alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

CARLOS JESUS TINOCO,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-12-00260-CR

Appeal from the

County Court at Law Number Two

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20100C13264)

O P I N I O N

A jury found Appellant Carlos Jesus Tinoco guilty of the offense of operating a motor 

vehicle in a public place while intoxicated. The jury sentenced Appellant to 180 days’ 

imprisonment in the County Jail. The trial court suspended Appellant’s sentence and placed him 

on community supervision for twenty-four months, and ordered him to pay a fine of $100 and 

$482 in court costs.

Appellant filed his notice of appeal, retained his trial counsel to represent him on appeal, 

and indicated that he would make arrangements to pay for the reporter’s record. However, 

Appellant failed to pay for the reporter’s record or to establish he was indigent.

By order, this Court directed the trial court to hold a hearing regarding the absence of a 
2

designation to prepare the reporter’s record. At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court 

entered findings of fact determining that Appellant was sent notice of the hearing and failed to 

appear, had retained his attorney, and had failed to pay for the reporter’s record. The trial court 

also determined that Appellant’s counsel had not had contact with Appellant for two or three 

months prior to the hearing, and his multiple attempts to contact Appellant had been unsuccessful. 

We then ordered the appeal be submitted on the clerk’s record alone. TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c). 

Appellant did not submit a brief for our consideration. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b)(4). In the 

interest of justice, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no fundamental error. See 

Lott v. State, 874 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994). As such, the trial court’s judgment is

affirmed.

GUADALUPE RIVERA, Justice

April 23, 2014

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial
Officer of Hines Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (the Company), each
hereby certifies that to his/her knowledge, on the date hereof: (a) the Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended June 30,
2004, filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section l3(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. /s/CHARLES M. BAUGHNCharles M. BaughnChief Executive Officer Date: August 16, 2004 /s/SHERRI W. SCHUGARTSherri W. SchugartChief Financial Officer Date: August 16, 2004
Exhibit 8.1

Significant Subsidiaries(1)



|                                              |  |                       |  |                   |     |  
|--------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------- |  | ----------------- | --- | -
|Name of entity                                |  | Place ofincorporation |  | Ownershipinterest |    
|1. MakeMyTrip (India) Private Limited         |  | India                 |  |                   | 100 | %
|2. Ibibo Group Holdings (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. |  | Singapore             |  |                   | 100 | %
|3. Ibibo Group Private Limited                |  | India                 |  |                   | 100 | %



Note:

|(1) | As of March 31, 2017.
|--- | ---------------------
EX-10.1
                                 Lock Up Agreement

                                    AGREEMENT


     THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 28th day of July, 2000, by and
between  Carsunlimited.com,  Inc.,  a  Nevada  Corporation (the "Company"), Paul
Greco  Family  Ltd., Partnership, The Greco Family Ltd, Partnership and Nicholas
Boscia.

     WHEREAS,  the  undersigned  are  the  shareholders of 1,525,000 shares (the
"Shares") of common Stock, $.001 par value per share (the "Common Stock") of the
Company,  a  Nevada  Corporation;  and

     WHEREAS,  in  order  to  facilitate  the  consummation  of the transactions
contemplated  by  an SB-2 Registration by the Company, the undersigned desire to
"lock  Up""  their  collective  1,525,000  shares of Common Stock of the Company
("Lock up Shares"), out of the 3,120,000 shares registered. The lock up shall be
for  a  period  of  ten  consecutive  months commencing if, and when the Company
become  a  publically trading entity on a  US regulated stock exchange. Pursuant
to  an instruction from the Company's President to the Company's transfer agent,
said shares shall be released by the Company's transfer agent pro rata on a date
certain  each  month  until  the  shares  have all been released, to wit: 73,500
shares  of the 735,000 shares to be issued to Paul Greco Family Ltd. Partnership
shall  be  released each month; 73,500 shares of the 735,000 shares to be issued
to  Greco  Family Ltd. Partnership shall be released each month and 5,000 shares
of  the  50,000  shares  to  be issued to Nicholas Boscia shall be released each
month.

     NOW,  THEREFORE,  in consideration of the foregoing premises and the mutual
covenants  agreements,  representatives  and  warranties  contained  herein, the
undersigned hereby agrees (i) not to sell, assign, transfer, convey or otherwise
alienate  the  1,525,000  lock  up  shares  of the Company's Common Stock, for a
period  of  one,  two,  three,  four,  five,  six,  seven,  eight,  nine and ten
consecutive months after the Company has become a publically trading entity on a
US  Stock  Exchange as set forth above herein; and (ii) that a legend reflecting
the  foregoing  "Lock  up"  restriction  may  be  placed  on  the certificate(s)
representing  the  shares  of  common stock subject to the 'lock up" provisions.

     IN  WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has duly executed and delivered this
Agreement  as  of  the  day  and  year  first  written  above.



Paul  Greco  Family  Ltd. Partnership                             735,000 Shares
/s___________________________
By:  Paul  Greco,  Managing  Partner

Greco Family Ltd. Partnership                                     735,000 Shares
/s___________________________
By:  Margaret  Greco,  Managing  Partner

Nicholas Boscia                                                    50,000 Shares
/s___________________________
By:  Nicholas  Boscia
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

DESIGNATION OF CHAIR AND VICE

CHAIR OF THE CONTINUING LEGAL
EDUCATION BOARD :

:

:

:

: NO. 942

SUPREME COURT RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 13 th d ay of March , 202 3

, Candice L. Komar , Esquire, is hereby

designated as Chair

, and Tuan N . Samahon

, Esquire, is designated as Vice

- Chair

, of the

Continuing Legal Education Board, commencing May 1, 2023

.
#### Inter-Maritime Fwdg. Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6644.

Entry No. 729352, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, February 19, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 11, 1941, etc.

(Decided December 18, 1946)

*Tompkins & Tompkins (J. Stuart Tompkins*of counsel) for the plaintiffs.

*Paul P. Rao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cline, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto-attached and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such values are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C.§1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of
the Balanced Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies,
to the best of his knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Balanced Series.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                               
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                             
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                                 
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Balanced Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                               
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                                
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                                    
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of the Balanced Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              

Date: November 12, 2009
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER 

 

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

 

I, Rex E. Bosen, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Provide Commerce, Inc.; 

 

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 financialcondition, 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 and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 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 consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

b)****evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

c)****disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’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 overfinancial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer andI 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 equivalentfunctions): 

 

a) all significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses 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 otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 10, 2004
7149

#### STATE v. LOPEZ.

Appeal. — Ob j ection that there was no evidence to support a verdict in a criminal case will not be considered by the Court where there was no requests, no motion to direct a verdict, or no motion for a nev* trial, if there was nothing to prevent counsel from making the question on circuit.

*Gunter*v. Fallow, 78 S. C., 458, *distinguished from this.*

Before -, J., Richland, February term, 1908.

Affirmed.

Indictment against J. F. Lopez. From sentence on verdict of guilty, defendant appeals.

*Mr. Jno. J. Barle,*for appellant.

*Solicitor Christie Benet}*contra.

Both oral arguments.

April 9, 1909.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. Justice Jones.

The defendant was convicted at the February term, 1908, General Sessions for Richland county, under an indictment for obtaining property under false pretences and was sentenced to pay a fine of $300 and to serve six months on the county chaingang.

The exceptions all allege that there was no evidence to support the conviction. There was no request to charge, no motion- to direct a verdict and no motion for a new trial on this ground. The Circuit Court was in no way called upon to make a ruling and made no ruling upon the subject. There was nothing to prevent counsel raising the question in the Circuit Court. Hence there is nothing to review. Usu-' ally such a question should be presented first to the trial *369Court in some appropriate way, and then appeal should be taken from the ruling thereon.

In *Gunter*v. *Fallow,*78 S. C., 458, 59 S. E., 70, it was impracticable to raise the question on Circuit before judgment as the testimony had been taken by consent and reported to the Court and judgment was rendered after the adjournment of Court. Under these exceptional circumstances the Court considered whether there was any testimony to support the judgment.

We may say, however, *ex gratia*that after considering the record, we cannot say that there was absolutely no testimony to support the verdict.

• The judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7396

CLARENCE GOODWIN PERKINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

KEITH OLSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District

Judge. (CA-97-1023-1)

Submitted: January 7, 1999 Decided: January 20, 1999

Before WIDENER, MURNAGHAN, and ERVIN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Goodwin Perkins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Lee Keller,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Goodwin Perkins appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have

reviewed the record and the district 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 Perkins v. Olson, No. CA-97-1023-1 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 8,

1998). 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
#### Christopher TERRELL v. STATE of Arkansas

CA CR 89-80

796 S.W.2d 348

Court of Appeals of Arkansas En Banc

Opinion delivered October 3, 1990

*59
      *Wayne Moody,*for appellant.

*Steve Clark,*Att’y Gen., by: *Kay J. Jackson Demailly,*Asst. Att’y Gen., for appellee.

Per Curiam.

In an opinion not designated for publication, we affirmed the revocation of the appellant’s suspended imposition of sentence. *Terrell*v. *State,*CA CR 89-80 *(op. del.*December 6,1989). On August 22,1990, over eight months after our decision was rendered, the appellant’s attorney filed this motion for attorney’s fees. We deny the motion.

A two-month delay between the rendition of our decision and the motion for attorney’s fees prompted us in 1982 to advise the bar that motions for attorney’s fees should be filed in this court in time for them to be considered at the time the case is considered on its merits. *Cristee*v. *State,*4 Ark. App. 33, 627 S.W.2d 34 (1982). We explained in *Cristee*that when motions for fees are delayed we are required to obtain and reconsider the briefs in order to determine the fee. *Id.*

A three-month delay prompted a similar explanation in *Stefanovich*v. *State,*10 Ark. App. 233, 662 S.W.2d 476 (1984). Our request that motions for attorney’s fees be filed so that we could consider them at the time the case was decided was, in *Stefanovich,*coupled with a warning that failure to do so could prevent an allowance of attorney’s fees. *Id.*

We granted attorney’s fees in both *Cristee*and *Stefanovich.*However, in *Fiveash*v. *State,*12 Ark. App. 391, 676 S.W.2d 769 (1984), we denied a motion for attorney’s fees filed eight months after our decision was rendered.

*In Scott v. State,*28 Ark. App. 329, 775 S.W.2d 513 (1989), we granted a motion for attorney’s fees filed four months after our decision was rendered, and repeated the warnings in *Fiveash, Stefanovich,*and *Cristee,*supra.

Considerations of efficient use of judicial time and *60resources require that we consider motions for fees while the briefs are in our possession and the case is fresh in our minds. We recommend that counsel for indigent defendants in criminal cases file a separate motion for attorney’s fees with our Clerk on the day that the reply brief is due so that they may be promptly compensated for their services and so we may avoid the unnecessary duplication of eifort required when such motions are delayed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1


                                 PROMISSORY NOTE

                                 April __, 2001

         For value received, Boeing Capital Corporation, a Delaware corporation
("BCC"), hereby unconditionally promises to pay to Boeing Nevada, Inc., a
Delaware corporation ("BNI"), the principal sum of $________________ or such
other sum on the register attached hereto that documents the principal amount
then outstanding of the loan made hereunder by BNI to BCC,


(i)      the outstanding principal amount as shown on the attached schedule, and

(ii)     interest on the loan from the date thereof to the date of payment at
         the rate per annum indicated on such schedule which shall be reset
         every month based on BCC's 30-day commercial paper borrowing rate;

such payment to be made at the maturity date indicated on the attached schedule,
or upon a mutually agreed upon date; PROVIDED, however, BCC may, at its option,
pay all or any part of the outstanding principal of the loan made hereunder any
time, with all accrued interest thereon, without premium or penalty.

Interest on the principal amount of the loan will be payable monthly on the 9th
day of each month. Such interest shall be computed using an actual/360 day
basis, or such other basis as agreed to by BNI.

If any date that a payment of interest or principal is due falls on a day that
is not a business day for both BCC and BNI, the required payment will be made on
the next succeeding business day, and interest will accrue on such payment for
the period from and after such original payment date to the date of payment on
the next succeeding business day.

BNI shall, and is hereby authorized by BCC to, record on the schedule attached
hereto and made a part hereof, the amount of the loan made by BNI hereunder and
the payment of principal or interest or both by or on behalf of BCC, the date
thereof, and the resulting principal balance then outstanding of the loan.

All payments under this Note shall be made in immediately available funds in
United States dollars. The laws of the State of California shall govern this
Note.


                                       BOEING CAPITAL CORPORATION


                                       By:
                                           -------------------------------

                                       Title:
                                              ----------------------------
#### Edwin McDonald, App’lt, *v.*Abram T. Van Horne, Committee, etc., Resp’t.

*R. M. Townsend,*for app’lt; *James A. Lynes,*for resp’t.

Order affirmed, with costs.

All concur.

Affirming 42 Hun, 653, *mem.*