alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### NUMBER 13
- 11
- 00 463
- CV 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ CHRISTOPHER JONES , TDCJ#656546, Appellant,

v. NATHANIEL QUARTERMAN AND TDCJ
- ID , ET AL., Appellee s
.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 52nd District Court of Coryell County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



## MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam The appellant's brief in the above cause was due on July 30, 2011 . On July 25,
2011 , appellant filed a brief that was not in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appella te Procedure. The brief failed generally to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate
Procedure. See T

EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 38.1 (f), (g) and (k).2

On November 18, 2011 , the Clerk of the Court notified appellant that the brief failed to comply with Rule 38.1 (f) , (g), and (k) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. The brief does not state concisely all issues or points presented for review as required by Rule 38.1(f); does not state concisely and without argument the facts pertinent to the issues or points p resented as required by Rule 38.1(g); and does not contain an appendix as required by Rule 38.1(k). See T EX . R. A PP . P. 38.1 Appellant was directed to file an amended brief in compliance with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure within ten days of the d ate of the letter, and notified that if the Court received another brief that did not comply, the Court may strike the brief, prohibit appellant from filing another, and proceed as if appellant had failed to file a brief, under which circumstances the Cour t may affirm the judgment or dismiss the appeal. See I d. 38.9(a), 42.3(b),(c). Appellant failed to respond to the Court’s notice. Pro se litigants are held to the same standards as licensed attorneys, and they must therefore comply with all applicable rules of procedure. Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn , 573 S.W.2d 181, 184

- 85 (Tex. 1978). If the appellate court determines that the
bri efing rules have been flagrantly violated, it may require a brief to be amended, supplemented, or redrawn. T EX

. R. A

PP

. P . 38.9(a). If the appellant does not file another brief that complies with the rules of appellate procedure, the appellate court may strike the brief, prohibit the party from filing another, and proceed as if the party had failed
to file a brief

. Id. Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.8(a), where an appellant has failed to file a brief, the appellate court may dismiss th e appeal for want of prosecution.3

Accordingly, we strike appellant = s non - conforming brief and order the appeal
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b)(c). PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 16th day o f February , 20 12

.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


The Board of Directors
Vectra Banking Corporation:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statement on Form
S-8 of Vectra Banking Corporation of our report dated January 31, 1997,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Vectra Banking Corporation and
subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995, and the related consolidated
statements of operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1996, which report appears in
the December 31, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K of Vectra Banking Corporation.

Our report refers to a change in the method of accounting for goodwill in 1994.


                                        /s/ KPMG PEAT MARWICK LLP
                                        KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Denver, Colorado
March 25, 1997
#### John Michael SMITH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-277.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Oct. 24, 1973.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and W. Daniel Kearney, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard C. Booth, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Steinhauser v. State, Fla.App.2d 1969, 228 So.2d 446.

MANN, C. J., McNULTY and BOARD-MAN, JJ., concur.
No. 00-6665.

#### Bayona *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of *Apprendi*v. *New Jersey,*530 U. S. 466 (2000).
**Exhibit 32.2**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONI, Amy Vidrine Samson, Chief Financial Officer of Crown Crafts, Inc. (the “Company”), do herebycertify, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:1. The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ending September 30, 2007(the “Periodic Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and 2. The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.Dated: November 14, 2007                          /s/ Amy Vidrine Samson   Amy Vidrine Samson, Chief Financial Officer
#### Bernard A. WIEDER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1061.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 25, 1974.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Robert W. Tyson, Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Robert JASMIN v. GAFFNEY, INC. and Northern Assurance Co.

No. 61009.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 1977.

In re: Robert Jasmin, applying for certio-rari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 350 So.2d 281.

Grant. It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and *1032that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
#### PLAZA DEL PRADO CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. The DEL PRADO MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., Appellee.

No. 73-1525.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 27, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Trade Source, Inc., Respondent, v Westchester Wood Works, Inc., et al., Defendants, and Leigh Isaacs, Appellant.

*438[736 NYS2d 605]

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, the defendant Leigh Isaacs appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), entered March 13, 2001, as denied that branch of his motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the appellant’s motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him. “To succeed on a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1), the documentary evidence that forms the basis of the defense must be such that it resolves all factual issues as a matter of law, and conclusively disposes of the plaintiffs claim” *(Teitler v Pollack & Sons,*288 AD2d 302; *see, Held v Kaufman,*91 NY2d 425; *Leon v Martinez,*84 NY2d 83). The documentary evidence submitted by the appellant to demonstrate that the plaintiff did not file notice of the mechanic’s lien failed to conclusively establish that defense as a matter of law *(see, Leon v Martinez, supra).*Altman, J.P., Adams, Townes and Prudenti, JJ., concur.
i i i i i i



### MEMORANDUM OPINION No. 04-08-00250-CR Linzy Eugene THOMAS , Appellant

v. The State of TEXAS , Appellee From the 175th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2006-CR-7700W Honorable Mary Roman, Judge Presiding Opinion by: Karen Angelini, Justice Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice Rebecca Simmons, Justice Steven C. Hilbig, Justice Delivered and Filed: October 1, 2008 AFFIRMED; MOTION TO WITHDRAW GRANTED Appellant Linzy Eugene Thomas was charged by information with the felony offense of possession of a controlled substance. Pursuant to a plea agreement, Thomas entered a plea of nolo contendere to the offense charged in the information. The trial court followed the plea agreement and assessed punishment at two years confinemen t; however, the court suspended the execution of the sentence and placed Thomas on community supe rvision for a period of two years. The State subsequently filed a motion to revoke Thomas’s community supervision. After Thomas pled true04-08-00250-CR

-2- to violating a condition of his community superv ision, the trial court revoked Thomas’s community supervision and assessed punishment at two years confinement. The trial court certified Thomas’s right to appeal, and a timely notice of appeal was filed. Thomas’s court-appointed appellate attorney has filed a brief in which he concludes that this appeal is frivolous and without merit. See Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State , 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). Counsel states that Thomas was provided with a copy of the brief and motion to withdraw a nd was further informed of his right to review the record and file his own brief. See Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 178 n. 1 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1996, no writ). Thomas did not file a pro se brief. We have reviewed the record and counsel’s brie f. We agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Furthermore, we grant the motion to withdraw. See Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85-86 (Tex. A pp.—San Antonio 1997, no writ); Bruns , 924 S.W.2d at 178 n. 1. No substitute counsel will be appointed. Should Thomas wish to seek further review of this case by the Texas Court of Criminal App eals, Thomas must either retain an attorney to file a petition for discretionary review or file a pro se petition for discretionary review. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed w ithin thirty days after either the date of this opinion or the date the last timely motion for rehearing is overruled by this court. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.2. Any petition for discretionary review must be filed with this court, after which it will be forwarded to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.3, 68.7. Any petition for discretionary review should comply with the requirements of Rule 68.4 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 68.4. Karen Angelini, Justice DO NOT PUBLISH
Exhibit 32   Certifications   In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, of American General Finance, Inc. (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of Frederick W. Geissinger, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Donald R. Breivogel, Jr., Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and  (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.    /s/Frederick W. GeissingerFrederick W. GeissingerPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/Donald R. Breivogel, Jr.Donald R. Breivogel, Jr.Senior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:August 7, 2008   48
#### John Brook NORTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-816.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 4, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT8.1

The following chart sets forth the organization ofTeléfonica CTC Chile's subsidiaries and affiliates, all ofwhich are Chilean corporations, except for TBS CelularParticipaçoes S.A., which is a Brazilian corporation. Percentageownership information is as of December 31,2004.

|  |
|--|
|  |  |
|  |

|     |                                                                                                 |
|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (1) | Theremaining interest in these companies is also indirectly held byTelefónica CTC Chile. |

|     |                                                                                                                                                                                  |
|-----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (2) | TelefónicaCTC Chile holds 28.84% of Atento Chile S.A. through theadditional participation of its subsidiaries; Telefónica MundoS.A. and TelefónicaEmpresas. |

|     |                                                                                                                              |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| (3) | Compañía deTeléfonos de Chile-Transmisiones Regionales S.A. changed its nameto Telefónica Mundo. |

----
**Exhibit 31.2** **CERTIFICATION**     I, William R. Abbott, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on    Form 10-KSB    of Cardiogenesis Corporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, this Annual 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 Annual    Report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and    other financial information included in this Annual 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 Annual Report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer 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 we 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 Annual    Report is being prepared;     (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s    disclosure controls 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 Annual 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 the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter    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 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:     (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. /s/  William    R. Abbott    William R. Abbott*Chief Financial Officer*     March 29, 2007
**Exhibit 32(c)**

 

**The Dayton Powerand Light Company**

** **

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

The undersigned officerof The Dayton Power and Light Company (the “Issuer”) hereby certifies pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Issuer’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended September 30, 2008, which this certificateaccompanies, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the informationcontained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Issuers as of the dates and for theperiods expressed therein.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adoptingthe signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thisstatement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hasbeen provided to the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuers and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

Signed:

 

 
|  /s/ Paul M. Barbas                     |   |
|----------------------------------------------|--------|
|  Paul M. Barbas                         |
|  President  and Chief Executive Officer |

 

Date: October 29,2008

 

The foregoing certificateis being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is notbeing filed as part of the Issuer’s Annual Report or as a separate disclosuredocument.

 

1

----
Exhibit
23.2
 (SRK CONSULTING LOGO)
    
    SRK Consulting (U.S.), Inc. 
7175 West Jefferson Avenue, Suite 3000
Lakewood, CO
USA 80235
denver@srk.com
www.srk.comTel: 303.985.1333 Fax: 303.985.9947
 CONSENT OF SRK (US) CONSULTING, INC.
    Date: March 9, 2011
    SRK CONSULTING (US), INC./s/
Terry BraunName:
    Terry Braun, P.E.Title:
    Vice President, Principal Environmental Engineer Group Offices:
    
    Canadian Offices:
    
    U.S. Offices:Africa
    
    Saskatoon
    
    
    306.955.4778
    
    
    Anchorage
    
    
    907.677.3520Asia
    
    Sudbury
    
    
    705.682.3270
    
    
    Denver
    
    
    303.985.1333Australia
    
    Toronto
    
    
    416.601.1445
    
    
    Elko
    
    
    775.753.4151Europe
    
    Vancouver
    
    
    604.681.4196
    
    
    Fort Collins
    
    
    970.407.8302North America
    
    Yellowknife
    
    
    867.445.8670
    
    
    Reno
    
    
    775.828.6800South America
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Tucson
    
    
    520.544.3688
#### Gene B. BARNER a/k/a Bobby Gene Barner and Willie O. Christia, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. 71-780, 71-781.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Nov. 17, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Richard ERZNOZNIK, as Manager of the University Drive-In Theatre, Appellant, v. CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, a municipal corporation, Appellee.

No. S-452.

District Court o£ Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 8, 1974.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 5, 1974.

William H. Maness, Jacksonville, for appellant.

T. Edward Austin, Jr., Ralph W. Nim-mons, Jr., and Wayne M. Ellis, Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Chemline, Inc. v. City of Grand Prairie, 364 F.2d 721 (5th Cir.1966).

RAWLS, C. J., and SPECTOR and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
PART 1:  EXHIBIT 11.01

<TABLE>
                      JSB FINANCIAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARY
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
               (Unaudited, In Thousands, except per share amounts)
<CAPTION>

                                                               Year Ended          Three Months Ended
                                                              December 31,            December 31,
                                                              ------------            ------------
                                                            1997        1996        1997        1996
                                                            ----        ----        ----        ----


<S>                                                       <C>         <C>         <C>          <C>
Basic earnings per share:
-------------------------

Basic weighted average common shares*                       9,858      10,062       9,912       9,776

Net Income                                                $37,090     $26,725     $14,979      $7,287

Basic earnings per common share*                            $3.76       $2.66      $ 1.51       $ .75



Diluted earnings per share:
---------------------------

Weighted average common and dilutive potential shares*     10,190      10,436      10,243      10,139

Net Income                                                $37,090     $26,725     $14,979      $7,287

Diluted earnings per common share*                          $3.64       $2.56       $1.46       $ .72


<FN>

* Earnings per share for 1996 have been restated, as required,  for the adoption
of Financial Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 128.
</FN>
</TABLE>
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 5:55 PM 

To: Wayland, Robertj 

Subject: RE: DOE Meeting? 

Hi Bob, 

Here are times that work for DOE and us –meetings on Thursday or Friday of next week is better 

for DOE (rather than Wednesday), but we may want to schedule a call on Wednesday if that’s what 

works best and meet in person the next time. Whatever we decide to do in person, I can find a 

room here. 

Heat Rates, NG/re-dispatch (0.75-1 hr each, either together or separate) 

Nuclear (0.5-0.75 hrs) 

Wednesday, 5/7: 1-2 

Thursday, 5/8: 5-6:30 

Friday, 5/9: 9:30-11, 2-3, 4-6 

RE (1 hr) and EE (1 hr) 

Monday, 5/11, 10-11, noon-1, 4:30-5:30 

Wednesday, 5/14, 4-5 

Regards, 

Cortney 

From: Wayland, Robertj [mailto:Wayland.Robertj@epa.gov] 

Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2014 3:09 PM 

To: Higgins, Cortney 

Subject: DOE Meeting? 

Importance: High 

Cortney – 

Do you have any suggested dates/times yet for next week’s face-to-face with DOE? I’ve gotten 

permission from Peter for 2-3 of us to attend in person, so I’ll need to have the admin folks make 

travel arrangements/TAs tomorrow or Monday. Just let me know what the possibilities are, and 

we’ll go from there. 

thanx! 

bob 
Robert J. Wayland, Ph.D. 

Leader, Energy Strategies Group 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

Sector Policies and Programs Division 

Mail Code D243-01 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 

Office: (919) 541-1045 

Cell: (919) 306-2290 

Fax: (919) 541-5450 

Email: wayland.robertj@epa.gov 

************************************* 

 DRAFT/Deliberative Document - FOIA Exempt 

*************************************
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Thomas A. RHYMES.

No. 60422.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 30, 1978.

Roger C. Edwards, Roger E. Boynton, Abbeville, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Nathan Stansbury, Dist. Atty., Richard J. Putnam, Jr., Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant was convicted after trial by jury of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, without benefit of parole, probation or suspension of sentence for a period of forty years.

Because we find no reversible error in any of defendant’s eighteen assignments of error, the conviction and sentence are affirmed.