

l Protectio n Agency Offic e o f Pollutio n Preventio n an

d Toxic s EP A Eas t Roo m414 6 120 1 Constitutio n Avenue , N W Washington , D C 2000

4 Re : EP A - H Q - OPP T - 200 3 - 001 2 DuPon tChamber

s Work s NJPDE S Permi tNo . NJ000510 0 PFO A Data Submitta

l - Outfal l DSN66

2 Weekl y Gra b Sample

s August201 3 Sample Dat a Dea r Chemica l Contro l Division : Attache d please fin d summarie s o f PFO A analytica

l result s fo r

the DuPon

t Chamber s Work s weekl y gra

b sample s take

n a t interna l outfal l DSN662 A i n Augus t 2013

. I n accordanc

e wit h th e curren t sit e NJPDE S permi t (NJ0005100 , effectiv e Septembe r 2011) , these result s ar

e provide d to NJDE P on amonthl y basi s vi aelectroni c discharge monitorin g reports
. Th e enclosure s include tw o pape

r an d tw o electroni c copie s o f th e analytica

l result s fro mthi s monitorin g period

.

Jacque s Monteux Uni t Manager-Sit

e Manufacturin g System s DuPon t Chamber

s Work s

CM/cl c Enclosure sp . 2

2 C D C LSh O C O > < C O C O oau C O 2 W f O D ) C M C D C O
O o C L o O

C O c/ > C D C C C O 7 6 o O C M
^ W s 

# I 2 < O i > . C M £ C O £ E C O o

C D O ) C O C L

c 't ; o
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-1257

JAMES R. REGISTER; JACK B. WATSON, Plaintiffs - Appellees,
versus SEAFARERS PENSION PLAN; LOU DELMA, Plan Administrator of Seafarers Pension Plan; JOHN FAY, Trustee of Seafarers Pension Plan; BYRON KELLEY; GEORGE MCCARTNEY, Trustee of SeafarersPension Plan; HOSEA PEREZ, Trustee of Seafarers Pension Plan; AUGUSTINE TELLEZ, Trustee of Seafarers Pension Plan; JOSEPH CECIRE, Trustee of Seafarers Pension Plan; EDMOND DAVIS, Trustee of Seafarers Pension Plan; MICHAEL DIPRISCO, Trustee of Seafarers Pension Plan; WILLIAM PAGENDARM, Trustee of SeafarersPension Plan; MICHAEL SWAYNE, Trustee of Seafarers Pension Plan; SEAFARERS WELFARE PLAN; PLAN ADMINISTRATOR OF SEAFARERS WELFARE PLAN, Defendants - Appellants, and
SEAFARERS INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA, ATLANTIC, GULF, LAKES, Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-143-7-F(1))2 Submitted: July 17, 2001 Decided: July 30, 2001 Before TRAXLER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ellen A. Silver, Camp Springs, Maryland; Lisa Grafstein, GRAFSTEIN & WALCZYK, P.L.L.C., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellants. Mark S. Thomas, Terence D. Freidman, Joanne Lambert, MAUPIN, TAYLOR & ELLIS, P.A., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).3 PER CURIAM:Appellants appeal the district court’s order granting Appellees’ motion for a preliminary injunction and subsequent orders implementing the injunction. We have reviewed the record and thedistrict court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Register v. Seafarers Pension Plan , No. CA-00-143-7-F(1) (E.D.N.C. Jan 12 & 22, 2001; Feb. 8, 2001). 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.

AFFIRMED
Dear Ms. Fairchild:

Please find attached a letter from NAIMA setting forth work practices designed to reduce emissions

during startup and shutdown of cupolas within the mineral wool insulation industry. As indicated in the

attached letter, please do not hesitate to contact me with additional questions or clarifications.

Sincerely,

Angus E. Crane

Executive Vice President, General Counsel

North American Insulation Manufacturers Association

Ph: (703) 684

- 0084 ext. 123

Fax: (703) 684

- 0427

Visit NAIMA online at:

www.NAIMA.org

www.PipeInsulation.org
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Homeland Security

###### Federal Emergency Management Agency

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1850-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Illinois (FEMA-1850-DR), dated July 2, 2009, and related determinations.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         July 22, 2009.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-3886.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Illinois is hereby amended to include the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of July 2, 2009.

Hamilton and Union Counties for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

W. Craig Fugate,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. E9-18404 Filed 7-31-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
# Top_of_Ocala_Arcadia_VL
#### Richard H. Moore *v.*City of New Britain

King, C. J., Murphy, Alcorn, Comley and House, Js.

Argued April 14

decided May 26, 1964

*645
      *Steven E. Peralcos,*for the appellant (defendant).

*Wallace B. Burke,*with whom was *Maxwell Reiman,*for the appellee (plaintiff).

Murphy, J.

The plaintiff resigned from the New Britain police department on July 7, 1958, after serving as a police officer from April 1, 1950. By ordinance, his salary was set at $63.78 a week. During his period of service, $1770.46 was deducted from his pay for the police benefit fund. After he resigned, he requested reimbursement of the amount deducted. His request was denied, whereupon he brought suit to recover the unpaid balance of his pay. Prom the judgment rendered for the plaintiff, the defendant has appealed.

The New Britain charter provides that the police benefit fund shall consist of certain moneys and property and “assessments to be made by the trustees of said fund on the compensation of the regular members of the police department at the rate of 5 per cent per annum, payable weekly as the trustees of the fund may determine.” 30 Spec. Laws 459, § 1951. This provision required affirmative action by the board of trustees to lawfully levy the assessments on the members at the rate specified. *Food, Beverage & Express Drivers Local Union*v. *Shelton,*147 Conn. 401, 405, 161 A.2d 587; *State ex rel. Southey*v. *Lashar,*71 Conn. 540, 545, 42 A. 636. To justify the withholding of the moneys from the plaintiff’s pay, it was necessary for the defendant to prove that the trustees had levied the assess*646ments. The defendant did not do so. It rested at the conclusion of the plaintiff’s case without offering any evidence. The court found that the trustees had not made an assessment as required by the charter. The conclusion that the defendant failed to pay the plaintiff the full compensation to which he was entitled is correct. The Statute of Limitations was not pleaded.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.
### 1



### Assessing	the	Effect	of	Five	Gasoline	Properties	on	Exhaust	Emissions	from	Light****

**Duty	Vehicles	certified	to	Tier -**  **2	Standards Analysis**  **of	Data	from	EPA	Phase	3 (EPAct/V2/E**  **- 89)**  

## Appendix **K .3** 

**Model	Fitting	Information	for** 

## Acetaldehyde	(Bag	2)

This appendix summarizes model fitting for Bag
-2 acetaldehyde. Model
- fitting techniques and approaches are summarized in Section 8 .7. Features of the data and modeling for this compound are listed below. Media contamination: YES No. measurements: 63 No. cens ored values: 1 Modeling approach: MIXED MODEL Estimated Dependent Variable model: YES

### 2 **Models fit for Bag -** **2 Acetaldehyde**  Model term Notation Model Full FM1 1 FM2 FM3 Null model 2 etOH Z

e ● ● ● ● × Arom Z

a ● ● × T50 Z

5 ● × T90 Z

9 ● ● ● × 1 Indicates “Full minus 1,” etc. 2 Indicates model with no terms except an intercept. 

### Fitting history for Bag**- 2**  **Acetaldehyde**
**– with “**  **F M3**  **” selected as best fit model.** 

### Fit Parameters Test with respect to Full Test with respect to Previous Model 

### Model p -

2 ln L BIC 1 

### Dev. 1 

### d Pr>χ 2 

### Dev. d Pr>χ 2 Full 5 71.62 82.89 F M1 4 71.87 81.53 1.66 2 0.43 0.25 1 0.62 F M2 3 73.92 81.96 3.71 3 0.29 2.04 1 0.15 F M3 2 76.44 82.87 6.23 4 0.18 2.52 1 0.11 Null mo del 1 88.03 92.86 17.82 5 0.0032 11.59 1 0.00066
1 A lower value indicates a better fit. 1 The deviation is the difference in the
- 2 ln L statistics for the nested and reference models, respectively, per 

### Error! Reference source not **found.**

. 

### Acetaldehyde (Bag 2) **: Coefficients and Type** **- III Tests of Effect for**  **Full and Best** **- Fit Models.**  Effect Full Model Best
-Fit Model ( MM3 ) Estimate Std.Err. d.f. t-value Pr> t Estimate Std.Err. d.f. t-value Pr> t Intercept
- 9.418 9 0.1177 5 - 80.1 0.000 000
- 9.4192 0.1162 5.007
- 81.1 0.000 000 Z e 0. 1520 0.06080 58 2.50 0. 0152 0.19 1 0 0.05306 58.13 3.60 0.00066 Z a 0. 07991 0.05279 58 1.51 0. 136 Z 5 - 0. 02997 0.05957 58
- 0.503 0. 617 Z 9 - 0.0 7836 0.05153 58
- 1.52 0.13 4 2 veh 

###  0.05 654 0.05372 2  

###  0.3 814 0.4153
Order entered September 22, 2022

In the

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00353-CR

No. 05-21-00354-CR

No. 05-21-00355-CR

ARIK NYLES MAXEY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F17-75257-M, F17-52204-M, & F17-75276-M

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s September 19, 2022 pro se letter asking this 

Court to reconsider the June 23, 2022 opinion in this case. This Court denied 

appellant’s July 18, 2022 motion for rehearing on July 29, 2022. We construe 

appellant’s September 19, 2022 pro se letter as a further motion for rehearing. See

Rodriguez v. State, 446 S.W.3d 520, 525 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, no pet.) 

(construing “motion to correct” as motion for rehearing). 
After a motion for rehearing is decided, a further motion for rehearing may 

be filed only if this court (1) modifies its judgment, (2) vacates its judgment and 

renders a new judgment, or (3) issues a different opinion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 49.5. 

Because we did not take any of those actions, appellant is not permitted to file a 

further motion for rehearing. We DISMISS appellant’s September 19, 2022 

motion. 

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE 

JUSTICE
EX-10.57



 





EXHIBIT 10.57




AMENDMENT TO MERGE THE




KEYCORP EXCESS 401(K) SAVINGS PLAN




INTO THE KEYCORP DEFERRED SAVINGS PLAN



WHEREAS, KeyCorp has established the KeyCorp Excess 401(k) Savings Plan and the KeyCorp Second
Excess 401(k) Savings Plan to provide a nonqualified excess retirement benefit to a select group of
management or highly compensated employees as described in Section 201(2), 301(3) and 401(a)(1) of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended, and



WHEREAS, in maintaining the KeyCorp Excess 401(k) Savings Plan and the KeyCorp Second Excess 401(k)
Savings Plan KeyCorp has been required to maintain duplicate administration structures for each
respective plan, and



WHEREAS, to prevent this duplication of administration and the associated participant confusion
associated with multiple plans it is desired that the KeyCorp Excess 401(k) Savings Plan be merged
into the KeyCorp Deferred Savings Plan and that the KeyCorp Excess 401(k) Savings Plan cease to
exist separate and apart from the KeyCorp Deferred Savings Plan.



NOW, THEREFORE, the KeyCorp Excess 401(k) Savings Plan is hereby amended to add a new Article XIV
to the KeyCorp Excess 401(k) Savings Plan, to be effective as of December 31, 2006, to read in its
entirety as follows:




“ARTICLE XIV

MERGER INTO THE KEYCORP DEFERRED SAVINGS PLAN





	 	14.1	 	Merger of the Plan. Effective December 31, 2006 the Plan is
hereby merged into and made a part of the KeyCorp Deferred Savings Plan, and
all benefits that have accrued under the Plan shall be merged into and shall
become a part of the KeyCorp Deferred Savings Plan.”





              IN WITNESS WHEREOF, KeyCorp has caused this Amendment to the KeyCorp Excess 401(k) Savings
Plan to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of the 21st day of December, 2006.




KEYCORP




	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:  	                       /s/ Thomas Helfrich
 	 
	 	 	Thomas Helfrich 	 
	 	 	Executive Vice President
1... See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-465-CR

SAMUEL JONES APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 367TH DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

Appellant Samuel Jones attempts to appeal from the trial court’s

judgment sentencing him to life imprisonment for aggravated robbery with a

deadly weapon. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Jones’s sentence was imposed on October 16, 2008. See Tex. R. App.

P. 26.2(a)(1). Jones did not file a motion for new trial; thus, his notice of
2... We note that Jones is not without recourse because he may seek an

out-of-time appeal by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus with the court

of criminal appeals. See, e.g., Ex parte Pinner, No. AP-75802, 2007 WL

4305516, at *1 (Tex. Crim. App. Dec. 5, 2007) (not designated for publication)

(holding that habeas corpus applicant whose attorney had failed to timely file

a written notice of appeal was entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of-time

appeal to his judgment of conviction); see generally Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann.

art. 11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2008).

2

appeal was due within thirty days—that is, on or before November 17, 2008.

See id. Jones did not file his notice of appeal until December 3, 2008. 

We sent notice to Jones on December 11, 2008, stating that because of

the apparent untimeliness of his appeal, we would dismiss the appeal unless he

or any party desiring to continue the appeal responded by December 22 and

showed grounds for continuing the appeal. On December 17, Jones filed a

response to our notice, complaining that his appointed counsel had failed to file

his notice of appeal in a timely manner.

The lack of a timely notice of appeal deprives this court of jurisdiction.

See State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408, 410 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000); Olivo v.

State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522–23 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996); Williams v. State, 76

S.W.3d 207, 209 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2002, no pet.). Therefore, because

Jones failed to timely file his notice of appeal and failed to provide us with

grounds for continuing his appeal, we must dismiss the appeal for want of

jurisdiction.2 See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f). 
3

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MCCOY, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and LIVINGSTON, J.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: January 22, 2009