alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE **OF THE**  ATTORNEY GENERAL **AUSTIN** OF ., ‘rai

TEXAS

Dear sikt

,-

.. / 1 ./

I i9451~ It la statedIn Taxas J~iqmudanoe,.Tol. 39, p.
"Itvan in the absenoe oi pow@7 bi!.~r~lrly oonferrd; trustsea nay -ploy x!r

..,,> ,. Morn& to ln8tiltuto

a&J prowoute aotl. In their behalf as a'oraeaeary

lnoldent

6;i thelr.poaer to aontraot,

to sue and to a&ago and to oontrol

the sohool

affair8

and inleirs88r. r,ibmdao theymay pay auoh an attorney a rewfmab&s 0mapen~8810n Out or th0 epeotil~ .rln%snanoe fund in the saaagernent~ and eontrol of tha.tZuaQees. **And** it 16Aeld t&t theBo~W Irf~Eduo&loa of the oity,rhloh .har essrrmsd

@tr.oL or its aohool.8 a8 an Indopsndeati

diatrlet,

may entploy

M qEtor+y estharto .@mm+te or-defand:ti~CI LitlmtiOn, lnvolriag

the l&te*&ty of anp~ttie-orreguIaClon &eWtbd

### by thW JZeOeBB~ fit! 8h;heinaintenancmof an efflolant systemof sohoo.la

Sor t&a say. tartmy an&~un%y'attorneywa#,.fo .&&~'a# the mitt fttttotioa~@..tha~~ o?flosrr.the

pprostwution of ~OXlmlnal

ealsw.*

### 744

'gut hosteua ham 110 

### pwur, eitherexgawt6iad

or $.mplied,

to employoounssl

and s~pend publie fondr ot the dl#tri$$ln M aCtapt ta s*ouxe 0% &if*t lrglelatlon;lndeed ,apih

bontraetq

am ordinarilyoontrary Se publl~.~pgl.$ay

and are void.* ,It; &,tblmo,,that

Ar$iele 354, eupra, prorides that Dlerlot and opunty Attorneya sbalJ advlreand $lw oplnlow to t&a nkrlow fmuntysob preoiwt offiaurs :$m@tlng $hulr QlilOlal

'dUti68.Roworer,we do no8 think tlkt~ this artiolh.aao~bs;

oo~trusd sWiapoai~& upon ~aDfa$l%ob or i : /

It iO,tkeo+IiOn of **this** ~dupartwhntthmt thwu la
. &CI duty ~osSa~.ti~o~

the~Cou+i%y

Attorney: by lar .tii

perfom the 

### abotb

ment~~~d~h~io~~l~ OQllWO*ti0~ wlihh,att

eleotlcpn to eon#olida$e

ii&apnidWit

eelrot& dWtrlot8 and that~

dald dlatriot

or dl@t&olP mky legally sontraot

with the-

County Attorney

to p&?@p suuh 8etitoes and pty.hi2t.a reaaanablr oompensatlon

~hc3mfoc

out of tha'iq@*al apalutesianos t-d in tha muagmto!lt

and Oontrql

Of,ths frarrteese. "Truatingg

that~tho

foregoing fully,answere ymr lJiQulry*~w~

are YOore very truly ATTORmrrr~L **OPTXAS**

APPROVED OPINION COMMn-rcs 

# 0. .YW --
Exhibit 11.1

Calculation of weighted average for the nine month period
ended September 30, 2001

Sideware Systems Inc.

Beginning Balance                    60,886,415

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Date of issue       No. of Shares      Contribution to   Ending Balance
                    Issued             Weighted Avg.
<S>                 <C>                <C>               <C>

Feb. 22, 2001       5,229,752          4,195,134         65,081,279
Sep. 5, 2001        2,941,176            267,380         65,348,659

</TABLE>

Total weighted average shares outstanding:   65,348,659
Less shares held in escrow:                     970,378
                                             ----------
Balance:                                     64,378,281


Net loss for the period:                     $8,802,595

Net loss per share                          $      0.19
#### Bill ARFLIN, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. II-347.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 11, 1978.

James L. Harrison, of Harrison & Snyder, Jacksonville, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and George R. Georgieff, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is DENIED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN and MELVIN, JJ., concur.
#### John SKISTMAS, Maremont Corp., an Illinois corporation, doing business in Florida, and Gelco Leasing Corp., a Minnesota corporation, Petitioners, v. George B. JACKSON, individually and as surviving spouse of Melita A. Jackson, Deceased, Respondent.

No. 69-911.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 29, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Certiorari dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 53058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26974]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Advisory Committee on Women Veterans; Notice of Charter Renewal

    This gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (Public Law 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App.), that the Department of 
Veterans Affairs' Advisory Committee on Women Veterans has been renewed 
for a 2-year period beginning September 26, 1997, through September 26, 
1999.

    Dated: September 30, 1997.

    By Direction of the Secretary-Designate.
Heyward Bannister,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-26974 Filed 10-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.<TABLE> <S> <C><ARTICLE>    5<S>                                                      <C><PERIOD-TYPE>                                          9-MOS<PERIOD-START><FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                Nov-30-2000<PERIOD-END>                                     Aug-31-2000<CASH>                                             1,148,327<SECURITIES>                                               0<RECEIVABLES>                                      1,119,347<ALLOWANCES>                                               0<INVENTORY>                                                0<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   2,268,719<PP&E>                                                11,465<DEPRECIATION>                                         2,656<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     2,277,788<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              1,135,502<BONDS>                                                    0<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                      0<PREFERRED>                                                0<COMMON>                                               1,268<OTHER-SE>                                         1,355,555<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       2,277,788<SALES>                                                    0<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                      68,263<CGS>                                                      0<TOTAL-COSTS>                                              0<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     252,439<LOSS-PROVISION>                                           0<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                    28,433<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    (212,609)<INCOME-TAX>                                             625<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                        0<DISCONTINUED>                                             0<EXTRAORDINARY>                                            0<CHANGES>                                                  0<NET-INCOME>                                       (213,234)<EPS-BASIC>                                            (.02)<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.02)</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.7

                         [MEDICOR FOUNDATION LETTERHEAD]



Lehman Brothers Inc.
745 Seventh Avenue
New York, New York 10019

Dear Sirs:

     The undersigned, Medicor Foundation ("Transferee"), as transferee of
certain shares of the common stock of Westport Resources Corporation (the
"Company") owned by Westport Energy, LLC hereby agrees to be bound by the terms
of the lock-up agreement signed by the transferor to the same extent as if
Transferee were a party thereto with respect to all such transferred stock, and
accordingly Lehman Brothers Inc. consents to such transfer of the common stock
of the Company to Transferee.

                                MEDICOR FOUNDATION


                                By: /s/ Ursula Haas
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Title: President
                                    Date:  February 14, 2003


                                By: /s/ Michael Russell
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Title: Member of Council
                                   Date:  February 14, 2003


                                LEHMAN BROTHERS INC.


                                By: /s/ Emma Bailey
                                    --------------------------------------------
                                    Date: February 14, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40516

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANCISCO ARGUELLO-AYALA,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:12-CR-1464-1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Francisco ArguelloAyala has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with 

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 

229 (5th Cir. 2011). Arguello-Ayala has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

February 21, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40516 Document: 00512540622 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/21/2014
No. 13-40516

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

 Case: 13-40516 Document: 00512540622 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/21/2014
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM SUN
HEALTHCARE GROUP, INC. DECEMBER 31, 1997 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          21,120
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  557,594
<ALLOWANCES>                                    34,433
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               645,211
<PP&E>                                         685,607
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,505
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,579,236
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          325,692
<BONDS>                                      1,488,861
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           517
<OTHER-SE>                                     616,536
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,579,236
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,010,820
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,662,818
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                15,839
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              74,482
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 95,882
<INCOME-TAX>                                    41,153
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             54,729
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 19,928
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    34,801
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.75
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.74


</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Alston, Decker and Senior Judge Coleman 

ROTO ROOTER SERVICES COMPANY AND 

 AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 

v. Record No. 1752-13-4 PER CURIAM 

 JANUARY 28, 2014 

EUGENIO A. MURGA 

FROM THE VIRGINIA WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION 

 (Joseph C. Veith III; Bancroft, McGavin, Horvath & Judkins, P.C., 

on brief), for appellants. 

 No brief for appellee. 

 Roto Rooter Services Company and its insurer (employer) appeal a decision of the 

Workers’ Compensation Commission finding Eugenio A. Murga (claimant) suffered an 

exacerbation of existing sacroiliac joint problems, causally related to his compensable 

May 21, 2008 accident and expanding claimant’s medical award to cover treatment to his 

sacroiliac joints. Employer contends the commission erred in (1) finding that the sacroiliac 

condition was exacerbated in the May 21, 2008 accident and claimant’s subsequent treatment of 

that condition was causally related to the accident where the conclusion reached was based upon 

a factual finding that is not supported by credible evidence in the record and a medical opinion 

that rested upon a faulty premise; and (2) finding the claim of injury to the sacroiliac joint was 

not barred by the statute of limitations. 

 We have reviewed the record and the commission’s opinion and find that this appeal is 

without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the commission in its final 

 *

 Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. 

UNPUBLISHED 
- 2 - 

opinion. See Murga v. Roto Rooter Services, JCN 2416697 (Aug. 14, 2013). We dispense with 

oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 

 Affirmed.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 02-60016 Summary Calendar

MOSES ELECTRIC SERVICE, INC., and its agent

EXPRESS PERSONNEL SERVICES,

Petitioner-Cross-Respondent,

VERSUS

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD,

Respondent-Cross-Petitioner.

Petition for Review & Cross-Petition for Enforcement of an Order of the National Labor Relations Board (26-CA-17904)

July 15, 2002

Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

This case is before the Court on the petition of Moses

Electric Servic e, Inc. (“the Company”) to review, and the crossapplication of the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) to

enf orce the decision and order of the Board issued on July 16,2

2001, in which the Board dete rmined that the Company violated

§ 8(a)(3) and (1) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended,

29 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. (“the Act”), by refusing to hire twelve

applicants because of their Union affiliation and by discharging

employee, Stephen Alexander, because of his Union activities. This

Court will not disturb the Board’s unfair labor practice findings

if substantial evidence supports the Board’s inferences and

conclusions, “even if the Court would j ustifiably have made a

different choice had the matter been before it de novo.” U niversal

Camera Corp. v. NLRB
, 340 U.S . 474, 488 (1951), a ccord

, NLRB v.

Thermon Heat Tracing Services, Inc.
, 143 F.3d 181, 185 (5th Cir.

1998). Because the Board’s findings with respect to the employer’s

motive in discr imination cases involves “drawing inferences from

the evidence” based on “the expertise of the Board,” this Court’s

review of such findings “is even more def erential.” L aro

Maintenance Corp. v. NLRB
, 56 F.3d 224, 229 (D.C. Cir. 1995),

accord

, Valmont Indus., Inc. v. NLRB , 244 F.3d 454, 463 (5th Cir.

2001). Finally, this Court has consistently held that it will not

displace the administrative law judge’s credibility determinations

or inferences, as adopted by the Board, except in the rare

circumstances when those credibility determinations are

unreasonable or are based on an inadequate or nonexistent reason.

NLRB v. McCull ough Environmental Services, Inc. , 5 F.3d 923 (5th

Cir. 1993).3

Under these standards of review, we have carefull y reviewed

the petition for review, the Board’s order, the briefs, the reply

brief, and relevant portions of the record itself. We conclude

that the Board’s findings of discrimination are supported by

substantial evidence and that the administr ative law judge’s

credibility determinations are not unreasonable. Accordingly, we

dismiss the Com pany’s petition for review, and grant the crossapplication by the Board for enforcement of its order of July 16,

2001. The Company, its officers, agents, successors, and assigns

are hereby ordered to comply therewith.
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

May 23, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00113

- CV

STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

, Appel lant

v.

Ernest VALDEZ

, Appellee

From the 288th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020

- CI

- 12244 Honorable Aaron Haas , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

The reporter’s record in this case was originally due on March 26 , 20 20

. On April 7

, 2022 , this court notified Ms. Blanca Espericueta, the court reporter responsible for preparing the record

, that the record was late. Ms. Espericueta was instructed to file a notification of late record no later than ten days from the date of our notification if the reporter’s record had not been filed becau se the fee for its preparation had not been paid. Otherwise, Ms. Espericueta was instructed to file the reporter’s record no later than thirty days from the date of our notification

. On April 18, 2022, Ms. Espericueta filed a n otification of l ate r ecord st ating that , due to her additional duties, she need ed additional time in which to file the record. Ms. Espericueta estimated the record would be complete within thirty to sixty days. We granted the request in part and ordered Ms. Espericueta to file the r eporter’s record no later than May 9, 2022.

On May 17, 2022, Ms. Espericueta filed another notification of late record requesting a forty

- five

- day extension until June 23, 2022. The request is GRANTED, and Ms. Espericueta is ORDERED to file the reporter’s record no later than June 23 , 2022

. Further requests for an extension of t ime are disfavored.

If the reporter’s record is not filed with this court by June 23, 2022, any requests for additional time to file the record must be accompanied by a signed, written status report. The report must comply with the following requirements :

• describe the transcript by day with the date, description, page counts, and remarks for each day;• list the page counts for the total number of pages, the number of pages edited, proofread,

and formatted into the required electronic form (including bookma rks); and

• describe any problems the court reporter reasonably believes may delay the completion of the record beyond the requested date.

• The report may describe any unusual aspects of the record.

_________________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 23rd day of May, 2022

.

___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz , Clerk of Court
#### Manuel J. DANS and Rose Dans, his wife, Appellants, v. GRAN HABANA RESTAURANT AND LOUNGE, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-1218.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 16, 1971.

Rohan & Rohan, Miami, for appellants.

Anthony F. Paterna, and Edward Lust-garten, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ-

PEARSON, Chief Judge.

This interlocutory appeal is from an order denying the defendants’ motion to *158quash service of process and denying defendants’ motion to dissolve a writ of attachment. The complaint reveals that the appellee seeks damages for appellants’ breach of a contract to purchase from ap-pellee a restaurant business in Miami, Florida.

The process and return of service are not included in the record before this court but the trial judge found: “* * * the plaintiff and defendants have each filed affidavits setting forth the facts justifying the service of process in accordance with §§ *46.161 [48.161]*and 48.181, F.S.A. * * Appellants’ point on appeal directed to the denial of their motion to quash service urges that there was an insufficient showing that appellants were doing business in this state. An examination of the affidavits shows that appellants had (1) opened a bank account in a Miami bank; (2) signed a contract to purchase a restaurant business; (3) applied for an alcoholic beverage license; (4) executed a document assuming a lease to the restaurant premises. Appellant describes all of these acts as “preparation for doing business.” We think that the trial judge correctly held that these actions amounted to an engaging in a business venture. See Wm. E. Strasser Construction Corp. v. Linn, Fla.1957, 97 So.2d 458; Weber v. Register, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 619; O’Connell v. Loach, Fla.App.1967, 203 So.2d 350; Florida Investment Enterprises, Inc. v. Kentucky Co., Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 733; Matthews v. Matthews, Fla.App. 1960, 122 So.2d 571.

Appellants’ point directed to the denial of their motion to dissolve the attachment urges only that the attachment was invalid because, “there is no debt shown to be actually due.” Appellee’s affidavit on the other hand avers that the alleged debtors were about to remove their property out of the state. Florida Statutes § 76.05(1), F.S.A. provides “Any creditor may have an attachment on a debt not due, when the debtor: (1) Is actually removing his property out of the state * * * ”

The points presented upon this interlocutory appeal do not present reversible error.

Affirmed.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

May 20, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00266

- CR

Jose Luis GONZALES
, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018CR12836 Honorable Catherine Torres

- Stahl, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The trial court’s certification in this appeal states “this criminal case is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” The clerk’s record contains a written plea bargain, and the punishment assessed did not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant; therefore, the trial court’s certification accurately reflects that the crimina l case is a plea

- bargain case. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(a)(2).

Rule 25.2(d) of the Texa s Rules of Appellate Procedure provides : “The appeal must be dismissed if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record under these rules.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d). It is therefore ORDERED that this

a

ppeal will be dismissed pursuant to R ule 25.2(d) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure unless appellant causes an amended trial court certification to be filed within ten (10) days of the date of this order showing appe llant has the right of appeal. Se e T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 25.2(d)

, 37.1; see also Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005); Daniels v. State

, 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, no pet.). All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending our resolution of the certification issue.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 20th day of May, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE
, Clerk of Court