alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: Helwig Van Der Grinten, James W. Dalton and Anis Hussain v. City 

of Sugarland, Joe R. Zimmerman, Doug Brinkley and Allen Bogard

Appellate case number: 01-17-00626-CV

Trial court case number: 17-DCV-238872

Trial court: 434th District Court of Fort Bend County

Appellants Helwig Van Der Grinten, James W. Dalton, and Anis Hussain filed an 

unopposed motion to abate this appeal and cancel the oral argument scheduled for February 13, 

2019 because the same issues raised in this appeal were argued before the Texas Supreme Court 

in November 2018 in Garcia v. City of Willis, No. 17-0713. The appellants’ attorney has 

certified that he conferred with counsel for the appellees, who did not oppose the motion or the 

relief requested. 

The submission on oral argument scheduled for February 13, 2019 is cancelled, and this 

appeal is withdrawn from the submission docket. This appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, 

and removed from this Court’s active docket. 

The parties are ordered to notify this Court by letter within 14 days of the date the 

Supreme Court of Texas issues a decision in Garcia v. City of Willis, No. 17-0713. 

The Court will consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the proceeding filed by any 

party.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: ___/s/ Peter Kelly________

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Panel consists of Justices Lloyd, Kelly, and Hightower.

Date: __January 30, 2019____
June 28, 2001


Exhibit 10.1







June 29, 2004










Consent of Independent Public Accounting Firm













The Board of Directors

RiT Technologies Ltd.

Tel Aviv

Israel







We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of RiT Technologies Ltd. on Form S-8 (File No. 333-90750) of our report dated February 2, 2004 except for note 10, for which the date is June 21, 2004 relating to the consolidated balance sheets of RiT Technologies Ltd. as of December 31, 2002 and 2003 and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the three years ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in The Annual Report on Form 20-F of RiT Technologies Ltd. for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003.













S/SOMECH CHAIKIN

Somekh Chaikin

Certified Public Accountants (Isr.)

(A member firm of KPMG International)
FIRST AMENDMENT TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT

      Pursuant to Section 27 of that certain Rights Agreement, dated as of
February 22, 2000 (the "Rights Agreement"), between United Natural Foods, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation (the "Corporation"), and Continental Stock Transfer and
Trust Company, as Rights Agent, the term "Final Expiration Date," as defined in
clause (i) of Section 7(a) of the Rights Agreement, has been amended and
restated by action of the Board of Directors of the Corporation on June 24, 2004
to read in its entirety as follows:

            "(i) the close of business on June 30, 2004 (the "Final Expiration
Date")"

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation and Continental Stock Transfer and
Trust Company, as Rights Agent under the Rights Agreement, have caused this
First Amendment to Rights Agreement to be duly executed as of June 25, 2004.

                                       UNITED NATURAL FOODS, INC.


                                       By: /s/ Dan Atwood
                                           --------------

                                       CONTINENTAL STOCK TRANSFER AND TRUST
                                       COMPANY, as Rights Agent


                                       By: /s/ Bill Seegraber
                                           ------------------
#### William Carlton BELYEU, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28810.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 13, 1957.

Clyde Vinson, San Angelo, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Presiding Judge.

The offense is driving while intoxicated as a second offender under Article 802b; the punishment, a fine of $1,000.

The witness Spears testified that the automobile driven by the appellant collided with his parked automobile in front of his place of business, that he ran out, hailed the police, and saw them apprehend the appellant a short distance down the street. He stated that the appellant leaned up against a parking meter while he talked to the officers and that he “didn’t look normal” to him.

*577Officer Moore testified that he responded to Spears’ call and found the appellant seated in his automobile at the curb. He stated that he smelled alcohol on the appellant’s breath, observed that his speech was slurred, that he could not stand alone, that his eyes were “blurry,” expressed the opinion that he was intoxicated, and that he placed him under arrest.

Officer Smith testified that the appellant was unsteady on his feet, had bloodshot eyes, that he spoke with a thick tongue, and expressed the opinion that he was intoxicated.

The appellant, testifying in his own behalf, stated that he had drunk only one beer on the occasion in question and denied that he was intoxicated. In this, he was supported by the testimony of Mr. and Mrs. Gallemore.

The prior conviction was established.

The jury resolved the disputed issue of the appellant’s intoxication against him, and we find the evidence sufficient to support the conviction.

The sole bill of exception advanced on appeal in appellant’s brief relates to argument of the prosecutor. It recites that he said in his closing argument:

> “I believe the defendant was drunk when he drove his automobile on the street that day when he collided his car with that of Mr. SpearT parked there on the street, just as he is charged with here.”

The bill is qualified, in part, as follows:

> “Counsel for Defendant’s objection and request were made to the Judge in a low tone of voice at the Judge’s Bench without interrupting the argument of the District Attorney.

> *(t 1⁄8*3⁄8 * * *

> “The Trial Court considered the District Attorney’s argument to be his deduction from the evidence and in reply to Defendant’s argument to the jury.”

Recently, in Eldridge v. State, 160 Tex.Cr.R. 309, 268 S.W.2d 667, we reviewed the authorities and the reason for our holding that a private objection to the court was not sufficient to preserve the error, if any, in argument.

When the appellant accepted the court’s qualification that the argument was in reply to his own counsel’s argument, he is bound thereby, and no error is reflected by such a bill.

Finding no reversible error, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6037

JAMES VANG,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

JON OZMINT, Director of SCDC; WARDEN OF PERRY CORRECTIONAL 

INSTITUTION,

Respondents – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Richard Mark Gergel, District 

Judge. (0:08-cv-02829-RMG)

Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 6, 2011

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Vang, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

James Vang seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying 

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and the court’s 

order denying Vang’s motion to reconsider. The orders are not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies 

relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by 

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is 

debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 

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. Slack, 529 U.S. 

at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Vang has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Vang’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Too Late Financial Corporation (the"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2004, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief AccountingOfficer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

-  The    Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the    Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andThe    information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material    respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/Anthony N.DeMint                       

AnthonyN. DeMint

Presidentand Chief Accounting Officer

July__,2004
#### Ex parte Luther Earl DAVIS.

No. 37015.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 10, 1964.

*923Luther Earl Davis, in pro. per.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

MORRISON, Judge.

Petitioner, an inmate of the Texas Department of Corrections, made application to this Court for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he was not represented by counsel at the time of his trial for burglary in 1945, when he was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment as an habitual offender. He further alleges that he was without funds to hire counsel and that he requested that counsel be appointed to represent him, but that such request was by the court refused.

Petitioner appealed his conviction to this Court and the judgment of the trial court was affirmed in Davis v. State, 148 Tex.Cr.R. 452, 188 S.W.2d 177. In this opinion it was observed that petitioner was not represented by counsel and that he personally attempted to examine the witnesses. After the receipt of this application, the judge of the trial court where petitioner was convicted, in answer to an inquiry from this Court, reaffirmed the fact that petitioner was tried without the benefit of counsel. The record also reflects that petitioner was financially unable to employ counsel for his defense. Since the rendition of our opinion in petitioner’s case, a far reaching change in the law has been brought about by several opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States construing the constitutional rights of an indigent accused to court appointed counsel.

There is no affirmative showing that petitioner requested that counsel be appointed to represent him, however, under the holding of the United States Supreme Court in Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U.S. 506, 82 S.Ct. 884, 8 L.Ed.2d 70, this would not constitute a waiver of his constitutional right to be so represented, and there is nothing in the record to show that the petitioner competently and intelligently waived such right. Viewed in the light of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799, petitioner’s 1945 conviction is void. See also Ex parte Hope, Tex.Cr.App., 374 S.W.2d 441; Ex parte Parsons, Tex.Cr.App., 374 S.W.2d 442; Ex parte Bushnell, Tex.Cr.App., 375 S.W.2d 720; and Ex parte Hamilton, Tex.Cr.App., 376 S.W.2d 575.

It is therefore ordered that petitioner be released from his present custody and delivered to the custody of the Sheriff of Smith County to stand trial under the original indictment in Cause No. 13,951.
```

[Federal Register: September 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 181)]
[Notices]               
[Page 57264]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20se10-34]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

 
Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, September 22, 2010; 2 p.m.-3 p.m.

PLACE:  Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, 
Bethesda, Maryland.

STATUS:  Closed to the Public.

Matters To Be Considered

Compliance Status Report

    The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of 
compliance matters. For a recorded message containing the latest agenda 
information, call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: September 14, 2010.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-23518 Filed 9-16-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
```
Exhibit 10.22  




  



	 	 	May 8, 2003







Richard W. Zuidema

1932 Wickford Place

Wyomissing PA 19610 


Dear
Richard: 


        With
reference to your employment agreement (the "Employment Agreement") with EnerSys, Inc. (the  "Company"), dated November 9, 2000,
pursuant to which you are currently employed as Executive Vice President Administration of the Company, we
confirm that effective as of April 1, 2003, your salary provided for in Section 3 of the Employment Agreement has been increased to $336,000. 



        Except
as expressly set forth in the letter, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 



	 	 	ENERSYS INC.
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	By:	 	/s/  JOHN D. CRAIG      
 John D. Craig

Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-24-00191-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF J.H. AND E.H.,

CHILDREN

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 360th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (360-694947-21)

August 22, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Wade Birdwell

 Justice Wade Birdwell
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.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         February 15, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on February 6, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 185 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-185, CP2024-191.                

Sean Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-03086 Filed 2-14-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Order entered February 2 4 , 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 00874
- CV MELINDA MORA, Appellant

V.
CHARLES WINE , ET AL. , Appellee s On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC
- 16
- 05690
- E



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s February 19, 2020 motion to supplement the clerk’s
record. We GRANT the motion. We ORDER John Warren, Dallas County Clerk, to file, by
Feb ruary 28, 2020 , a supplemental clerk’s record containing: Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s No

- Evidence Motion for Summary Judgment

– filed on May 11, 2018.
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order to Mr. Warren and all parties.
/ s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                TOUCHSTONE APPLIED SCIENCE ASSOCIATES, INC.
                             AND SUBSIDIARIES

                                                                EXHIBIT II
                                                                ----------


                 COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE
                 ----------------------------------------

                                        1 9 9 9         1 9 9 8         1 9 9 7
                                        -------         -------         -------
<S>                               <C>            <C>              <C>
Basic earnings:

Net income (loss)                    $  180,757     $    131,202     $(1,363,811)
                                     ----------     ------------     -----------

Shares:
Weighted common shares outstanding    2,141,801        2,127,051       2,053,272
                                     ----------     ------------     -----------

Basic earnings (loss) per share      $      .08     $        .06     $      (.66)
                                     ----------     ------------     -----------

Diluted earnings:

Net income (loss)                    $  180,757     $    131,202     $(1,363,811)
                                     ----------     ------------     -----------

Shares:
Weighted common shares outstanding    2,141,801        2,127,051       2,053,272
Employee stock options                    4,004           12,892              --
Warrants                                199,249           35,946              --
Consultants stock options                   395            4,370              --
Directors stock options                      --               --              --
Underwriter options                          --               --              --
                                     ----------     ------------     -----------

Total weighted shares outstanding     2,345,449        2,180,259       2,053,272
                                     ----------     ------------     -----------

Diluted earnings (loss)
  per common share                   $      .08     $        .06     $      (.66)
                                     ----------     ------------     -----------


</TABLE>
exv10w12xay



 





EXHIBIT 10.12(a)




AMENDMENT TO PARTS SOURCING CONTRACT




     This Amendment to Parts Sourcing Contract (“Amendment”) is made and
entered into to be effective as of the 24th day of October, 1998, between the
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, a New York corporation, acting through its GE
Appliances business component (“GE”) and WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware
corporation (“Wirekraft”), and amends that certain Parts Sourcing Contract
effective the 2nd day of December, 1994, between GE and Wirekraft (“Sourcing
Contract”).



     GE and Wirekraft have reached an understanding regarding the payment terms
set forth in the Sourcing Contract and wish to document their agreement in this
Amendment.



     IN CONSIDERATION OF the mutual covenants herein, and for other good and
valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the
parties agree as follows:



     1. Section 3.3 of the Sourcing Contract and Section 4 of Exhibit C to the
Sourcing Contract are amended to provide as follows:




     [*]



     2. As a concession to Wirekraft, the productivity terms set forth in
Section 6 of that certain Agreement entered into effective as of the 31st day
of December, 1995, by and among Wirekraft, Burcliff Industries and GE
(“Agreement”) shall be deemed satisfied and no longer in effect and the
productivity terms referenced in Section 1.9 of Exhibit C to the Sourcing
Contract shall become applicable and be effective on and after October 24,
1998, for the remaining term of the Sourcing Contract.



     3. All of the other terms of the Sourcing Contract and the Agreement not
modified by this Amendment shall remain in full force and effect.



* Omitted pursuant to a request for

confidential treatment and filed

separately with the Securities and

Exchange Commission.




 









 





     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Amendment to be entered
into as of the date and year first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY	 	WIREKRAFT INDUSTRIES, INC.
	GE Appliances	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/   Daniel L. Smythe	 	By:	 	/s/   Joseph M. Fiamingo
	

	 	
 
	 	 	 	
 
	Title:

	 	LBT Leader	 	Title:	 	President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**SHAWN THOMAS,**

**Petitioner**

**v.**

**PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE,** 

**Respondent :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 459 MAL 2015** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from**

**the Order of the Commonwealth Court**

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 10th day of November, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan

December 9, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 128349 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 128349 COA: 250926 Jackson CC: 01-004448-FC CHAD NICHOLAS VANWAGONER, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 10, 2005 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

C ORRIGAN
, J., would grant leave to appeal to reconsider People v Bender , 452 Mich 594 (1996).

K ELLY , J., dissents and states as follows:
Defendant’s confession was properly suppressed by the trial court under People v Bender, 452 Mich 594 (1996).

p1206 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 9, 2005

Clerk