alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 22

- 00403

- CR

Alan Lee Beusse , Appellant

v. The State of Texas , Appellee

FROM THE 426TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY NO. 82002 , THE HONORABLE STEVEN J. DUSKIE , JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R F O R C L E R K T O P R O V I D E A P P E L L A T E R E C O R D TO A P P E L L A N T

PER CURIAM Appellant’s court

- appointed counsel has filed a motion to withdraw supported by a brief concluding that the instant appeal is frivolous and witho ut merit. See Anders

v. California , 386 U.S. 738, 744 (1967). Appellant’s counsel has certified to the Court that he provided copies of the motion and brief to appellant, advised appellant of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se re sponse, and supplied appellant with a form motion for

pro se access to the appellate record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

- 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). Appellant has timely filed the motion requesting access to the appellate record with
this Cour t. Appellant’s pro se motion is granted. We hereby direct the clerk of the trial

court to provide a copy of the reporter’s record and clerk’s record to appellant, and to provide2 written verification to this Court of the date and manner in which the appe llate record was provided, on or before February 28, 2023

. See id. at 321.
It is ordered on Febr uary 16, 2023

.

Before Chief Justice Byrne , Justices Triana and T heofan is
Do Not Publish
EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT


 




EXHIBIT 10.1




EMPLOYEE AGREEMENT AMENDMENT




THIS AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into on April 8, 2019 by and between Lightwave Logic, Inc., a Nevada Corporation (the “Company”) and Michael S. Lebby, PhD (“Employee”).  




1.

This Agreement amends that certain Employee Agreement dated March 20, 2017, as amended from time to time, made and entered into by the parties hereto (the “Employee Agreement”). Capitalized terms herein have the same meaning as used in the Employee Agreement, unless otherwise noted.




2.

Effective April 8, 2019, the Termination Date described in paragraph 1.2 shall be extend to April 30, 2021.




3.

Effective May 1, 2019, paragraph 4.1 of Article Four is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: 




4.1.  Base Compensation.  For all services rendered by Employee under this Employee Agreement, the Company agrees to pay Employee the rate of $278,250 per year ($23,187.50 per month), which shall be payable to Employee not less frequently than monthly, or as is consistent with the Company’s practice for its other employees.  




4.

Effective May 1, 2019, the following paragraph 4.4 shall be added to Article Four: 




4.4. Bonus Compensation.  Employee shall be eligible to receive bonus compensation to be determined by the Board of Directors from time to time in their sole discretion.




5.

All other provisions of the Employee Agreement remain in full force and effect, other than any provision that conflicts with the terms and spirit of this Agreement.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the date first written above.




				
	 
	 
	LIGHTWAVE LOGIC, INC.:


	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	By:

	/s/ James S. Marcelli


	(Witness signature)

	 
	 
	James S. Marcelli, President


	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	EMPLOYEE:


	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	/s/ Michael S. Lebby


	(Witness signature)

	 


	Michael S. Lebby
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: June 25, 2015 519628

________________________________ In the Matter of WILLIE JAMES, Petitioner, v ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, as Acting MEMORANDUM AND JUDGMENT Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision, et al., Respondents.

________________________________ Calendar Date: May 5, 2015 Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ.

__________ Willie James, Auburn, petitioner pro se. Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Peter H. Schiff of counsel), for respondents.

__________ Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to, among other things, review a determination of respondent Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating a prison disciplinary rule. Determination confirmed. No opinion. Peters, P.J., Garry, Egan Jr. and Clark, JJ., concur.-2- 519628

ADJUDGED that the determination is confirmed, without costs, and petition dismissed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
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 Tranquility, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 (the Report), I, Dominick Pope, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 1) The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 Company's financial position and results of operations.  October 29, 2007 /s/Dominick Pope     President
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00160

- CV

In the Interest of A.A.Z., A.A.Z., and A.A.L., children

On Appeal from the 156th District Court of Live Oak County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. LCV190127

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, havin g considered this cause on appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED

. No c osts are assessed , due to appellant ’ s inability to pay costs.
We further order this decision certi fied below for observance.
November 10 , 2021
SCWC-18-0000502
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I

DWIGHT J. VICENTE, Petitioner/Claimant-Appellant-Appellant,

vs. HILO MEDICAL INVESTORS, LTD., Respondent/Employer-Appellee-Appellee,
and AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY/AIG CLAIMS SERVICES, Respondent/Insurance Carrier-Appellee, and JOHN MULLEN & COMPANY,

INC., Respondent/Insurance Carrier-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-18-0000502; CASE NO. AB 2015-259(H)(S); DCD NO. 1-87-00882)

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Petitioner Dwight J. Vicente’s “Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court,” filed on May 3, 2019, which we construe as an application for writ of certiorari from the Intermediate Court of Appeals’ April 26, 2019 “Order Dismissing Appeal for Lack of Appellate Jurisdiction,” is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, June 5, 2019. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-18-0000502 05-JUN-2019 08:16 AM
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7817

ANTHONY CHARLES MCGAHA, Petitioner - Appellant,

versus TRACEY S. RAY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:05-cv-00628-JRS) Submitted: February 15, 2007 Decided: February 23, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Charles McGaha, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Anthony Charles McGaha seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McGaha has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny McGaha’s motion for 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
#### Joseph Gross et al., Appellants, v Home Indemnity Insurance Company et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Levy, J.), entered on or about August 18, 1989, declaring defendant Home Indemnity Insurance Company’s entitlement to $20,000 held in escrow by plaintiffs’ attorney, is affirmed with costs.

The IAS court properly awarded the $20,000 held in escrow by plaintiffs’ attorney to defendant Home Indemnity Insurance Company, plaintiffs’ insurer. Plaintiffs were involved in an automobile accident with a vehicle insured by Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO). After the incident, GEICO disclaimed coverage based on its cancellation of the policy some two weeks before the incident due to nonpayment of premium. Consequently, plaintiffs pursued and obtained a $30,000 arbitration award from defendant, pursuant to the terms of their own uninsured motorist policy. After payment of the award and execution of general releases, the Court of Appeals decided *Barile v Kavanaugh*(67 NY2d 392) and invalidated a similar type cancellation notice provision. There*279after, GEICO paid $20,000, the maximum coverage under the offending vehicle’s policy, to plaintiffs’ attorney as escrowee. Under these facts, defendant became subrogated to plaintiffs’ rights against the offending motorist *(State-Wide Ins. Co. v Buffalo Ins. Co.,*105 AD2d 315, *appeal dismissed*64 NY2d 1041) and thus was entitled to recover the $20,000 held in escrow to prevent double recovery by plaintiffs. *(See, Scinta v Kazmierczak,*59 AD2d 313, 316.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
**Exhibit
      32.1**








**Certification
      of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**


**Pursuant
      to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
      1350)**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March
      31, 2007 (the “Report”) of American Energy Production, Inc. (the “Registrant”),
      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I,
      Charles Bitters, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of
      the
      Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:





(1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





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





By:
            /s/ Charles
              BittersCharles
              BittersDate:
              May 10, 2007
#### Wesley Conway IVY, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 27730.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 19, 1955.

*876No appearance for appellant.

Henry Wade, Crim. Dist. Atty., C. S. Potts, Asst. Dist. Atty., Dallas, Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is burglary; the punishment,-7 years.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. AH proceedings appear to be regular and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          63,091
<SECURITIES>                                    77,728
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,430,571
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,917,946
<PP&E>                                         544,768
<DEPRECIATION>                                 636,804
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,790,040
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,092,144
<BONDS>                                         56,111
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,288,480
<SALES>                                      3,228,319
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,228,319
<CGS>                                        2,046,207
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  892,930
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               103,144
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               8,559
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                383,767
<INCOME-TAX>                                   208,966
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            174,801
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   174,801
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03


</TABLE>
#### SMITH v. STATE.

No. 26795.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 27, 1954.

Harry W. Flentge, Gatesville, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

Appellant was convicted for the unlawful possession of whiskey for the purpose of sale in Coryell County, a dry area, and his punishment was assessed at 90 days in jail and a fine of $250.

Under the Texas Liquor Control Act, Vernon’s Ann.P.C. art. 666-1 et seq., it is required that the state establish, either by proof or otherwise, that the alleged county was a dry area, within the meaning of said Act. The statement of facts and the record in this case fail'to reflect that the state met this requirement.

The evidence is therefore insufficient to sustain the conviction. Brigham v. State, 154 Tex.Cr.R. 55, 225 S.W.2d 176; Davis v. State, 155 Tex.Cr.R. 101, 231 S.W.2d 444; Hodges v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 511, 209 S.W.2d 611.

The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Opinion approved by the Court.
Exhibit 31.2  PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Linda L. Perry, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Wings & Things, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which 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 report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’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  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (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 small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.    Date: August 9, 2007 /s/ Linda L. Perry Linda L. Perry, Principal Financial Officer
I 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2221 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties for transporting 

minors in foreign commerce for the purposes of female genital mutilation. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 16, 2011 

Mr. CROWLEY (for himself, Mrs. BONO MACK, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mr. FRANKS

of Arizona, Mr. KING of New York, Mr. PITTS, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. 

TIBERI, Mr. SCHOCK, Mr. DENT, Mr. JONES, Ms. BALDWIN, Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. MATHESON, Mr. 

MCDERMOTT, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. NADLER, and Ms. WASSERMAN

SCHULTZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to provide penalties 

for transporting minors in foreign commerce for the purposes of female genital mutilation. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Girls Protection Act 

5 of 2011’’. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2221 IH

1 SEC. 2. TRANSPORT FOR FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION. 

2 Section 116 of title 18, United States Code, is 

3 amended by adding at the end the following: 

4 ‘‘(d) Whoever knowingly transports a person in for5 eign commerce for the purpose of conduct with regard to 

6 that person that would be a violation of subsection (a) if 

7 the conduct occurred within the United States, or at8 tempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or impris9 oned not more than 5 years, or both.’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
[Cite as Kilburn v. Ohio Dept. of Transp., 2016-Ohio-1107.]

DIANA KILBURN 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION 

 Defendant 

Case No. 2015-00846-AD 

Clerk Mark H. Reed 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

{¶1} On September 28, 2015, Diana Kilburn (hereinafter “plaintiff”) filed a 

complaint in this Court against the Ohio Department of Transportation (hereinafter 

“ODOT”) to recover damages her vehicle received on March 21, 2015 as a result of 

striking a pothole on Interstate 71 North in Warren County, Ohio. Plaintiff states that her 

motor vehicle, a 2005 Cadillac CTS, received damage to an aluminum wheel in the 

amount of $299.34. 

{¶2} On December 11, 2015, ODOT filed an Investigation Report and a Motion to 

Dismiss the plaintiff’s claim. As grounds for this Motion, ODOT indicated that in its 

investigation, it discovered that the vehicle involved in the accident was not owned by 

the plaintiff but was instead titled in the name of an individual known as Sandra Wells. 

Plaintiff has not filed a response to this allegation of lack of ownership. 

{¶3} Based on the evidence presented, it appears to the Court that the plaintiff 

was merely the driver and not the owner of the 2005 Cadillac that was apparently 

damaged on March 21, 2015 when it struck a pothole on I-71. Therefore, the plaintiff 

lacks legal standing to pursue a claim for reimbursement. The right to pursue 

reimbursement instead belongs to the owner of the vehicle, Sandra Wells. 

{¶4} Therefore, the claim filed on March 21, 2015 is DISMISSED.

DIANA KILBURN Case No. 2015-00846-AD 
Case No. <Case_No> -2- MEMORANDUM DECISION 

 Plaintiff 

 v. 

OHIO DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION 

 Defendant 

Clerk Mark H. Reed 

ENTRY OF ADMINISTRATIVE 

DETERMINATION 

Having considered all the evidence in the claim file, and for the reasons set forth 

in the memorandum decision filed concurrently herewith, judgment is rendered in favor 

of defendant. Court costs are assessed against plaintiff.

 MARK H. REED 

 Clerk 

Entry cc: 

Diana Kilburn 

556 Cloverfield Lane #102 

Ft. Wright, Kentucky 41011 

Jerry Wray, Director 

Ohio Department Of Transportation 

1980 West Broad Street 

Mail Stop 1500 

Columbus, Ohio 43223 

Filed 2/2/16 

Sent to S.C. Reporter 3/18/16
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated errors or other deviations fr om the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does not include the filing date. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 1 SALVADOR URIAS, 2 Plaintiff-Appellant, 3 v. No. 32,463 4 BLUE DIVOT, INC., 5 Defendant-Appellee. 6 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY 7 Manuel I. Arrieta, District Judge 8 James Rawley 9 Albuquerque, NM 10 for Appellant 11 Law Offices of Eva K. Rappaport 12 Eva K. Rappaport 13 Albuquerque, NM 14 for Appellee 15 MEMORANDUM OPINION 16 FRY, Judge. 17 Summary reversal and remand to the dist rict court was proposed for the reasons 18 stated in the calendar notice. No me morandum opposing summary reversal and 19 remand has been filed, and the time for doing so has expired. The district court’s 202 order of dismissal is hereby reversed and this case is re manded for further proceedings 1 consistent with our calendar notice. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3

4 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge 5 WE CONCUR: 6

7 JONATHAN B. SUTIN, Judge 8

9 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge 10