alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7493

LUCOLIA MAYFIELD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00691-JAG)

Submitted: March 24, 2022 Decided: March 28, 2022

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT LAW, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lucolia Mayfield seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on her

28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional 

right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mayfield has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions 

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
IIA

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 14

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States authorizing

Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 17, 1999

Mr. HATCH (for himself, Mr. CLELAND, Mr. ABRAHAM, Mr. ALLARD, Mr.

ASHCROFT, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BOND, Mr. BREAUX, Mr. BROWNBACK,

Mr. BUNNING, Mr. BURNS, Mr. CAMPBELL, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. COVERDELL, Mr. CRAIG, Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DEWINE, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. ENZI,

Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. FITZGERALD, Mr. FRIST, Mr. GORTON, Mr.

GRAHAM, Mr. GRAMM, Mr. GRAMS, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. GREGG, Mr.

HAGEL, Mr. HELMS, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mrs.

HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KYL, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr.

LOTT, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MACK, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. MURKOWSKI, Mr. NICKLES, Mr. REID, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. ROTH, Mr. SANTORUM, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire, Ms. SNOWE, Mr.

SPECTER, Mr. STEVENS, Mr. THOMAS, Mr. THOMPSON, Mr. THURMOND,

and Mr. WARNER) introduced the following joint resolution; which was

read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

JOINT RESOLUTION

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United

States authorizing Congress to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled

3 (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the fol4 lowing article is proposed as an amendment to the Con-
2

•SJ 14 IS

1 stitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all

2 intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when

3 ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several

4 States within 7 years after the date of its submission for

5 ratification:

6 ‘‘ARTICLE—

7 ‘‘The Congress shall have power to prohibit the phys8 ical desecration of the flag of the United States.’’.

Æ
#### William J. Blacklock, Respondent, *v.*The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company, Appellant.

*Blacklock*v. *N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co.,*162 App. Div. 927, affirmed.

(Argued March 17, 1916;

decided April 11, 1916.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the fourth judicial department, entered April 3, 1914, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover from a common carrier for breach of its contract, as expressed by its bills of lading, in that it delivered the goods mentioned therein without the surrender of such bills duly indorsed by the plaintiff as required by the terms thereof.

*Lester F. Gilbert*for appellant.

*G. D. Judson*for respondent.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Ch. J., Hiscock, Chase, Collin, Hogan, Cardozo and Seabury, JJ.
<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 32.1

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

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Aearo Company I (the
"Company"), on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Michael A. McLain, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

            (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/ Michael A. McLain
                                        ---------------------
                                        Michael A. McLain
                                        Chairman, President
                                        and Chief Executive Officer

November 21, 2005
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Tennessee Valley Authority

# AGENCY:

Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The TVA Regional Resource Stewardship Council (RRSC) will hold a meeting on Thursday, April 19, and Friday, April 20, 2012, to consider various matters.

The RRSC was established to advise TVA on its natural resource stewardship activities. Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. App. 2.

The meeting agenda includes the following:

1. Introductions

2. Updates regarding TVA's Natural Resource Plan implementation and its River Operations essential stewardship functions, including management of the river system, dam safety, navigation, and flood control

3. Presentation(s) concerning TVA's stewardship partnership strategy

4. Public Comments

5. Council Discussion and Advice

The RRSC will hear opinions and views of citizens by providing a public comment session. The public comment session will be held at 9:30 a.m., EDT, on Friday, April 20. Persons wishing to speak are requested to register at the door by 8:30 a.m. on Friday, April 20 and will be called on during the public comment period. Handout materials should be limited to one printed page. Written comments are also invited and may be mailed to the Regional Resource Stewardship Council, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT-11 B, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held on Thursday, April 19 from 8 a.m. to 11:45 a.m., and Friday, April 20, from 8 a.m. to noon, EDT.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Chattanoogan Hotel, 1201 South Broad Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2708 and will be open to the public. Anyone needing special access or accommodations should let the contact below know at least a week in advance.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beth Keel, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, WT-11 B, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, (865) 632-6113.

Dated: March 21, 2012.

Bruce S. Schofield,

Vice President, Land & Shoreline Management, Tennessee Valley Authority.

[FR Doc. 2012-7371 Filed 3-27-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8120-08-P
#### Lewis DORFMAN and Jack Harry Stewart, as Trustees for Village Shopping Center Trust, Appellants, v. SUN LUCK RESTAURANT, INC., Appellee.

No. 86-2659.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 16, 1987.

Rehearing Denied July 28, 1987.

Ferdie and Gouz and Ainslee R. Ferdie, Coral Gables, for appellants.

Kenneth J. Duckworth, Hialeah, for ap-pellee.

Before DANIEL S. PEARSON, FERGUSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Lewis Dorfman and Jack Harry Stewart commenced a breach of contract action against their tenant, Sun Luck Restaurant, Inc., for payment of property tax pass throughs1 and cost of living adjustments on the rent. Following a nonjury trial, the court entered final judgment for Sun Luck. We affirm in part the trial court’s order *364entering final judgment for Sun Luck, but we reverse the order to the extent that it rejected the validity of the tax pass throughs. *National Health Laboratories, Inc. v. Bailmar, Inc.,*444 So.2d 1078, 1080-81 (Fla. 3d DCA), *rev. denied,*453 So.2d 43 (Fla.1984).

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

1

. Paragraph 40 of the lease provided that the landlord could "pass through" increases in real property taxes to the tenant as additional rent. This clause stated, in relevant part,

> Landlord shall pay all real estate taxes levied and assessed against the shopping center. Nevertheless, if the amount of such taxes shall increase over and above those levied and assessed for the first full year following the commencement of this Lease, Tenant shall pay to Landlord, upon Landlord’s written demand Pro Rata *%*of the increase as additional rent.
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 20

- 00 220

- C V

SAMUEL RAY HINES AND

THE OTHER SCOTT AND FOSTER HEIRS, ET AL.,

Appellant s

v.

G LEN HEGAR,

TEXAS COMPTROLLER OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

, THE STATE OF TEXAS, RAJENA SCOTT, AND

BUETTA SCOTT

Appellee s

From the 272nd District Court

Brazos County, Texas

Trial Court No. 1 9

- 00 0225

- CV

- 272

MEMORANDUM O PINION

On September 11, 2023, t he parties filed a “Joint Motion to Dismiss for Settlement ,”

which states that they have reached an agreement to settle the appeal. The parties ask

this Court to set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits and remand

the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in accordance with t heir agreement.Hines v. Hegar, et al Page 2 See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 42.1(a)(2)(B)

. The parties further request that costs of the appeal be

taxed to the party incurring the same.

The agreed motion is granted. Accordingly, we set aside the trial court’s judgm ent

without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings

in accordance with the parties’ agreement.

JIM R. WRIGHT

Senior Chief Justice

Before Justice Johnson and

Justice Wright 1

Motion granted; remanded

Opinion delivered and filed October 26 , 202 3

[C V06 ]

1 The Honorable Jim R. Wright, Senior Chief Justice (Retired) of the Eleventh Court of Appeals, sitting by

assignment of the Chief Justice of the Texas Supreme Court. See T EX

. G OV ' T C ODE §§ 74.003, 75.002, 75.003.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 21, 2020

NO. 03-19-00567-CV

One Thousand Dollars in U.S. Currency and 1999 Red Chevy Tahoe - Licence Plate 

FXLI562, VIN # GNEC13R6XJ368854, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, KELLY, AND SMITH

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE SMITH

Having reviewed the record, the Court holds that One Thousand Dollars in U.S. Currency 

and 1999 Red Chevy Tahoe - Licence Plate FXLI562, VIN # GNEC13R6XJ368854 has not 

prosecuted its appeal and did not comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, 

the Court dismisses the appeal for want of prosecution. Because appellant is indigent and unable 

to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 18 Agreed to House (ATH)]

  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 18

     Providing for an adjournment of the House of Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 31, 2001

   Mr. Ney submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
     Providing for an adjournment of the House of Representatives.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Wednesday, 
January 31, 2001, it stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, February 
6, 2001.
                                 <all>
```
149JO-IJ-PI DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Admioistration 

### 14CFR Part 39 IDocket No. FAA-2008-0670; Di.rp:torate Ideatificr 2OO7-NM-339-AD. Amendm 

## Ib5"Up ).0/0-;) 

## '-(-07 39-*****; AD *ft.*_**_**) RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Airbus Model A318-111 and A318-112 Airplanes and M AJ19, A320, and A321 Series Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department ofTransportation (DOT). ACTION: Final rule. ilL Tn



# -- L...:.-.

• I 

### ot/L"/Z-cJ<O 

# --•...

# - tI16//1..

condition on an aviation product. The MeAl describes the unsafe condition as: SUMMARY: We are adopting anew airwonhiness directive (AD) forthe products lis

# -- C--~ above. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MeAl) ••••• originated by an aviation authority oranather country to identify and correct an unsafe
Damage to the lower lateral fittings ofthe 80VU rack, typically elongated boles. migrated bushes (bushings], and/or missing bolts have been reported in-service. Inaddition damage to the lower central support fitting (including cracking) has been reported. Inthe wOBt case scenario acomplete failu'"Fof the 80VU finings in combination with ahigh load factor or strong vibration could lead 

### to failwe oflhe rack stJ'U(:ture and/or computers or ruptureldisconneclion of thecable harnessestoone ormorecomput~ locatedin the SOVU_ lllis rack contains computers forFlight Controls, Communication and Radio-navigation. These functions are duplicated across other racks but during critical phases of flight the multiple system failures I n:-configuration may constitute an unsafe condition.


## • • • • 

## • • •

FAA Form 1360-14.1 (6-ISI) OFFICUL FILE

### copy
Holcim Cement

APENs: Kiln System

year NOx [tpy] SO2 [tpy] PM/PM10 [tpy] Clinker (C) 

Production [tpy]

NOx [lb/tons 

C]

SO2 

[lb/tons C]

PM/PM10 

[lb/tons C] NOx [tpy] SO2 [tpy]

2004 2741.3 780.6 1,641,423 3.34 0.95 3,129.6 891.2

2005 2572.3 371.5 59.7 1,642,740 3.13 0.45 0.07 2,934.3 423.8

2006 3098.0 366.4 1,686,451 3.67 0.43 3,442.3 407.1

2007 2439.7 188.9 68.62 1,361,523 3.58 0.28 0.10 3,357.8 260.0

2008 2287.0 305.8 47.23 1,332,888 3.43 0.46 0.07 3,215.3 429.9

Average Rates: 2,628 402.6 58.5 3.43 0.51 0.08 3,216 482.4

Projected Annual Emissions at 

Permitted Production
N OTE : This disposition is nonprecedential.



# United States **Court of Appeals** 

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

PROMOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Appellant

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,

Appellee

______________________

2019

- 1437

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2017

-

01417.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

C RAIG R. K AUFMAN , TechKnowledge Law Group LLP,

Redwood City, CA, argued for appellant. Also represented

by M ICHAEL C HAOCHA T ING

.

N AVEEN M ODI , Paul Hastings LLP, Washington, DC,

argued for appellee. Also represented by C HETAN B ANSAL

, J OSEPH P ALYS ; P AUL A NDERSON , Houston, TX.

______________________

T HIS C AUSE ha ving been heard and considered, it is Case: 19-1437 Document: 45 Page: 1 Filed: 03/16/2020O RDERED and A DJUDGED :

P ER C URIAM (N EWMAN

, L OURIE

, and O’M ALLEY

, Circuit Judges ).

AFFIRMED. See Fed . Cir. R . 36.

E NTERED BY O RDER OF THE C OURT

March 16, 2020

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court Case: 19-1437 Document: 45 Page: 2 Filed: 03/16/2020
### SERVE D MARCH 1 , 201 0 - C f^ S

••• • .-M- ; I n n . ~J' >

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N

OFFIC E O FHEARING S WASHINGTON , D C IN TH E MATTE RO F LAK E CHELA N AI RSERVICE , INC . FA A DOCKE T No . CP09NM000 7 (Civi l Penalty Action ) DM S No . FAA-2009-009 6 ORDE RGRANTIN GMOTIO N FO RCONTINUANC E Complainan t Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ("Complainant" ) has file d a lette r date d Februar

y9 , 2010 , i n whic h i t state s that counse l wil l b e unavailabl e durin g th e date s set fo rhearin g o n accoun t o f a n unavoidabl e schedul e conflict . Complainan t furthe rstate s that Responden t Lak e Chela n Ai rService , Inc . ("Respondent" ) has bee n contacte d an d doe s no

t objec t t o a postponement . Complainant' s lette rwil l b e treate d as a Motio n fo rContinuance ("Motion") . Th e Motio n i s herebyGRANTED . Th e hearin g wil l b e reschedule d b ysubsequen t orde rfo ra date i n July , Richar d C . Goodwi n Administrative La

w Judg e Attachmen t - Service List



### t mFA A Docke t No . CP09NM000 7 (Civi l Penalty Action ) SERVIC E LIS T ORIGINA L& ON E COP Y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D C 2059 1 Attention : Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430 , Wilbu r Wrigh t Building—Suit e 2W1000 '

ON E COP Y Frankli n L . Smith , Attorne y Hedric k Smith , PLL C 80 0 Fift h Avenue , Suit e 400 0 Seattle , WA 9810 4 TEL : 206-464-116 6 FAX : 206-464-181 1 Davi dF . Shayne , Attorne y Federal Aviatio n Administratio n Northwes t

Mountai n Region , ANM- 7 160 1 Lin dAvenue , S.W . Renton,W A 98057-335 6 TEL : 425-227-216 5 FAX : 425-227-100 7 Th e Honorabl e Richar dC . Goodwi n Administrativ e La w Judg e Offic e o f Hearings , M-2 0 U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n 40 0 Sevent

h Street , S.W. , Roo m541 1 Washington , D C 2059 0 TEL : Attorney-Adviso r

202-366-213 9 Legal Assistan t

202-366-512 1 FAX : 202^366-753 6

' Servic e wa s b y U.S . Mail . Fo

r servic e i n perso n o r b y expedite dcourier , us e th e followin g address : Federa

l Aviatio n Administration

, 60 0 Independenc

e Avenue , S.W. , Wilbu

r Wrigh t Building—Suit

e 2W1000 , Washington

, D C 20591 ; Attention : Hearin

g Docke t Clerk , AGC-430.
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before

publication in the New York Reports.

----------------------------------------------------------------- No. 203 SSM 19 The People &c., Respondent, v. Edwin Mendez, Appellant.

Submitted by C. Austin Ginnings, for appellant. Submitted by Jared Wolkowitz, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM:

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the indictment dismissed, with leave to the People, if they be so advised, to resubmit the charge of assault in the second degree to a new grand jury.

Defendant was charged with assault for his conduct
- 1 -
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>James Marshall, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Melissa A. Crane, J.), rendered April 1, 2015, convicting him, upon a plea of guilty, of disorderly conduct, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgment of conviction (Melissa A. Crane, J.), rendered April 1, 2015, affirmed.</p><p>Application by appellant's counsel to withdraw as counsel is granted (<i>see Anders v California</i>, 386 US 738 [1967]; <i>People v Saunders</i>, 52 AD2d 833 [1976]). We are satisfied with the sufficiency of the brief filed by defendant's assigned counsel pursuant to <i>Anders</i>, and, upon an independent review of the record, agree that there is no valid appealable issue that could be raised on appeal.</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: October 17, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Court of Appeals

First District of Texas

301 Fannin Street

Houston, Texas 77002-2066

SHERRY RADACK

 CHIEF JUSTICE

TERRY JENNINGS

EVELYN KEYES

LAURA CARTER HIGLEY

JANE BLAND

JIM SHARP

MICHAEL MASSENGALE

HARVEY BROWN

REBECA HUDDLE

 JUSTICES

CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT

JANET WILLIAMS

 CHIEF STAFF ATTORNEY

PHONE: 713-274-2700

FAX: 713-755-8131

 www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us

June 19, 2013

Jennifer Turner

The Law Office of J. D. Turner, 

PLLC

P.O. Box 1241

Houston, TX 77251

Stephen E. Garner

The Garner Law Firm

7660 Woodway, Ste 390

Houston, TX 77063

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 01-12-01120-CV 

Trial Court Case Number: 1006566

Style: Andre Martinez v. Abraham Romero

Please replace the attached, corrected page 1 for page 1 of the opinion and the attached, corrected 

judgment with the judgment issued on April 23, 2013 in the above referenced cause. The 

corrected was necessary so that the documents reflect the correct trial court case number.

Sincerely,

Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court

By Michelle Gentile, Chief Deputy Clerk

Cc: Stan Stanart

 Hon. Theresa Chang

 
Court of Appeals

First District of Texas

301 Fannin Street

Houston, Texas 77002-2066

SHERRY RADACK

 CHIEF JUSTICE

TERRY JENNINGS

EVELYN KEYES

LAURA CARTER HIGLEY

JANE BLAND

JIM SHARP

MICHAEL MASSENGALE

HARVEY BROWN

REBECA HUDDLE

 JUSTICES

CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE

 CLERK OF THE COURT

JANET WILLIAMS

 CHIEF STAFF ATTORNEY

PHONE: 713-274-2700

FAX: 713-755-8131

 www.1stcoa.courts.state.tx.us

June 19, 2013

Library Service

Lexis Nexis 

9473 Springboro Pike

Miamisburg, OH 45342-4425

Opinions Clerk

West Group D4-40

610 Opperman Drive

Egan, MN 55123

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 01-12-01120-CV 

Trial Court Case Number: 1006566

Style: Andre Martinez v. Abraham Romero

Please replace the attached, corrected page 1 for page 1 of the opinion and the attached, corrected 

judgment with the judgment issued on April 23, 2013 in the above referenced cause. The 

corrected was necessary so that the documents reflect the correct trial court case number.

Sincerely,

Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court

By Michelle Gentile, Chief Deputy Clerk