alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Motion Granted; Order filed November 6, 2014 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-14-00386-CR

____________

RODNEY ROCHELL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1383622

ORDER

On July 30, 2014, Carol Castillo, the substitute court reporter for the 176th 

District Court, filed the reporter’s record in this case. On the same day this court 

notified Ms. Castillo that the record was incomplete. The exhibits volume does not 

contain the exhibits admitted at trial. No supplemental reporter’s record was 

subsequently filed.

On November 3, 2014, appellant filed a motion to extend time to file his 
brief in which he alleged that he cannot complete his brief with an incomplete 

record. Appellant’s motion is granted. Accordingly, we issue the following order:

We order Carol Castillo, the court reporter, to file a supplemental reporter’s 

record in this appeal on or before December 8, 2014. Appellant’s brief is due 

seven days after the supplemental reporter’s record is filed.

PER CURIAM
#### FIRST DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF AMERICA, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE and Robert W. Zinn as Clerk of the Circuit Court in and for Sarasota County, Florida, Appellees.

No. 72-756.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 7, 1973.

John Patterson of Icard, Merrill, Cullis, Timm & Furen, Sarasota, for appellant.

*234Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and William R. Cave, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Raccoon Development, Inc. v. United States, 1968, 391 F.2d 610, 183 Ct.Cl. 276.

MANN, C. J., and HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ„ concur. ■
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Allie Jaramillo, * From the County Court at Law

 of Ector County,

 Trial Court No. CCL-22937.

No. 11-23-00117-CV * July 11, 2024

City of Odessa Animal Control, * Memorandum Opinion by Trotter, J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

 

 

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the order below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, the 

order of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                          OF CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER

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

The undersigned, James M. Seneff, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of CNL Realty
Corporation,  the  corporate  general  partner of CNL Income  Fund X, Ltd.  (the
"Partnership"),  has executed this  certification  in connection with the filing
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission of the Partnership's  Annual Report
on Form  10-K for the  period  ending  December  31,  2002 (the  "Report").  The
undersigned hereby certifies that:

(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 Partnership.

Date:    March 27, 2003                      /s/ James M. Seneff, Jr.
                                             ------------------------------
                                             Name:  James M. Seneff, Jr.
                                             Title:   Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT IX SUMMARY DESCRIPTION OF THE 2014 DIRECTORS COMPENSATION PROGRAM






Exhibit 10b(ix)


Summary Description of the 2014 Directors Compensation Program


Members of the Company’s Board of Directors who are not Company employees receive an annual retainer of $85,000, which is intended to cover all regularly scheduled meetings of the Board and its committees. If additional meetings are held, a per-meeting fee of $1,500 will be paid to each attending director.


The Chairs of Board committees receive additional annual retainers. For the Chair of the Audit Committee, the retainer is $20,000; for the Chair of the Board Affairs and Nominating Committee, the retainer is $10,000; and for the Chair of the Compensation Committee, the retainer is $15,000. The retainer for the Lead Director is $20,000.


All independent directors also receive an annual deferred stock unit grant. The number of shares covered by each grant is equal to $125,000 (based on the 200-day average stock price as of January 31, in the year of the grant, a methodology consistent with the calculation for other executive equity awards), rounded up to the next ten-share increment. The deferred stock units are settled upon termination of service as a director. Directors may also defer their annual retainers, committee chair retainers, and meeting fees in a deferred stock unit account.


A director who is an employee of Grainger or any Grainger subsidiary does not receive any retainer fees for Board or Board committee service, Board or Board committee meeting attendance fees, or stock options or stock units under the Director Stock Plan.


Stock ownership guidelines applicable to non-employees directors were established in 1998. These guidelines provide that within five years after election, a director must own Grainger common stock and common stock equivalents having a value of at least five times the annual retainer fee for serving on the Board.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3904]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
[Dept. Circ. 570, 1996 Rev., Supp. No. 8]


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds; Indiana Insurance 
Company

    A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable surety on Federal Bonds 
is hereby issued to the following company under sections 9304 to 9308, 
Title 31, of the Untied States Code. Federal bond-approving officers 
should annotate their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570, 
1996 Revision, on page 34296 to reflect this addition:

Indiana Insurance Company. Business Address: 62 Maple Avenue, Keene, NH 
03431. Phone: (603) 352-3221. Underwriting Limitation b/: $8,992,000. 
Surety Licenses c/: FL, IL, IN, IA, KY, MI, OH, TN, WA, WI. 
Incorporated IN: Indiana.

    Certificates of Authority expire on June 30 each year, unless 
revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent 
annual renewal as long as the companies remain qualified (31 CFR, part 
223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1 
in Treasury Department Circular 570, with details as to underwriting 
limitations, areas in which licensed to transact surety business and 
other information.
    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet 
(http://www.fmd.treas.gov/c570.html) or through our computerized public 
bulletin board system (FMS Inside Line) at (202) 874-6887. A hard copy 
may be purchasing from the Government Printing Office (GPO), 
Subscription Service Washington, DC, telephone (202) 512-1800. When 
ordering the Circular from GPO, use the following stock number: 048-
000-00499-7.
    Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Funds 
Management Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 
6F04, Hyattsville, MD 20782, telephone (202) 874-6850.

    Dated: February 4, 1997.
Charles F. Schwan III,
Director, Funds Management Division, Financial Management Service.
[FR Doc. 97-3904 Filed 2-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
Exhibit 3.02

CERTIFICATE OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP

DEAN WITTER DIVERSIFIED FUTURES FUND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP
            The undersigned, desiring to form a limited partnership
under the Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act, Title
6 Delaware Code, Subtitle II, Chapter 17, ?17-101 et seq. (the
"Act") does hereby certify, pursuant to Section 17-201 (a) of
the Act, as follows:
            1.	Name of Limited Partnership.   The name of the
limited partnership is DEAN WITTER DIVERSIFIED FUTURES FUND
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.
            2.	Nature of Business.  The nature of the business to
be conducted by the Partnership is to engage in any lawful act or
activity for which a limited partnership may be organized under
the law of the State of Delaware.
            3.	Registered Office and Agent.  The address of the
Partnership's registered office in the State of Delaware is c/o
The Corporation Trust Company, 1209 Orange Street, in the City of
Wilmington, County of New Castle.  The name and address of the
Partnership's registered agent for service of process in the
State of Delaware is The Corporation Trust Company, 1209 Orange
street, in the City of Wilmington, County of New Castle.

            4.	General Partner.  The name and the business and
mailing address of the sole general partner is Demeter Management


<page> Corporation, Two World Trade Center, 22nd Floor, New
York, New York 10048.
This Certificate was duly executed in accordance with,
           and is being filed pursuant to, the

         Act, and the rights of creditors and partners of the Partnership
          are intended to be governed by the Act.
	IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this
         Certificate of Limited Partnership of DEAN WITTER DIVERSIFIED
         FUTURES FUND LIMITED PARTNERSHIP on November 21st, 1987.
	GENERAL PARTNER:
	DEMETER MANAGEMENT CORPORATION


By:



Kenne
th G.
Tropi
n
Direc
tor
and
Presi
dent
#### Lawyer C. BERRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-307.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 24, 1970.

Appeal from Court of Record, Brevard County; Joe A. Cowart, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
FILED

DALLAS COUNTY

1/12/2015 10:07:08 AM

FELICIA PITRE

DISTRICT CLERK

Bridgette Vation

NO. 13-12651-C 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, () IN THE DISTRICT COURT 

() 

Plaintiff () 

() 

vs. () OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS 

() 

ONE 2001 BMW X5, () 

() 

Defendant () 68TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

CLAIMANT'S NOTICE OF APPEAL 

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

COMES NOW, Claimant, Fernanda Devany, who filed an answer and appeared in 

person in the trial of this action and claimed ownership interest in the 2001 BMW X5 

automobile, vehicle identification number WBAFB33561 LH25230, Texas license number 

DSM305 that was found to be contraband liable to forfeiture to the State of Texas gives 

notice of her intent to appeal the trial court's judgment rendered on December 16, 2014. 

This appeal is taken to the Fifth Court of Appeals in Dallas, Texas. 

NOTICE OF APPEAL 

Respectfully submitted 

/s/ Kevin Kurtz 

Kevin Kurtz 

Attorney and Counselor at Law 

3621 Mockingbird Lane 

Dallas, Texas 75205 

(214) 559-0505 

Fax# (214) 559-0580 

Email kevin@kurtzesq.com 

State Bar No. 11770500 

05-15-00039-CV

 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 1/13/2015 12:27:46 PM LISA MATZ Clerk
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that the above Notice of Appeal has been sent to Plaintiff, 

The State of Texas at opposing counsel's office at the Criminal District Attorney for Dallas 

FA~ 2.f'l · (g.$'.3 .- t-1 "1S'f 

County Texas's office in the Frank Crowley Criminal Courthouse via l:+aAEI deliv8ry on the 

9th day of January, 2015. 

Is/Kevin Kurtz 

Kevin Kurtz 

NOTICE OF APPEAL
#### Marcia CARLSON, as Guardian ad litem of Cornell B. Smith, an incompetent, and Cornell B. Smith, Individually, Appellant, v. Donald L. KEENE, Appellee.

No. 72-686.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 7, 1973.

Gale K. Greene, Sarasota, for appellant.

Lloyd Lyday, Bradenton, for appellee.

MANN, Chief Judge.

The question is whether Fla.Stat. 63.-081(3), F.S.A. (1971), which provides that “If the child sought to be adopted has attained the age of twelve years, the written consent of the child, executed and acknowledged as aforesaid, shall also be required” requires reversal of a judgment of adoption where no written consent was filed but the child’s consent is embodied in testimony taken at the final hearing. When the entire section1 is read in context, it is apparent that the purpose of the statute is to insure that notice is given to all parties interested in the adoption proceeding. The consent is an alternative to notice and the statute speaks of consent as to those parties who would normally be expected to consent to the adoption rather than appear as adversary parties. Appel-lee’s counsel advises us that normal practice is to ignore subsection 3 at the pleading stage and supply the consent by interrogation of the child at final hearing. We think this procedure ignores the statute but that the error is harmless in this case. No objection was raised prior to final hearing that the child’s consent had not been filed with the petition, and the appellant raises the question for the first time on appeal. For the reasons that the purpose of the statute is not to avail the natural parent of a technical defense but rather to insure the agreement of the child to his adoption, and because the appellant cannot for the first time raise the question on appeal, the judgment is affirmed. The other points raised are without merit.

Affirmed.

HOBSON and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.

1

. The section begins: “Service of process shall be unnecessary when a written consent is filed with the petition or thereafter executed in the presence of two witnesses and acknowledged before an officer authorized by law to take acknowledgments by: . . . ”
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

 

The undersigned, Stephen M. Hosmer, Co-President, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Royale Energy, Inc., a California corporation (the "Company"), pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, hereby certifies that:

 

(1) the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 Company.

 

 

| Date: April 29, 2009 | By:    | */s/ Stephen M. Hosmer*                                                                 |
|---------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | Stephen M. Hosmer, Co-President, Co-Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer |
_’ OFl=ICEOF THE AtiOlWZY G;ENE:mAL. OF TEXAS

. .i AUSTIN

.

### “p CI3”

. Hon. c. wcioaron Lau@lin - Paso 2 ~ormisnioners Court,for the purpose of socuri?lg such county funda, securities of the follouTng kind, in an~axount equal to the mount of such county 

### funds on 

### a2p0d.t ii1 said aOpO8lt0i-ybmk, to&s: bonds aud notos of the United States, securities of indebtedness 

### Of the UTiitcd Stetes, and other 

### CVidences of Indebtedness of the United States, vhcn

. s&l ovldences of lndebtcd??esa are swwOrted by the full faith 

### n;zaOrOait or the 

### unitca stntos of ~nar5.m ax&d

other bonds or other evidencoe of indebtcduess which are guaranteed as to both princlpa? ._ and lntoroet by the United Statos Govemsnt; . . ,

“The condItTo: of tho porsoncd bond or bonds, or contract for sccurltien pledged, as hereinabove provided, shall be conditioned for the faithful. psrfomanca of all the d??tics and obligations devolving by law.upon such depository,. and for the payment upon :~.~.~ preseAation of all checks dram upon any ~dmand deposit’ account in any depository by the county treasurer of the county and all checks dram upon any 

### ‘tlz;?odeposit’ acoount upon pre&ntation, after the expiration of the pariod OSnoti@ required ti tha case of Wme 

### deposita, 1 and.that baid county funds ohall be. faithfully kept by oatd dcposltory and sooountcd for 

### accord* to law.”

’ ft is true,‘as pointed out in your letter, that thle law provldes that bonds and notes of the United States are Wcoptable under the pledge contract without e.ny requirexent- as t0 the negotiability of said bonds. l,lovevcr, I.mitod States \!a~ EavingBonds, Serles A, S, c and D am rc&atered In the naae of th0peroon whobuys then aria they recite on their face that they 00 non-trcanofex~abble. These bonds, therefore, are not subject t0 being pledged since tho depository be& could not tranofcr my of .its rights in reforonce to them. It is true that physical ~aee8sion of these bonds could be delivered, but if a judgment 18rOOovcred by the county on kho pl.edgte contract, those bonds could not be solid In catiofaction of this judgmnt. The bonds L”at~ol~edvould not, in our opinion, be “securltics” vlthln the m%u-dn~.of tho above- quoted stntutc.

.



### -‘.

### . nogdifvo, Ho,.$herefore,ansiror your question3.n

the ii 3lours.verj'truly

I

‘.

. ..&’

.“

” ,-^ ,...: ‘--e...

..,. -._
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-28-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-29-1997
<CASH>                                               1,937
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       39,580
<ALLOWANCES>                                           835
<INVENTORY>                                         21,030
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    64,473
<PP&E>                                              80,256
<DEPRECIATION>                                      22,205
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     136,352
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               40,742
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             1,176
<OTHER-SE>                                          45,388
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       136,352
<SALES>                                            172,470
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   172,470
<CGS>                                              123,413
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      123,413
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    34,921
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   2,498
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     11,638
<INCOME-TAX>                                         4,158
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  7,480
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         7,480
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .64
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 31 (Friday, February 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3811]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation


Columbia River System Operation Review, Selection of a System 
Operation Strategy, Record of Decision

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of availability of record of decision.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to announce the availability of 
the Record of Decision (signed February 7, 1997) which documents the 
decision of the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to implement 
existing and modified plans related to reservoir regulation and project 
operation for Hungry Horse (Montana) and Grand Coulee (Washington) 
projects.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Record of Decision may be requested from: 
Regional Director, Bureau of Reclamation, Attention: Catherine Konrath, 
Pacific Northwest Region, 1150 North Curtis Road, Boise, ID 83706-1234; 
telephone (208) 378-5008.
    Copies of the Record of Decision are available for inspection and 
review at the following Reclamation offices:

--Commissioners Office, 1849 C Street NW, Room 7627, Washington, DC
--Lower Columbia Area Office, 825 NE Multnomah, Suite 1110, Portland, 
Oregon
--Upper Columbia Area Office, 1917 Marsh Road, Yakima, Washington
--Grand Coulee Power Office, Grand Coulee, Washington
--Hungry Horse Field Office, Hungry Horse, Montana

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Attention: Catherine 
Konrath, 1150 North Curtis Road, Boise, Idaho 83706-1234; telephone 
(208) 378-5008.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Reclamation, the U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, and the Bonneville Power Administration are responsible for 
management of the Federal Columbia River Power System. In 1990, the 
three Federal agencies began the System Operation Review for the 
purpose of developing and implementing a coordinated system operating 
strategy for managing the multiple uses of the system while meeting the 
biological needs of the species protected under the Endangered Species 
Act. Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the 
selection of the system operation strategy preferred alternative is 
documented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, November 1995.

    Dated: February 7, 1997.
John W. Keys, III,
Regional Director, Pacific Northwest Region.
[FR Doc. 97-3811 Filed 2-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-94-M