alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of App **eals**

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 4, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00452

- CR

Jose Guadalupe AGUIRRE

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 144th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015CR7206

Honorable Lorina I. Rummel, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant ’ s Second Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is

GRANTED. The appellant ’ s brief is due on October 28, 2016.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affi xed the seal of the said

court on this 4th day of October, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO FORM 10-KSB FOR YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         776,928
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                3,191,477
<ALLOWANCES>                                 (125,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  3,731,998
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,040,128
<PP&E>                                       3,657,001
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,185,175
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,790,501
<BONDS>                                      1,522,731
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        125
<COMMON>                                         3,416
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,868,402
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,185,175
<SALES>                                      6,639,522
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,639,522
<CGS>                                        4,115,372
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,848,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           (1,086,769)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (13,000)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             236,627
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                539,190
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            539,190
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                539,190
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   539,190
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .15
        

</TABLE>
[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Marshall, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 2019-Ohio-3113.] 

DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL v. MARSHALL. 

[Cite as Disciplinary Counsel v. Marshall, ___ Ohio St.3d ___, 

2019-Ohio-3113.] 

(No. 2013-0924—Submitted June 27, 2019—Decided August 2, 2019.) 

ON APPLICATION FOR REINSTATEMENT. 

____________________ 

{¶ 1} This cause came on for further consideration upon the filing of an 

application for reinstatement by respondent, Joy Lenore Marshall, Attorney 

Registration No. 0073585, last known business address in Columbus, Ohio. 

{¶ 2} The court coming now to consider its order of November 6, 2014, 

wherein the court, pursuant to Gov.Bar R. V(12)(A)(3), suspended respondent 

from the practice for a period of two years, with one year stayed on conditions, 

finds that respondent has substantially complied with that order and with the 

provisions of Gov.Bar R. V(24). 

{¶ 3} Therefore, it is ordered by this court that respondent is reinstated to 

the practice of law in the state of Ohio on the condition that she continue to make 

restitution payments in accordance with the promissory note executed on July 30, 

2019. 

{¶ 4} It is further ordered that the clerk of this court issue certified copies 

of this order as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(1) and that publication be 

made as provided for in Gov.Bar R. V(17)(D)(2). 

{¶ 5} For earlier case, see Disciplinary Counsel v. Marshall, 142 Ohio 

St.3d 1, 2014-Ohio-4815, 27 N.E.3d 481. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and KENNEDY, FRENCH, FISCHER, DEWINE, DONNELLY,

and STEWART, JJ., concur. 

________________________
##### 



EXHIBIT 99(b)

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 Amended Annual Report of Northland Cable
Television, Inc. and Subsidiary (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the year
ended December 31, 2001 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q/A), I, Gary Jones, 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 Form 10-K/A fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13 (a) or (15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78(d)); and   
| | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Form 10-K/A
fairly presents in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: November 8, 2002

| |  |     |  |                                                                     
| |  | --- |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | BY: |  | /s/ GARY S. JONES                                                   
| |  |     |  |                                                                     
| |  |     |  | Gary S. Jones
President
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
# Continuation of Emergency With Respect to Significant    Narcotics Traffickers Centered in Colombia

                        On October 21, 1995, by Executive Order 12978, I declared a national emergency to deal with the unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States constituted by the actions of significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia, and the unparalleled violence, corruption, and harm they cause in the United States and abroad. The order blocks all property and interests in property of foreign persons listed in an Annex to the order, as well as persons determined to play a significant role in international narcotics trafficking centered in Colombia, to materially assist in, or provide financial or technological support for or goods or services in support of, narcotics trafficking activities of persons designated in or pursuant to the order, or to be owned or controlled by, or to act for or on behalf of, persons designated in or pursuant to the order. The order also prohibits any transaction or dealing by United States persons or within the United States in such property or interests in property. Because the activities of significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia continue to threaten the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States and to cause unparalleled violence, corruption, and harm in the United States and abroad, the national emergency declared on October 21, 1995, and the measures adopted pursuant thereto to deal with that emergency, must continue in effect beyond October 21, 2000. Therefore, in accordance with section 202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing the national emergency for 1 year with respect to significant narcotics traffickers centered in Colombia. This notice shall be published in the                         **Federal Register**                         and transmitted to the Congress.                    

[FR Doc. 00-27250

Billing code 3195-01-P
#### Willie WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 23884.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 15, 1947.

No appearance for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appellant has filed an affidavit stating that he no longer desires to prosecute his appeal in this cause and requesting the dismissal thereof. The motion is granted and the appeal is ordered dismissed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 16, 2014

No. 04-14-00680-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.P., ET AL, CHILDREN,

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-PA-02655

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of an order terminating the appellant’s parental rights which 

must be disposed of by this court within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. TEX.

R. JUD. ADMIN. 6.2. The reporter’s record, which was due to be filed on October 6, 2014, has 

not been filed.

On October 20, 2014, this court notified the court reporter responsible for preparing the 

record, Mr. David Zarate, that the record was late. Because Mr. Zarate did not respond to this 

court’s notice, on October 31, 2014, Mr. Zarate was ordered to file the reporter’s record in this 

appeal no later than November 20, 2014. The order directed the clerk to serve a copy of the 

order on Mr. Zarate by certified mail, return receipt requested, and the court has received proof 

of delivery. The order stated that if Mr. Zarate failed to file the record by the stated deadline, an 

order would be issued directing him to appear and show cause why he should not be held in 

contempt for failing to file the record. Despite these warnings, Ms. Zarate has failed to file the 

record.

WE, THEREFORE, ORDER MR. DAVID ZARATE TO ELECTRONICALLY 

FILE THE REPORTER’S RECORD IN APPEAL NO. 04-14-00680-CV WITHIN 72 

HOURS OF RECEIVING A COPY OF THIS ORDER. IF MR. ZARATE FAILS TO 

ELECTRONICALLY FILE THE RECORD IN THE ABOVE APPEAL AS ORDERED, 

CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE COMMENCED AGAINST HIM. WE ORDER 

THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO SERVE A COPY OF THIS ORDER ON MR. 

ZARATE BY CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, WITH DELIVRY 

RESTRICTED TO THE ADDRESSEE ONLY, OR GIVE OTHER PERSONAL NOTICE 

OF THIS ORDER WITH PROOF OF DELIVERY.

Because “[t]he trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the 

appellate record is timely filed,” TEX. R. APP. P. 35.3(c), the clerk of the court is directed to serve 
a copy of this order on the Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, who presided over the parental 

termination proceeding.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 16th day of December, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
# JASON HUNT 1825 pinnacle point, Holts Summit Mo 65043 | 573 - 521 - 7154 | jhunt@freshideasfood.com 

## SUMMARY To obtain certified waiver under section 333 for use of UAS for commercial business

purposes. 

## USES Primary

· Real Estate Videography under 100 feet · Real Estate Photography under 500 feet · Event Videography under 300 feet · Event Photography under 300 feet · Ariel Photography under 500 feet · Agriculture Surveying UAS System/Software · DjI Phantom 3 advanced · DjI Inspire Our rural area has a great demand for the business aspect. Small businesses in my, and surrounding communities would benefit greatly from the marketing and business expansion alone. I will greatly appreciate the opportunity to be one of the first in my are a to bring this to the customers that want it. Thank You for your consideration. Jason Hunt 1825 Pinnacle point Holts Summit, MO 65043 573 - 521 -7154 Jhunt@freshideasfood.com
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

STANDING ORDER REGARDING

FILING DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL IN PATENT CASES AND REDACTED 

PLEADINGS

As a public forum, the Court has a policy of providing to the public full access to 

documents filed with the Court. Nevertheless, parties in patent cases routinely produce and rely 

on information that is confidential. Therefore, in all patent cases pending before the undersigned, 

the Court hereby grants leave for any party to file materials containing confidential information 

under seal without filing a separate motion seeking leave of the Court to do so. The filing party 

shall file a publicly available, redacted version of any motion or pleading filed under seal within 

seven days. The parties need not file redacted versions of exhibits to such documents. Exhibits 

that are nonconfidential in their entirety should not be filed under seal at all. The parties shall 

coordinate to make sure that the public version filing redacts information that any party deems 

confidential. Redactions should be targeted to redact only that information. The publicly 

available version shall be labeled “PUBLIC VERSION.” Cooperating to file the public version 

shall not be deemed as agreeing that the redacted information is actually confidential. 

This Order shall apply in all patent cases, but shall not require parties to file public 

versions of pleadings filed before the date of this Order. 

SIGNED this ___ day of February, 2021. 

_________________________________________

ALAN D ALBRIGHT 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12th

FILED

DEPUTY 

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

BY: ________________________________ February 12, 2021 Reuben Amaro

Case 6:20-cv-00463-ADA Document 49 Filed 02/12/21 Page 1 of 1
#### Whitmer Brothers Funeral Home, Inc., Appellant, *v.*The Borden Co., Appellee.

(No. 27728

Decided October 4, 1939.)

*Mr. Clifford R. Curtner,*for appellant.

*Mr. J. D. Chamberlain*and *Messrs. Vorys, Rater, Seymour & Pease,*for appellee.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed, for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Day, Zimmerman, Williams, Myers, Matthias and Hart, JJ., concur.
#### SMITH v. COMMONWEALTH.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Jan. 25, 1952.

Tackett & Tackett, Prestonsburg, for appellant.

J. D. Buckman, Jr. Atty. Gen., Zeb A. Stewart, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. •

CAMMACK, Chief Justice.

Will Smith was sentenced to 21 years in prison for killing Ed Hall in a card game. On this appeal he is urging that the trial court erred in requiring him to testify that he had been convicted of another shooting offense and in failing to admonish the jury as to the purpose for which this testimony was admitted. He complains also of the instructions.

Over objection Smith was required to answer that he had been convicted previously of a felony and that it was for shooting a man. Smith’s attorney then moved to set aside the swearing of the jury and continue the case. This motion was overruled and an exception taken. The court did not admonish the jury that this evidence was admissible only for the purpose of attacking the credibility of the witness. The questions were framed properly and the evidence was admissible. Quillen v. Commonwealth, 275 Ky. 158, 120 S.W.2d 1047. However, since the questions were objected to, it was the duty of the court to admonish the jury as to the purpose for which the evidence was admissible. Bond v. Commonwealth, 236 Ky. 472, 33 S.W.2d 320. In Allen v. Commonwealth, 302 Ky. 546, 195 S.W.2d 96, it was said that a court’s failure to so admonish the jury is not reversible error where on the whole record it is not prejudicial to the accused. Certainly it would be better practice for the admonition to be given in every case such as the one under consideration. However, the motion to set aside the swearing of the jury and to continue the case went beyond a request to have the jury admonished properly. It was reversible error not to give the admonition under the circumstances.

In framing the reasonable doubt instruction the court said: “If upon the whole case, you have reasonable doubt of the defendant having been proved guilty you ought to find him not guilty * * *585The objection goes to the use of the word “ought.” If there be another trial of the cause, this instruction should be framed in keeping with the instructions found in Section 956, Stanley’s Instructions to Juries.

Judgment reversed, with directions to set it aside, and for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

      In connection with the Quarterly Report of Tektronix, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 1, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
H. Wills, President and Chief Executive Officer 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 to the best of my knowledge:

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

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

Dated: October 10, 2007

/s/ RICHARD H. WILLS
--------------------------------------------
Richard H. Wills
President and Chief Executive Officer
exv10w2



 





Exhibit 10.2









 





PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL




February 27, 2006




Name

Address




RE: Directors Incentive Plan




Dear _________:



Reference is made to our letter of February 6, 2006 whereby we advised you of the adjustment
that was made to your deferred units as a result of the $6 special dividend.



The purpose of this letter is to advise you that there will be a further adjustment forthcoming
to you in the amount of $___to fully recognize the $6 dividend. When we originally
developed the Directors Incentive Plan, the plan did not contemplate the paying of a special
dividend. As a result, when we adjusted the number of units for you, we were required under the
terms and conditions of the plan to make the adjustment using the formula outlined in our
February 6, 2006 letter, which resulted in you not receiving the full value of the $6 dividend
in the same way that all other Ameritrade shareholders have. For your reference, the method to
adjust the number of units in the plan to provide full value is $6/ (closing price — $6).



Because our plan does not allow for a discretionary stock award, the adjustment will be made in
the form of a cash bonus. Please find attached a check for the above amount. This amount will
be reported on a 1099 that you will receive next year.



I trust the above meets with your satisfaction.



Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions or require further
clarification.



Yours truly,




Karen Ganzlin

402-597-7714
## EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH MOSQUITO ABATEMENT AND RODENT CONTROL DISTRICTN0.1 2829 Gen. Ben Davis Jr. Avenue Metro Airport Baton Rouge. Louisiana 70807 Phone: (225) 356-3297



# US Dept. of Transportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building ground floor Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE Washington, DC 20590 Jan.15,2013 Docket number FAA-2011-0467 {'........;:



### . Vi



# Re: Exemption no. 10821Afrom 14 CFR (FAR Sec)- Part 137.53 (c)(2) Dear Sirs: We are at this time requesting to extend this exemption. This request was also filed electronically. Respectfully
Guy M Faget East Baton Rouge Parish Mosquito and Rodent ControlDate: 12/19/2012 Exemption No: 10281A from 14 CFR (FAR Section)- Part: 137.53 (c)(2) will expire on 6/30/2013. Ifappropriate, please submit your request to extend this exemption (including the 

## Y-'::3-**l~.** docket number FAA-2011-0467) within 30 days**ofthe~IHI': 1!1'1~~**  date ofthis notice. Otherwise, the FAA may not be abl

### ·;:;·""~-**-~~~r.t....D::.:** to process your request for extension before the expiration date. You may either submit your request electronically through the internet using the Docket Management System web site at: http://Regulations.gov/ or mail your request to: U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Operations, M-30 West Building ground floor, Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590

·Submission to other locations may delay processing. Any request for extension must meet the requirements of 14 CFR part 11. Ifyou have already 

### 016H26522091 

# $00.32Q

i2J ;dl20'12 Maiied From 

### 20591 

### US POSTAGE

requested an extension for this exemption or no longer

. • . . need this exemption, please

### igno~**fhit;jiJAij~j** 

## ,jj

# u1

### j 11

# ,l111i.ll,ulllallllllul,Jl,11111,),1

I

I.
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.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP00-549-001]

      ( print page 63582)    
Take notice that on October 13, 2000, U-T Offshore System, L.L.C. (UTOS), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute Second Revised Sheet No. 78. UTOS requests that this sheet be made effective October 1, 2000.

UTOS states that the tendered sheet is being filed in compliance with the Commission's October 4 Letter Order issued in Docket No. RP00-549-000.

Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​online/​rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-27264  Filed 10-23-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M