alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1... See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4.

COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 2-08-045-CV

MICHOEL A. HAGEMANN APPELLANT

V.

JANELLE HAGEMANN APPELLEE

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

FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF WICHITA COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

The final decree of divorce between Appellant Michoel A. Hagemann and

Appellee Janelle Hagemann reportedly was signed November 2, 2003. No

motion for new trial or other postjudgment motion was filed; therefore, the trial

court’s plenary power expired thirty days after the judgment was signed, on

December 2, 2003. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 329b(d). On January 16, 2008, the

trial court entered an “Order Denying Sealing Of Record.” On February 4,
2

2008, Appellant filed a notice of appeal, stating that he wished to appeal the

trial court’s order of January 16, 2008, denying sealing of the record.

On February 21, 2008, we sent Appellant a letter stating our concern that

we may not have jurisdiction over this appeal because the order that Appellant

is attempting to appeal was signed outside the trial court’s plenary power. We

indicated that this court would dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction if we

did not receive a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.

Appellant filed a response but failed to address the plenary power issue.

We are without jurisdiction to grant relief or review the trial court’s

actions after the expiration of its plenary power; consequently, we dismiss this

appeal for want of jurisdiction. See P.I.A. of Fort Worth, Inc. v. Sullivan, 837

S.W.2d 844, 846 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 1992, orig. proceeding) (concluding

that under the terms of rule 329b, judge had no jurisdiction to seal the parties’

divorce records over nine months after the suit had been voluntarily dismissed

and after he had lost his plenary power); see also TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

PER CURIAM

PANEL D: WALKER, J.; CAYCE, C.J.; and MCCOY, J.

DELIVERED: March 20, 2008
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.2 Certification of Principal Financial Officer I, Paul E. Martin, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Enstar Income Program 1984-1, L.P.;  2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;  3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;  4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and
procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by
others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this
report is being prepared;  (b)
    
    [Reserved];  (c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure control and
procedures and presented in this report
our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures, as
of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evalutation; and  (d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during
the registrants most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over
financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material
weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial
information; and  (b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that
involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the
registrants internal control over
financial reporting. Date: April 13, 2004 /s/ Paul E. Martin
Paul E. Martin
Senior Vice President and
Corporate Controller (Principal Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer)
#### Anna Hochstein, Respondent, *v.*Solomon Schlanger, Appellant.

Reported below, 150 App. Div. 124

(Submitted January 6, 1913;

decided January 14, 1913.)

Motion to dismiss an appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered April 4, 1912, affirming an order of Special Term granting a motion for judgment in favor of plaintiff on the pleadings.

Also, motion by appellant for relief from default.

The motion to dismiss was made upon the ground that appellant had failed to file the required undertaking.

*Meyer Levy*for appellant.

*Henry J. Block*for respondent.

Motion to be relieved from default granted upon the defendant within ten days paying the respondent ten dollars costs and filing the requisite undertaking. On failure to comply with these terms the motion to dismiss appeal is granted, with ten dollars costs. If the terms are complied with the motion to dismiss is denied, without costs.
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 11.2

                              PAMECO CORPORATION

         COMPUTATION OF HISTORICAL SUPPLEMENTAL  NET INCOME PER SHARE

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                            THREE MONTHS ENDED       SIX MONTHS ENDED
                                                                  AUGUST 31              AUGUST 31
                                                                    1997                   1997
                                                            ------------------       ----------------
<S>                                                          <C>                     <C>
Primary and fully diluted:
     Weighted average common stock and common
     stock equivalents outstanding during the
     during the period....................................          8,636                  8,660

Effect of common stock equivalents issued
      subsequent to March 26, 1996, computed in
      accordance with the treasury stock method
      as required by the SEC (1)..........................            330                    330
                                                                ---------              ---------

              Total                                                 8,966                  8,990
                                                                =========              =========

Net income                                                         $5,974                 $6,989
Plus: Reduction in interest expense from repayment   
          of long-term notes payable, net of income                    50                    671
           taxes(2)
                                                                ---------              ---------
Net income                                                         $6,024                 $7,660
                                                                =========              =========

Net income per share of common stock                                $0.67                  $0.85
                                                                =========              =========
</TABLE> 
 
(1)   Pursuant to Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin
      No. 83, Common stock equivalents issued at prices below the Initial Public
      Offering price per share of $14 ("cheap stock") during the twelve month
      period immediately preceding the initial filing date of the Company's
      Registration Statement for its Initial Public Offering have been included
      as outstanding for all periods presented.
       
(2)   Historical supplemental net income per share reflects the number of shares
      of common stock issued upon consummation of the Initial Public Offering
      used to repay $44.2 million in current and long term debt as if the
      issuance had occurred at the beginning of the period (or date of issuance
      of notes payable, if later) and the related reduction in interest expense.
Before The Second Division,

February 6, 1961

No. 65135.

#### Kaiser Reismann Corporation *v.*United States,

protests 324265-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the items marked “B” consist of synthetic filaments similar in all material respects to those the subject of *Empire Brushes, Inc.,*and *Wood Niebuhr & Co.*v. *United States*(42 Cust. Ct. 145, C.D. 2078) and that the items marked “O” consist of fishing lines similar in use to the silk fishing lines involved in *J.M.P.R. Trading Corp., Alltransport, Inc.*v. *United States*(43 C.C.P.A. 1, C.A.D. 600), the claims of the plaintiff were sustained.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roberto GAMBOA-FIERRO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 04-41342

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Aug. 17, 2005.

James Lee Turner, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Timothy William Crooks, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Roberto Gamboa-Fierro appeals from his guilty-plea conviction for illegal reentry following deportation. For the first time on appeal, Gamboa-Fierro argues that the “felony” and “aggravated felony” provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are unconstitutional in light of *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*
      *3445310 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). Gamboa-Fierro concedes that this argument is foreclosed by *Almendarez-Torres v. United States,*523 U.S. 224, 118 S.Ct. 1219, 140 L.Ed.2d 350 (1998). *See United States v. Dabeit,*231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir.2000).

Also for the first time on appeal, Gamboa-Fierro argues that the district court erred in sentencing him under a mandatory sentencing guidelines scheme. *See United States v. Booker,*— U.S. -, 125 S.Ct. 738, 756, 160 L.Ed.2d 621 (2005). Gamboa-Fierro acknowledges that this argument is reviewed for plain error, but argues that he does not have to show that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights because the error is structural and because prejudice should be presumed.

Plain error is the correct standard of review. *See United States v. Malveaux,*411 F.3d 558, 560 n. 9 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 11, 2005) (No. 05-5297). The district court committed error that is plain when it sentenced Gamboa-Fierro under a mandatory sentencing guidelines regime. *See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556); *United States v. Martinez-Lugo,*411 F.3d 597, 601 (5th Cir.2005). Gamboa-Fierro fails to meet his burden of showing that the district court’s error affected his substantial rights. *See Valenzeuela-Quevedo,*407 F.3d at 733-34; *United States v. Mares,*402 F.3d 511, 521 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517); *see also United States v. Bringier,*405 F.3d 310, 317 n. 4 (5th Cir.2005), *petition for cert. filed*(July 26, 2005)(No. 05-5535).

AFFIRMED.

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 131230 & (10) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 131230 COA: 268154 Kalkaska CC: 98-001762-FH MARK WAYNE KAUFMAN, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for miscellaneous relief is GRANTED. The application for leave to app eal the March 30, 2006 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that th e questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

p1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
H. Res. 1

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

January 4, 2007.

Resolved, That Karen L. Haas of the State of Maryland, 

be, and is hereby, chosen Clerk of the House of Representatives. 

Resolved, That Wilson S. Livingood of the Commonwealth of Virginia, be, and is hereby, chosen Sergeant at 

Arms of the House of Representatives. 

Resolved, That James M. Eagen, III, of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, be, and is hereby, chosen Chief Administrative Officer of the House of Representatives. 

Resolved, That Father Daniel P. Coughlin of the State 

of Illinois, be, and is hereby, chosen Chaplain of the House 

of Representatives. 

Attest:

Clerk.
#### James Black, Respondent, v. Brooklyn City Railroad Company, Appellant.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costs. Opinion by Pratt, J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                            YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                             DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                   1,124
<SECURITIES>                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                              541
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                  0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                         1,672
<PP&E>                                       0
<DEPRECIATION>                               0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,672
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       12
<BONDS>                                      0
<COMMON>                                     0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<OTHER-SE>                               1,660
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,672
<SALES>                                      0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           157
<CGS>                                        0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              274
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           ( 2)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (115)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (115)
<DISCONTINUED>                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0
<CHANGES>                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                              (115)
<EPS-BASIC>                            (2.97)
<EPS-DILUTED>                            (2.97)


</TABLE>
To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 2:47:33 PM

To Whom It May Concern:

I am writing today to ask in the strongest way possible that you rescind the unjust and coercive

mandate that all "contraceptives" and sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance

with no co-pay to patients. If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for

any organizations that provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I

strongly oppose the government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and

devices that I oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. This legal mandate clearly violates the spirit of conscience laws which

prohibit government discrimination against those who object to various health services on moral or

religious grounds. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to only include

churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have conscience objections

will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being able to offer employees

health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Allan Ostashev

White Haven, PA 18661
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          28,027
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,655
<ALLOWANCES>                                       332
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                32,668
<PP&E>                                           2,321
<DEPRECIATION>                                     371
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  34,902
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,676
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            20
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,722
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    34,902
<SALES>                                          2,332
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,332
<CGS>                                            1,112
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,112
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,256
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,010)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,010)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,010)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.59
        

</TABLE>
No. 197, Misc.

#### Goss *v.*Alaska.

Supreme Court of Alaska. Certiorari denied.
#### THOMAS *v.*CALIFORNIA.

No. 635, Misc.

Decided January 7, 1963.

Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed. Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, certiorari is denied.
From: dljatj@tds.net

To: E-OHPSCA2713.EBSA

Subject: Comment: RIN 1210-AB44

Date: Wednesday, September 07, 2011 3:04:32 PM

Dear Sir or Ma'am,

I am writing today to ask that you rescind the unjust and coercive mandate that all "contraceptives" and

sterilization procedures be covered by private health insurance with no co-pay to patients.

If you do not reverse course I ask you to expand conscience protections for any organizations that

provide individual and group insurance and have moral or religious objections. I strongly oppose the

government forcing free insurance coverage on Americans especially for drugs and devices that I

oppose because some of these can cause an abortion (such as ella and Plan B).

I also ask you to reconsider your definition of religious employer and offer an authentic conscience

protection for any organization and business that has moral or religious objection to providing such

insurance to their employees. The definition of "religious employer" in the regulation is so narrow as to

only include churches, but will still mean that a host of businesses and organizations that have

conscience objections will be required to choose between either violating their conscience or not being

able to offer employees health insurance.

Please protect the conscience rights of insurers, providers and people like me who object to being

forced by the federal government to offer or subsidize contraceptives and sterilization services, especially

when some of these drugs can take the life of early unborn children. No Americans should be forced by

the federal government to essentially subsidize services they object to. I again urge you in the strongest

way possible to reverse course and remove contraceptives and sterilizations from the list of mandatory

preventive services.

Sincerely,

Linda Johnson

Madison, WI 53716