alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

In the interest of J.B. and J.S., children, * From the 326th District Court

of Taylor County,

 Trial Court No. 10101-CX.

No. 11-22-00305-CV * May 3, 2023

* Memorandum Opinion by Williams, 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 error 

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

trial court’s termination order insofar as it terminated the parental rights of the mother 

to the children involved in this case, and we affirm the order of the trail court in all 

other respects. We remand this cause to the trial court for further proceedings. Any 

proceeding on remand must be commenced within 180 days of this court’s mandate.
#### Ava Nell QUARLES, Petitioner, v. N. K. QUARLES, Respondent.

No. A-10651.

Supreme Court of Texas.

April 7, 1965.

Bruce Graham, Greenville, for petitioner.

G. C. Harris, Greenville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This is a divorce case in which the Court of Civil Appeals has affirmed the decree of the trial court. 386 S.W.2d 337. In the application for writ of error, petitioner asserts that this Court has jurisdiction of this cause under subdivisions 2 and 6 of Article 1728, Vernon’s Ann.Tex.Stats. All of petitioner’s points of error relate to that portion of the divorce decree awarding the custody of three minor children to the respondent.

As no conflict of decisions is pointed out in the application, no Supreme Court jurisdiction under Article. 1728, § 2 is shown.

*927As the custody award is contained in the divorce decree and is an integral part of the divorce case, this Court has no jurisdiction of the cause under Article 1728, § 6. See, Article 1821, § 3, Carter v. Carter, 362 S.W.2d 646, (Tex.Sup., 1962), Longoria v. Longoria, 160 Tex. 134, 327 S.W.2d 453.

The respondent’s challenge to the jurisdiction of this Court is sustained and the application for writ of error is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
##### 



Exhibit 10.9
 RESTRICTED STOCK UNIT
AWARD AGREEMENT
 «First_Name» «Last_Name»
      Award
  Any unvested portion of the Restricted Stock
Units shall be immediately forfeited and Recipient shall retain no residual rights therein
whatsoever if Recipients employment with or services to the Company and its Affiliates shall be
terminated for any reason other than a Qualifying Termination.
 1




---



##### 



Definitions
          2




---



##### 



3




---



##### 



Issuance of Stock Certificate
  Tax Withholding
  4




---



##### 



No Transfer
  Certain Legal Restrictions
  Disputes
  Governing Law
  Payments
 5




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
  provided however
     6




---



##### 



By:
    
    
    
    
    
    By:{title}
    
    
    
    
    

«First_Name»
«Last_Name»
 Restricted stock number:
    «Restricted_Number»Restricted stock grant date:
 7
#### Tovia LAFAELE, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. R. GARNICA, Defendant—Appellee.

No. 01-16959.

D.C. No. CV-01-00846-FCD.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted July 22, 2002 *.

Decided July 29, 2002.

*73Before BROWNING, KOZINSKI, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.

*

 This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Tovia Lafaele, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the judgment of the district court dismissing his action without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action pursuant to *Booth v. Churner,*532 U.S. 731, 741, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001). Lafaele’s claim that exhaustion was not required because his action involved only statutory construction lacks merit. *See id.*at 741 n. 6 (“an inmate must exhaust irrespective of the forms of relief sought and offered through administrative avenues”); *see also Porter v. Nussle,*534 U.S. 516, 122 S.Ct. 983, 992, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002) (holding that the PLRA requires exhaustion for all inmate suits about prison life).

We reject Lafaele’s remaining contentions as lacking merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick

THOMAS O. PETREE

v. Record No. 0603-95-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM MARIE T. PETREE OCTOBER 17, 1995

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY Herbert C. Gill, Jr., Judge (Janet E. Brown, on brief), for appellant. (Gail H. Miller; Smith & Miller, on brief), for appellee.

Thomas O. Petree (husband) appeals the decision of the circuit court entering a qualified domestic relations order naming Marie T. Petree (wife) as the alternative payee for pension benefits due husband from his pension. Husband contends that the court erred in construing the parties' property settlement agreement to give wife an interest in the Kemper National Retirement Plan. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the decision of the trial court.

Rule 5A:27. "Property settlement and support agreements are subject to the same rules of construction and interpretation applicable to contracts generally." Fry v. Schwarting , 4 Va. App. 173, 180,

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.- 2 - 355 S.E.2d 342, 346 (1987). "[O]n appeal if all the evidence which is necessary to construe a contract was presented to the trial court and is before the reviewing court, the meaning and effect of the contract is a question of law which can readily be ascertained by this court." Id.

At the ore tenus hearing, husband admitted that at the time the parties entered into the agreement, he was a participant in only one retirement plan and he did not know the plan's precise name. In the settlement agreement signed by the parties in 1987, the parties referred to husband's retirement plan as the "Kemper Corporation Retirement Plan." The plan in which husband actually is a participant is the "Kemper National Retirement Plan." "'The tendency of the courts is to give to contracts life and virility by interpretation of their fair intendment--not to destroy them.'" Jennings v. Jennings , 12 Va. App. 1187, 1194, 409 S.E.2d 8, 13 (1991) (citation omitted). The plain reading of the agreement indicates that husband and wife agreed that wife was entitled to fifty percent of husband's retirement benefits. Under husband's proffered interpretation of the agreement, he agreed to share with wife fifty percent of something in which he had no interest, while presumably retaining an undiminished interest in his full pension benefits. This interpretation is inconsistent with the stated purpose of the agreement to "settle all rights, interests, and obligations between them" and "in complete and final settlement of the interests of each in any- 3 - property, estate or interest of the other."- 4 - Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily

affirmed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION



I, C. Jayson Brentlinger, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-KSB of Circuit Research Labs, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 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 report is being prepared;

(c)

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 report based on such evaluation; and

(d)

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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



---

(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.

Date:  April 16, 2007.

/s/ C. Jayson Brentlinger

C. Jayson Brentlinger

Chief Executive Officer
Writ ofMandamus Conditionall Cranted in part, l)enied iii part: Opinion issued November 30, 2012.

/

In The 

### (!tuirt tif

### Api1cahi 

## FiftIi Jiitrirt uf rxa at 1atIa!5 No. 05-12-01518-CV
IN RE SHANNON WHALEY, Relator Original Proceeding from the 68th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 10-14604 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges. Lang, and Fillmore Opinion by Justice Lang Relator filed this mandamus proceeding 

### after the trial court issued an order granting a new trial on the issue ofreal party in interest’s attorneys’ fees “in light ofa verdict in its favor.” We conclude the trial court abused its discretion and relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. 

### See Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839—40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). We therefore conditionally grant the writ ofmandamus in part. Trial courts must state specific reasons forrefusingto renderjudgment on ajuryverdictand granting a new trial, and the failure to do so is correctable by writ ofmandamus. In re columbia Med. 

### Ctr., 290 S.W.3d204, 212—15 (Tex. 2009) (orig. proceeding). Ageneral statement suchas “in the interestofjustice” does notmeetthe specificityrequirement, In re UnitedScaffolding, Inc., 301 S.W.3d 661, 662 (Tex. 2010) (orig. proceeding). The trial court’s statement, “in light ofa verdictin its favor,’ similarly does not suffice as an explanation for disregarding the lurys verdict and ordering a new trial. However, we disagree with relator’s contention that the trial 

### court is required to vacate orset aside its order. See In reHunter, 306 S.W.Sd422,423 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2010, orig. proceeding) (directing trial court to issue an order specifying reasons for granting new trial). Accor(lingly, we conditionally grant relator’s petition for writ ofmandamus in part. We directthetrial courtto issue an orderspecilying its reasons fororderinga new trial withinthirty(lays. A writ will issue only in the event the trial court fails to comply. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus to the extent that relator seeks to have the order granting a new trial set aside and judgment rendered on the jury verdict, and to have this Court determine relator’s reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

/ / / DOUç4S S. LANG/ JUSTE

l2l5l8F.P05
Exhibit 32.1
                             CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         Each of the undersigned  hereby certifies in his capacity as an officer
of InMedica Development  Corporation (the Company) that the Annual Report of the
Company on Form 10KSB for the year ended  December 31, 2004 fully  complies with
the  requirements  of Section 13(a) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and
that the information  contained in such report fairly presents,  in all material
respects,  the financial condition of the Company at the end of such periods and
the results of operations of the Company for such periods.


/s/ Ralph Henson
Ralph Henson,
 Chief Executive Officer
DATE:  March 24, 2005


/s/ Richard Bruggeman
Richard Bruggeman,
 Chief Financial Officer
DATE:   March 24, 2005
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
                              3900 US Bancorp Tower
                              111 S.W. Fifth Avenue
                           Portland, Oregon  97204-3698





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


Informedics, Inc.:

We consent to the  incorporation  by reference in  Registration  Statements Nos.
33-30243,  33-46474,  and 33-85132 on Form S-8 of our report dated  December 15,
1995  appearing in or  incorporated  by reference in this Annual  Report on Form
10-KSB of Informedics, Inc. for the year ended October 31, 1995.



/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

January 26, 1996
<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 uWink, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nolan K. Bushnell,
Chief Executive 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 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; and

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


July 19, 2006                                         By: /s/ NOLAN K. BUSHNELL
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Nolan K. Bushnell
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

         I, Shane Polson, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Technol Fuel
         Conditioners, Inc.

2.       Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
         untrue statement of 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 quarterly report.

3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
         information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
         material respects the financial condition, results from operations and
         cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
         this quarterly report.


                 By: /s/ Shane Polson                      DATE: March 14, 2006
                     ------------------------
                        Shane Polson
                        President, Acting Chief Operating Officer,
                        Treasurer, and Chairman
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7165

SAMUEL TROY DUGAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DAVID W. ROBINSON, Warden; NOTTOWAY

CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-98-543)

Submitted: February 25, 1999 Decided: March 8, 1999

Before HAMILTON, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel Troy Dugan, Appellant Pro Se. Pamela Anne Sargent, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Samuel Troy Dugan seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Dugan v. Virginia Dep’t of Corrections, No. CA-98-543 (E.D. Va. July 1, 1998). We deny Dugan’s

motion for production of documents. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED
Exhibit 4.3


 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the
reference made to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in Part B of the Prospectus
and to the use of our report dated March 28, 2017, in this Registration Statement (Form S-6 No. 333-215493) of Smart Trust 304,
comprising Smart Trust, Morningstar Dividend Yield Select Trust, Series 1.


 


/s/ Grant
Thornton LLP


 


Chicago, Illinois


March 28, 2017
Ex-10.1 Consent of Independent Auditors



 





Exhibit 10.1




CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-13772) of our report dated
April 22, 2004, relating to the financial statements of Satyam Computer
Services Limited, which appears in this Annual Report on Form 20-F.


	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	 	/s/  Price Waterhouse	 
	 	 	Secunderabad, India
June 29, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-01-1995
<CASH>                                         3280000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 15243000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                   13582000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              35562000
<PP&E>                                        37387000
<DEPRECIATION>                                17722000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                69596000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          9043000
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        527000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                    51424000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  69596000
<SALES>                                       18466000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              18466000
<CGS>                                         12567000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 12567000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3760000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              183000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                1956000
<INCOME-TAX>                                    597000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1359000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1359000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .17
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .17
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION



I, C. Jayson Brentlinger, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-KSB of Circuit Research Labs, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 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 report is being prepared;

(c)

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 report based on such evaluation; and

(d)

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 (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5.

The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



---

(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.

Date:  April 14, 2008.

/s/ C. Jayson Brentlinger

C. Jayson Brentlinger

Chief Executive Officer