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

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00101-CR

Dammond Defferal Johnson

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 235th District Court

of Cooke County (13-00441)

August 25, 2016

Opinion by Justice Sudderth

(nfp)

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/ Bonnie Sudderth_____________

 Justice Bonnie Sudderth
CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Ruth Swan, Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Booker Minerals Inc. (the Company) do 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.

This Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended January 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.







Date: May 28, 2015





/s/  Ruth Swan

Ruth Swan,

Chief Financial Officer
.
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN**  **GROVER SELLERS**  **ATTORNEY GENERAL** 
Honorable

L, D, Qrif'fln CountyAttorney Jim Wells county Alloe, Texas Dear Sir;

Your requestfor an tion haa bewn reowlvwd he above statedques0,000 rsswsawdvelue-

"Thw Commlsslonwra~ Courthas rwquestwd an oplnion from me on thla quwstlon and I awwd 8omw hwlp. "It is my opinion

that 'there

Is no suoh Statutw in Twxaa, authorizlzg thw Commissioners@

Court Of suoh Countiws

aa Jim Wwllr to wxpwndPublio fund8 of thw Countr for suoh i~&naly positlon.I !

.

lionorablo

L. D, hriffin, pagw 2 Swotion18, zf Artiolw V of thw Constitution of thla itatw, rwada In part aa..followar

..atll+tlon~and

thw 18~8 of thw St&w, or 8a herwaftwr,~waoribwd." Thw SuprwmwCourt of Tbawa, In Bland va; O&r, 90 Twxas 495, ooastruws this provialon;a part of whioh opinion lss~otwd ia Oplnioa Ho. O-1919,

by *a dwpertmwnt, a8 fol- :" ..I ..*

power8and juriadlotion"vwr all oow bual$sa 

### aa~la~oonferrwd

)7 thw c!Ltitution. . aJ,a.o &vwa thgm atioh

po&ra its

arwa o&w&wd 'bx thw lav8 of the Btatw. t . ;'

It lq thw opl&,onof thla departmwnt that the o,ommlaaionwr8!~oourt

la~%o$ ~utho~l8wd,$o~wmpl~ 4 oaee vorjcwr under the ?a&.8 aubaiittwd in your rwquwst. Jfw are wnoloaFng a oopy of.ourop$nlon HO. C-1919, 9 part of whloh VW jAink.ia ia suppor$of.

oup,poaltQxa

-$8kwp 

### hwrw..IIohorablw L. D; Orlffin, page3 Trusting thw foregoIng 

### anawwra

7our requwat,

wearw Yours vwry truly ATTORRRY

ORIWUL OF TEXAS B7 (a) Frwd C.A;zzz FCCrdbrfb RNC APEROVEDJAR 29, 1945 4a) Carlo8 Ashlw7 IRSTASSlbSMT ATTORRSY W?lXlUL APPROVRDOPINKOHCOUUIT!FRX BY OS) BWB, CRAIRMAR
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE INTEREST OF V.M., A CHILD.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-18-00228-CV

Appeal from

65th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2017DCM7083)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, O.M., has filed a motion to dismiss his appeal of the order terminating his 

parental rights to V.M., representing that he no longer wants to continue with the appeal. See 

TEX.R.APP.P. 42.1(a)(1). The trial court also terminated the parental rights of the child’s mother, 

V.M., but she has not appealed. Although the case has been submitted, an opinion has not issued. 

Accordingly, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. 

April 18, 2019 ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
#### Ex parte ALANIZ.

No. 26159.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Nov. 19, 1952.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 17, 1952.

Percy Foreman, Houston, for appellant.

Homer E. Dean, Jr., Dist. Atty., Alice, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the District Court of Jim Wells County denying the relator to be released on bond.

This is a companion case to that of Ex parte Sapet, Tex.Cr.App., 253 S.W.2d 51, and charges the murder of Jacob S. Floyd, Jr., as well as a conspiracy to murder Jacob S. Floyd, Sr., but thereby caused the death of Jacob S. Floyd, Jr., in the City of Alice in Jim Wells County, Texas.

There is testimony in the record showing that the relator was cognizant of the fact that Jacob S. Floyd, Sr., was to be murdered, and that just prior to the time of the *51killing he had a conversation with the said Jacob S. Floyd, Sr., in which he admitted, among other things, that he was engaged in this enterprise and had a certain part therein. There is also evidence in the record that he was not present at the scene or nearby at the time this offense .was committed.

Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that he is entitled to bond awaiting his trial upon the indictment thereunder.

Therefore, the judgment of the court denying bond is reversed, and the relator is ordered released on bail in the sum of $15,000 conditioned as provided by law.
```
**CERTIFICATION**

I, ALAN J. FOHRER, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, of Southern
California Edison Company;

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;

     (b) 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

     (c) 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:  May 7, 2004

                                                 /s/ ALAN J. FOHRER
                                         --------------------------------
                                                  ALAN J. FOHRER
                                              Chief Executive Officer
```
CONCRETE CASTING INCORPORATED





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 Concrete Casting Incorporated (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Kevin J. Asher, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting
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:





(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.





/s/
Kevin J. AsherKevin J. AsherChief Executive Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Chief Accounting OfficerNovember 16, 2009





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Concrete Casting Incorporated and will be retained by Concrete Casting Incorporated and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
## DENNI S R . HABER , P.A .

Providin g independen t

Genera l Counse l service s t o th e Busines s & Aviatio n Community O f Counsel : Jil l Sharo n White , Esq . 5 Jili't/.la-.v v eiTniami.co m Michae l Bernstein , Esq . Michaeiti'i3v.T.-errn!amL.'.-oi": i Enriqu e J . Fernandez . Esq . : Eni-:ouet;ETF?A.co m pro j prT-'-oonoTATin M

Membt- r

Mvrvitej : Jun e 15,201 0

TRANSMITTE D VI A EMAI LAN D USP S David.benkin@dot.go v Th e Honorbl e Isaa c D . Benkin , Administrativ e La w Judg e U.S . Dept . o f

Transportatio n 120 0 Ne w Jerse y Ave. , S.E . Washington , D.C . 2059 0 Denni s RHaber , Esq . i Demlis'iv!la^^A^ermiami•Com Dynili5'fl.a•v'8'a^^^

\er.co m 1 Admitte dt o Floridi

LWashington . D.C , andNe w Yor k 2 Admitte dt o Florida , Ne w Jcrse> \andNe w Yor k 3 Admitte di n Florid a 

# RECEiye Q !^^^J 2 1 201 0 

### HEARIN G DOCKE T

Re : FA A v . Clou dDance r Aviatio n FA A Docke t

No : CPlOSOOOOl DM S No . FA A - 2010-019 2 -•,.- !

: • • •

••.L. i

• , . ;•;' . -:. : 

### 1 ^'- - j . .' v> ' 1 r'ru h
.CP,b ; ••.f.:-.i ; •uhl i i'),- l '.<! .

! " i

" • 1 • • c-, ,

' • s i

i U : t \v - • '

C I

6. . : i •|..i : -

• ' -

i

^ "

•-• •

.r-.' i . \ j Dea r

Judg e Benkin ; Wit hrespec t

t o th e abov e reference dmatter , I a mi n receip t of th e Administrativ e La w Judge' s Prehearin g Orde r Establishin g Procedure s an dhav e reviewe dsame . I not e tha t

ahearin g ha s bee n schedule di n Miami , Florid afor Augus t 17 , 2010 . However , I a mschedule dt o b e out o f tow n an ddu e bac k

o n Augus t

23^*^ , 2010 . Additionally , th e week s o f Augus t 23^'* an dAugus t

30^* " I hav e atria l perio dtha t i s schedule di n Browar dCounty . Therefore , I woul dappreciat e you r consideratio n an d pleais e accep t

thi s lette r

a s m y reques t

t o reschedul e th e hearin g unti l after th e Labo r Da y weekend . Than k yo u for you r kin dconsideratio n an dshoul dyo u hav e an y questions , pleas e feel free t o contac t

my office . Sincerely , Pemii s R . Haber , Esq . DRlLa d Cc : Michell e Harper , Esq . Hearin g Docke t

Clerk
Mai n Office ; 892 5 S W14 8 Street , Suit e 20 0 • Miami , F L3317 6 • Phone ; 305-256-300 2 • Fax ; 305-256-300 4 13 0 Mai n Stree t

• Nyack , Ne w Yor k

1096 0 • Phone:845-348-474 7
Exhibit 10.16a

                                PROMISSORY NOTE


US$348,109.00                                                          Jenks, OK
                                                                   June 27, 2001


FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned, EMB Corporation, a Hawaii corporation,
promises to pay to Williams de Broe, or order, the principal sum of Three
Hundred Forty-Eight Thousand One Hundred Nine and no/100 dollars
(US$348,109.00), together with interest on the outstanding balance of such
principal sum computed at the rate of ten percent (10%) per annum from date
hereof.

The entire principal balance, together with accrued interest, shall be due and
payable, in full, on March 31, 2002. Any principal balance and/or interest
remaining unpaid on or after April 1, 2002, shall accrue interest at the penalty
rate of twelve percent (12%) per annum until such time as all moneys due
hereunder, including accrued interest, are paid in full.

There shall be no penalty for prepayment of principal at any time following the
date hereof.

If this Note is not paid in full when it becomes due, Maker agrees to pay all
costs and expenses of collection, including reasonable attorney's fees.

EMB Corporation, a Hawaii corporation



By:  /s/  Kenneth J. Quist
   -----------------------------------
          Kenneth J. Quist
          Secretary
|                                                                                                  
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                  
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                              
|View History: Annual                                                                              
|View History:                                                                                     
|                                                                                                  
|U.S. Federal Offshore Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                  
|                                                                                                  
|U.S. Federal Offshore Dry Natural Gas New Reservoir Discoveries in Old Fields (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                  

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 1,005  | 817    | 978    | 1,145  | 1,697  | 1,677  | 1,746  | 1,342  | 1,070  | 1,171 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 1,027  | 1,359  | 901    | 903    | 589    | 546    | 410    | 368    | 532    | 300   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 237    | 76     | 103    | 73     | 94     | 58     | --     | --     | --     | --    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | --     | --     |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
#### Neil H. BOWIE, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 23143.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 6, 1945.

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1945.

Robert S. Durno, of Houston, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for embezzlement, punishment two years in the penitentiary.

The judgment is affirmed for the same reasons set forth in our opinion in 188 S. W.2d 389.
#### In the Matter of Joe Rentas, Petitioner, v Thomas A. Coughlin, III, as Commissioner of the Department of Correctional Services, Respondent.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of respondent which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

The Hearing Officer personally interviewed the confidential informant and the in camera testimony before us sufficiently *687establishes petitioner’s guilt and the need to protect the informant’s identity *(see, Matter of McClean v LeFevre,*142 AD2d 911). Petitioner was also properly informed that an informant’s statement was being taken and that his safety could be jeopardized by disclosure of his identity *(see, supra).*The record also contained sufficient material to enable the Hearing Officer to assess the informant’s credibility and the reliability of his information *(see, Matter of Harris v Coughlin,*116 AD2d 896, *lv denied*67 NY2d 610, 1047). We have considered petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them lacking in merit.

Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

N os. 04

- 13

- 00571

- CR & 04

- 13

- 00572

- CR

Fernando LOPEZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas Trial Court Nos. 12

- 1791

- CR & 12

- 2454

- CR

- C Honorable William Old, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARION
, JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgments of the trial court are AFFIRMED.

SIGNED September 17, 2014.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
**Exhibit 23.1**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Boardof Directors 

Kraton Performance Polymers, Inc.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-163893) on Form S-8 of Kraton Performance Polymers, Inc. (formerly Polymer Holdings LLC) of our reports datedMarch 15, 2010, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Kraton Performance Polymers, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders’ andmember’s equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2009, and the related financial statement schedule, which reports appear in the December 31, 2009 annual report onForm 10-K of Kraton Performance Polymers, Inc. 

/S/    KPMG LLP 

Houston, Texas 

March 15, 2010
Demetrius Lee & Robb Wilson vs. City of Midland, et. al. 

Plaintiffs’ Certificate of Interested Persons

Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MIDLAND DIVISION

DEMETRIUS LEE and ROBB WILSON 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. CASE NO.___________________

CITY OF MIDLAND, TEXAS, 

SETH HERMAN and KYLE SULLIVAN Jury Requested

Defendants. 

PLAINTIFFS’ CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS

TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:

PLAINTIFFS, DEMETRIUS LEE and ROBB WILSON, files this, their Certificate of 

Interested Persons. Plaintiffs would respectfully show as follows:

Defendant believes that the following are the proper interested persons in this suit:

1. Plaintiff DEMETRIUS LEE, 2305 Sky View Road, Midland, TX 79705;

2. Plaintiff ROBB WILSON, 2641 Grand Colonial St., Grand Prairie, TX 75054;

3. Defendant City of Midland, 300 N. Lorraine Street, Midland, Texas 79702;

4. Defendant Seth Herman c/o MIDLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, 601 N. 

Lorraine St, Midland, TX 79701;

5. Defendant Kyle Sullivan c/o MIDLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT, 601 N. 

Lorraine St, Midland, TX 79701.

Case 7:20-cv-00020-DC Document 1-2 Filed 01/26/20 Page 1 of 3
Demetrius Lee & Robb Wilson vs. City of Midland, et. al. 

Plaintiffs’ Certificate of Interested Persons

Page 2 of 3

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Robert S. Hogan

Robert S. Hogan

State Bar No. 00796767

HOGAN LAW FIRM, PC

1210 Ave. R (79401)

P.O. Box 2277

Lubbock, Texas 79424

Telephone: (806) 771-7900

Facsimile: (806) 771-7925

Email: rob@hoganlaw.com

Case 7:20-cv-00020-DC Document 1-2 Filed 01/26/20 Page 2 of 3
Demetrius Lee & Robb Wilson vs. City of Midland, et. al. 

Plaintiffs’ Certificate of Interested Persons

Page 3 of 3

Case 7:20-cv-00020-DC Document 1-2 Filed 01/26/20 Page 3 of 3
#### HOLLOWAY v. HOLLOWAY.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Oct. 26, 1951.

J. Gordon Lisanby, Princeton, for appellant.

C. R. Baker, Princeton, for appellee.

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

Dorothy Joe and J. P. Holloway were married in 1944. They had a four year old daughter at the time of their separation in July, 1949. Mrs. Holloway sought a divorce on the ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. She asked for custody of the child and a reasonable allowance for the child’s support. Mr. Holloway denied that Mrs. Holloway had any grounds for divorce and he sought the custody of the child. The chancellor took the view that neither party was without fault and denied them a divorce. He further adjudged that Mrs. Holloway was not entitled to alimony. However, h.e allowed her custody of the child and directed that Mr. Plolloway pay $25 a month for its support. The judgment directed further that Mr. Holloway could have the child visit him and have her “stay over night one night on each visit.”

While we appreciate fully the position of the chancellor, we take a different view of the case. Neither party was entirely free from fault, but during the trial an immorality charge was brought out against Mrs. Holloway which proved groundless. It may be that there was some manufactured evidence on both sides, but we can not escape the conclusion that it would be little short of folly to expect these two young people to live together again as man and wife.

Here, as always, our primary concern is the welfare of the infant child. Under the circumstances, and since there is ample evidence to support it, we think a divorce should have been granted Mrs. Holloway, and that she should have been allowed custody of the child, with reasonable visitation periods by the father.

We think also the allowance of $25 per month for the child is inadequate. Mr. Holloway should not be permitted to discharge his obligation to his wife and child by the payment of $25 a month. He is an able-bodied man who makes at least $10 a day at carpentering when he works. While he said 'he had not been making more than $100 a month for some time, we think, under present conditions, he should be required to pay at least $50 a month to Mrs. Holloway for the support of herself and the child.

Judgment reversed, with directions to set it aside, and for the entry of a judgment in accordance with this opinion.