alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 11, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 007 82

- CR

Robert TORRES

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas
Trial Court No. 2013CR1875
Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Pursuant to a plea

- bargain agreement, Appellant Robert Torres pled nolo contendere to aggravated sexual assault of a child and was sentenced to eighteen years of imprisonment and a fine of $1,000 in accordance with the terms of his plea

- bargain agreement. On October 16, 2014

, the trial court signed a certification of defendant’s right to appeal stating that this “is a plea

bargain case, and the defendant has NO right of appeal.” See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2). After

Torres filed a notice of appeal, the trial court clerk sent copies of the certification and notice of appeal to this court. See id. 25.2(e). The clerk’s record, which includes the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification, has been fil ed. See id. 25.2(d).

“In a plea bargain case ... a defendant may appeal only: (A) those matters that were raised by written motion filed and ruled on before trial, or (B) after getting the trial court’s permission to appeal.” Id. 25.2(a)(2). The clerk’s record, which contains a written plea bargain, establishes the punishment assessed by the court does not exceed the punishment recommended by the prosecutor and agreed to by the defendant. See id. The clerk’s record does not include a written
motion filed and ruled upon before trial; nor does it indicate that the trial court gave its permission to appeal. See id. The trial court’s certification, therefore, appears to accurately
reflect that this i s a plea

- bargain case and that Torres does not have a right t o appeal. We must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the record.” Id. 25.2(d).

This appeal will be dismissed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 25.2(d),
unless an a mended trial court certification showing that Torres has the right to appeal is made part of the appellate record by January 12, 2015

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d), 37.1; Daniels v.

State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, o rder).We ORDER all appellate deadlines be suspended until further order of the court.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 11th day of December, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle
Clerk of Court
|                                                                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                           
|                                                                                                        
|Montana Natural Gas Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                        
|Montana Natural Gas Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (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                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 96     | 43     | 92     | 110   
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 90     | 104    | 117    | 206    | 199    | 110    | 176    | 151    | 161    | 127   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 146    | 81     | 124    | 80     | 125    | 90     | 54     | 82     | 25     | 90    
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 105    | 168    |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
Exhibit 10.5

                   AMENDMENT NO 2. TO THE EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
                                       OF
                                GREGORY C. FRANK


         This Amendment (this "Amendment") dated as of August 8, 2001, is
entered into by and between Sutton Online, Inc., a Delaware corporation with its
principal offices at 1000 Woodbury Road, Suite 214, Woodbury, New York 11709
("Sutton") and Gregory C. Frank, an individual residing at 300 Edwards Street,
Apt. 3I East, Roslyn Heights, 11577 ("Executive").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

         WHEREAS, Sutton and Executive are parties to a certain Amendment to the
Employment Agreement of Gregory C. Frank dated as of August 1, 2001 ("Amendment
No. 1"); and

         WHEREAS, Sutton and Execution desire to further amend the Employment
Agreement (as such term is defined in Amendment No. 1) as to certain matters as
hereinafter set forth.

         NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the covenants and
agreements contained herein, the parties agree as follows:

          1.      The parties agree that Section 4 of the Employment Agreement
is modified to change Executive's annual base salary from $78,000 to $120,000.

          2.      Except as expressly provided herein, all of the terms and
conditions of the Employment Agreement shall be unmodified and in full force and
effect.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this
Amendment on the day and year first above mentioned.


                                    Sutton Online, Inc.


                                    By: /s/ Jonathan D. Siegel
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Name: Jonathan D. Siegel
                                         Title:  Chief Executive Officer


                                    EXECUTIVE


                                    By:  /s/ Gregory C. Frank
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Gregory C. Frank
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Khovis Brown, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Turner, J.), rendered December 20, 1985, convicting him of petit *411larceny and criminal trespass in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

On appeal the defendant challenges the admission into evidence of the testimony of a prosecution witness whose identity was disclosed to the defense only a few days before he testified at trial. In response to the defendant’s omnibus motion, the court had ordered the People to turn over a list of potential witnesses in conformance with *People v Minor*(118 Misc 2d 351; *see also, People v Copicotto,*50 NY2d 222). In compliance therewith, the People turned over the list three days before trial. However, the list did not contain the name of the subject witness. During the trial, for the first time, the People became aware of the identity of the subject witness and immediately revealed his name to the court and the defendant. Under these facts, the People met their continuing duty to promptly disclose discoverable material *(see,*CPL 240.60). We therefore find that the court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion to preclude this witness’s testimony.

Finally, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Sullivan, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.
|                                                                                                                                            
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                                            
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                                              
|View History: Annual                                                                                                                        
|View History: Annual                                                                                                                        
|View History:                                                                                                                               
|                                                                                                                                            
|Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Proved Reserves from Less than 200 Meters Deep (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                                            
|                                                                                                                                            
|Gulf of Mexico Federal Offshore Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Proved Reserves from Less than 200 Meters Deep (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                                                                                                                            |        |        | 23,777 | 22,968 | 22,854 | 22,418 | 21,764 | 20,964 | 19,362 | 18,336
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 18,160 | 15,871 | 14,807 | 12,481 | 10,698 | 9,385  | 8,248  | 9,888  |        |       
|- = 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
----

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case COMP/M.4214 — Alcatel/Lucent Technologies)

(2006/C 149/10)

(Text with EEA relevance)

----

(1)OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

----
#### Beatriz Guerra de CHAPA, Administratrix of the Estate of Ponciano Chapa, Sr., Deceased, Appellant, v. Beulah G. COX, Appellee.

No. 12735.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Sept. 22, 1954.

*487Lloyd & Lloyd, Alice, for appellant.

John D. Coats, Austin, for appellee.

POPE, Justice.

This appeal concerns the procedure applicable to a hearing, on a plea of privilege, wherein the court held that the defendant by answering waived a plea of privilege which was filed later.' Rule 84, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Plaintiff, Beulah G. Cox, sued the estate of Ponciano Chapa, Sr., for damages for the death of her husband, caused by an automobile collision between Mr. Cox and Mr. Chapa, also .subsequently deceased. She named as the defendant in her suit Jacob G. Hornberger, Administrator of the Estate of Ponciano Chapa, Sr. The administrator timely filed an answer in the nature of a general denial. Hornberger was then removed as administrator and Chapa’s widow, Beatriz Guerra de Chapa, was named as administratrix. The former administrator called this to the attention of the court by a written motion. On January 27, 1954, Beatriz Guerra de Chapa, as ad-ministratrix, filed a plea of privilege to be sued in Jim Hogg County. The plea of privilege was filed five months after the former administrator made an appearance by way of general denial. Leave of court to withdraw the general answer was never sought nor granted by the trial court. However, the plaintiff did not file a controverting affidavit until March 5th, far beyond the ten days required by Rule 86, T.R.C.P.

The plaintiff made a motion to strike the plea of privilege, on the grounds that the general appearance constituted a waiver of the privilege, and the defendant made a motion to strike the controverting affidavit by reason of the late filing. The’court held that the defendant by answering made an appearance, and that the plea of privilege filed several months thereafter was waived as a matter of law. This was a correct ruling. Reed v. Garlington, Tex.Civ.App., 233 S.W.2d 185; Leyendecker v. Harlow, Tex.Civ.App., 189 S.W.2d 706.

The order of the trial court is affirmed.
Federal Aviatio n Administratio n

80 0 Independenc e Avenu e S.W . Airport s La w Branch , AGC-61 0 Washington , D C 2059 1 Attn : Mr . Raymon d Veatc h Re : Reques t fo rExtensio n o f Time FA A Docke t 16-08-1 2 Mr . Veatc h 

## Q ) E 

# C E B W MA R 

### 2 3 201 0 /larcTTjQgpoftij^jWffONMENTA L

LAW, AGC-60 0

I hav e jus t receive d today , b yUSPS , a reques t fro m McMin n Count yMayprJoh n £ o Gentry , date d Marc h 11 , 2010 . Mr . Gentryha s requeste d a n extensio n of^fifne , to- ^ th e appea l submitte d b yMr . Fenrel l an d myself . A s require d b y1 4 CF R P&ir t 16 , ^ Certificat e o f Servic e date d January11 , 201 0 accompanie d th e appeal . Neithe rMr . Ferrel l no rI ar e attorneys , no rd o w e hav e acces s t o th e service s o f ou rCount yAttorney . Th e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n ha s bee n clea rabou t th e requirement s tha t th e othe rpart yma yfil e a repl yt o a n appea l withi n 2 0 day s afte rth e dat e o f servic e o f th e appeal . B yan ygenerou s measure , Count yMayo r Gentry shoul d hav e responde d b yn o late rtha n February5 , 2010 . Th e nee d fo rthi s reques t cleariyillustrate s th e continue d lac k o f commitmen t an d urgenc yw e hav e constantl yencountere d from Count yMayo rGentrya s w e hav e trie d t o encourag e McMin n Count yt o tak e substantia l step s t o improvin g managemen t o f th e airport . Whil e Count yMayo rGentr yexpresse s his confusio n tha t a "fomria rappea l ha s bee n made , hi s referenc e t o ou rreques t fo roversigh t b yth e FA A woul d see m t o contradic t his assertion . Mr . Ferrel l an d I hav e pursued thi s issu e fo ronl yon e reaso n - a lac k o f concer n an d repeate d failur e b yMcMin n Count yt o ensur e continue d complianc e wit h Federal Aviatio n Administratio n requirements . Thes e failure s directl yaffec t fligh t an d publi c safety . Mr . Ferrel l an d I believ e i t i s imperativ e t o offe rth e Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n an d McMin n Count yth e maximu m opportunit yt o brin g thi s matte r t o a isatisfactor

yresolutio n fo ral l involved .Therefore , i n consultatio n wit h Mr . Ferrell , w e wil l suppor t an yextensio n fo rtim e

t o McMin n Count yMayo rGentr ydeeme d appropriat e b yth e Federa l Aviatio n Administration . Respectfully , Willia m KKeye i Cc : Count yMayo rJoh n Gentry Mr . DeWittT . Ferrel l
|                                                                                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                                           
|                                                                                                                        
|Lower 48 States Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                                        
|Lower 48 States Associated-Dissolved Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 3,013  | 845    | 908    | 1,062  | 987    | 2,052  | 1,960  | 1,349  | 938    | 678   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 2,469  | 1,833  | 2,150  | 2,842  | 4,428  | 3,166  | 4,469  | 7,673  | 8,051  | 9,765 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 3,836  | 16,075 |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACOACO DIVISION

PARKERVISION, INC.

vs.

INTEL CORPORATION

§

§

§

§

§

NO: WA:20-CV-00108-ADA

ORDER SETTING DISCOVERY DISCOVERY HEARING

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the above entitled and numbered case is set for

DISCOVERY HEARING by Zoomoom on April 14, 2022 at 02:30 PM.

set

IT 13th day of April, 2022.

Alan D Albright

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 6:20-cv-00108-ADA Document 123 Filed 04/13/22 Page 1 of 1
FIRST AMENDMENT TO REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT


           THIS AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is entered into as of August 29,
2001, by and among Valesc Inc., a corporation duly organized and existing under
the laws of the State of Delaware (the "Company") and SWARTZ PRIVATE EQUITY, LLC
(hereinafter referred to as "Swartz").

                                    RECITALS:

           WHEREAS, the Company and Swartz entered into a Registration Rights
Agreement dated on or about June 7, 2001, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit
A hereto.

           WHEREAS, the Company and the Holder desire to into this amendment
agreement.


                                     TERMS:

           NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises,
representations, warranties, covenants and conditions set forth in Agreement and
for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:

1.         AMENDMENT TO SECTION 1 OF THE REGISTRATION RIGHTS AGREEMENT.

           The definition of "Filing Deadline" is hereby amended and replaced in
its entirety with the following:

                     "FILING DEADLINE" SHALL MEAN SEPTEMBER 6, 2001.

2.         NO FURTHER MODIFICATION.  Except as set forth in this Agreement, all
of the terms and provisions of the Registration Rights Agreement shall remain
unmodified and in full force and effect.

           IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Agreement as
of this 29TH day of August, 2001.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VALESC, INC.                                   HOLDER:
                                               SWARTZ PRIVATE EQUITY, LLC


Signed:  ____________________________          Signed: _________________________
Print Name: _________________________                  Eric S. Swartz, Manager
Title: ______________________________

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                       1

<PAGE>