alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-03-0417-CR NO. 07-03-0418-CR IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TE XAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL A NOVEMBER 22, 2004

______________________________ JACK TREMAYNE SAPP, APPELL ANT V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLE E

_________________________________ FROM THE 100 TH DISTRICT COURT OF CHILDRESS COUN TY; NO. 4516 & 4518; H ONORABLEDAVID M. MCCOY, JU DGE

_______________________________ Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ. MEMORAND UM OPINION Pending before this Court is appellant Jack Tremayne Sapp’s motion to dismiss his appeals. Pursuant to Rule 42.2(a) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the request to withdraw the notices of appeal issigned by appellant. No decision of this Court having2

been delivered to date, we grant the motion. No motions for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandates will issue forthwith. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. Don H. Reavis Justice Do not pu blish.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16

- 60165 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee

v.
JAMES FRANKLIN PUTNAM, also known as Tony Martinez, also known as Bobby Spiers, also known as Bob Watson,
Defendant-Appell ant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi USDC No. 1:97 -CR-3-1

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James Franklin Putnam appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of error coram nobis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). Putnam has

com pleted his term of imprisonment but is still serving the five- year term of supervised release imposed following his guilty plea conviction of hostage taking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1203.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fif h Circuit 

### FILED April 18, 2017 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 16-60165 Document: 00513957589 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/18/2017No. 16

- 60165

2 At all times, this court must be assured of its jurisdiction and the district court’s jurisdiction. United States v. Key , 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000).
Because Putnam is still subject to an unexpired term of supervised release, he
is “in custody” and ineligible for coram nobis relief. S ee United States v. Scruggs , 691 F.3d 660, 662 n.1 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Esogbue , 357 F.3d 532, 534 (5th Cir. 2004). Because Putnam is challenging his federal conviction, the district court should have construed his petition as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. See Tolliver v. Dobre , 211 F.3d 876, 877

- 78 (5th Cir. 2000). The district court, however, lacked jurisdiction to do so because Putnam previously filed a § 2255 motion, and this court did not authorize the filing of a successive § 2255 motion. See Hooker v. Sivley , 187 F .3d 680, 681

- 82 (5th Cir. 1999); 28 U.S .C. § 2244(b)(3)(A). T he district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED on the alternative ground that the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Putnam’s petition

. See United States v. Early , 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). All pending motions are DENIED. Case: 16-60165 Document: 00513957589 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/18/2017
Table 5.6.1 PTAC and PTHP Test Units at 9,000 Btu/h Capacity 

Feature 

Test Unit Description 

PTAC PTHP 

Test Unit 1 

Test Unit 2 

Test Unit 3 

Test Unit 4 

Test Unit 5 

Test Unit 6 

Test Unit 7 

Test Unit 8 

Test Unit 9 

Rated Cooling Capacity 

(Btu/h) 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,700 9,500 9,700 9,500 9,400 9,000 

Rated EER (Btu/Wh) 11.3 11.5 11.3 12.1 12.7 12.1 12.9 12.7 11.3 

Rated COP (unitless) - - - - - - 3.6 3.8 3.3 

Outdoor 

Coil 

Face Area 

(ft^2) 2.67 2.67 1.85 2.67 2.48 2.67 2.50 2.55 1.85 

Fin Pitch 19 23 21 19 21 19 20 19 21 

Tube Rows 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 2 

Tube OD (in.) 0.200 0.200 0.250 0.250 0.200 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 

Outdoor 

Fan 

Motor 

Type PSC PSC PSC PSC BLDC PSC BLDC BLDC PSC 

Power (hp) 0.054 0.040 0.028 0.037 0.067 0.037 0.067 0.060 0.028 

Indoor 

Coil 

Face Area 

(ft^2) 2.08 1.93 2.34 1.87 1.88 1.87 1.88 1.87 2.34 

Fin Pitch 18 18 18 19 19 19 19 21 18 

Tube Rows 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 

Tube OD (in.) 0.313 0.375 0.313 0.250 0.375 0.250 0.375 0.250 0.313 

Indoor 

Fan 

Motor 

Type PSC PSC PSC PSC BLDC PSC BLDC BLDC PSC 

Power (hp) 0.028 0.020 0.054 0.042 0.040 0.042 0.040 0.048 0.028 

Compressor* 

Capacity 

(Btu/h) 7,438 7,895 7,895 7,895 7,900 7,895 8,700 7,895 Not record

-ed 

Efficiency 

(EER) 10.1 10.1 10.1 10.1 9.7 10.1 10.9 10.1 

*All test units were observed to have a single-speed rotary compressor using refrigerant R-410A. 
Table 5.6.2 PTAC and PTHP Test Units at 15,000 Btu/h Capacity 

Feature 

Test Unit Description 

PTAC PTHP 

Test Unit 12 

Test Unit 13 

Test Unit 14 

Test Unit 15 

Test Unit 16 

Test Unit 17 

Test Unit 18 

TeUn

Rated Cooling Capacity 

(Btu/h) 15,000 14,400 15,000 15,000 14,200 15,100 14,400 1

Rated EER (Btu/Wh) 10.0 10.5 9.8 10.0 9.7 11.2 10.8 

Rated COP (unitless) - - - - 3.0 3.1 3.3 

Outdoor 

Coil 

Face Area (ft^2) 2.53 2.44 2.41 2.53 2.56 2.48 2.55 

Fin Pitch 24 19 18 24 20 20 19 

Tube Rows 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 

Tube OD (in.) 0.200 0.250 0.325 0.200 0.375 0.250 0.250 0

Outdoor 

Fan 

Motor 

Type PSC PSC PSC PSC PSC BLDC BLDC 

Power (hp) 0.094 0.060 0.088 0.094 0.094 0.067 0.060 0

Indoor 

Coil 

Face Area (ft^2) 2.08 1.87 1.85 2.08 1.79 1.83 1.87 

Fin Pitch 18 19 19 18 18 19 21 

Tube Rows 2 2 3 2 3 2 3 

Tube OD (in.) 0.375 0.250 0.313 0.375 0.313 0.375 0.250 0

Indoor 

Fan 

Motor 

Type PSC PSC PSC PSC PSC BLDC BLDC 

Power (hp) 0.034 0.042 0.030 0.034 0.034 0.040 0.048 0

Compressor* 

Capacity 

(Btu/h) 14,505 13,529 14,758 14,505 14,481 14,505 13,529 1

Efficiency 

(EER) 10.3 9.8 9.9 10.3 10.5 10.3 9.8 

*All test units were observed to have a single-speed rotary compressor using refrigerant R-410A.
#### HOLMAN v. STATE.

No. 22069.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 15, 1942.

Dennis' Reynolds, of Wheeler, for appellant.

Spurgeon E..Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

It was charged by information that appellant while intoxicated drove a motor vehicle upon a public highway. He was convicted by the jury, and his punishment assessed at ten days imprisonment in the county jail.

The record contains neither statement of facts nor bills of exceptions. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2995 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to eliminate the 

limitation on deductibles for employer-sponsored health plans. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 2, 2013 

Mr. REED (for himself, Mr. THOMPSON of California, and Mr. TIBERI) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy 

and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 

to eliminate the limitation on deductibles for employersponsored health plans. 

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 ‘‘Unnecessary Cap Act 

5 of 2013’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2995 IH

1 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF LIMITATION ON DEDUCTIBLES 

2 FOR EMPLOYER-SPONSORED HEALTH PLANS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 1302(c) of the Patient 

4 Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public Law 111–148; 

5 42 U.S.C. 18022(c)) is amended— 

6 (1) by striking paragraph (2); and 

7 (2) in paragraph (4)(A), by striking ‘‘para8 graphs (1)(B)(i) and (2)(B)(i)’’ and inserting ‘‘para9 graph (1)(B)(i)’’. 

10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 2707(b) of 

11 the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300gg–6(b)) is 

12 amended by striking ‘‘paragraphs (1) and (2)’’ and insert13 ing ‘‘paragraph (1)’’. 

14 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

15 this Act shall be effective as if included in the enactment 

16 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Public 

17 Law 111–148). 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### HUNT et al. v. BOYD.

No. 9557.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

April 10, 1946.

B. W. Smith, of San Angelo, for appellant.

E. E. Murphy, of San Angelo, for appel-lee.

McClendon, chief justice.

Appeal from an interlocutory order overruling a plea of privilege seeking to change the venue in a child custody case from Tom Green to Potter County.

In a suit brought in the 119th Judicial District Court of Tom Green County by F. D. Boyd (appellee) against his then wife, Preble Boyd (appellant Preble Hunt) a judgment was rendered Oct. 31/41, granting a divorce to the latter, upon her cross-action, and awarding the custody of their then five year old daughter, Renna Gayle Boyd, to the mother during the school year (September 1 to May 31 of each year) and to .the father during the remaining (vacation) period, with privilege of each parent to visit the child while in the other’s custody. The mother later married appellant *971T. D. Hunt. August 2, 1945, the father filed in said court an application to have Preble Hunt punished for contempt of court for the alleged failure on her part to deliver custody of the child to him on May 31, 1945. The application also stated that the father was and that the mother was not a suitable person to have the custody of the child, and sought to have such custody awarded to the father.

In so far as the application seeks to have Mrs. Hunt punished for alleged violation of the judgment of October 31, 1941, it is merely an enforcement measure, ancillary to said judgment, and is within the exclusive jurisdiction of said court.

In so far, however, as the application seeks any change or modification in the child custody provisions of the judgment, it constitutes a separate, independent suit, the venue of which lies in the county of defendants’ residence. Lakey v. McCarroll, 134 Tex. 191, 134 S.W.2d 1016; Spell v. Green, Tex.Sup., 192 S.W.2d 260, expressly approving the holding of the San Antonio Court in Green v. Spell, Tex.Civ.App., 191 S.W.2d 92. To that extent the order overruling the plea of privilege is set aside and the plea is sustained; and the cause is remanded to the trial court with direction to change the venue to Potter County in so far as the application seeks any change or modification of the child custody provisions of the judgment of October 31, 1941.

Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Exhibit 10.29


2005 Form 10-K Exhibits for Printer


 


Compensation
Arrangements for Non-Employee Directors


 


Revised Compensation Structure.   On February 21, 2006, the
Governance Committee of the Board approved a revised compensation structure for
non-employee directors effective as of January 1, 2006.  The changes
in directors’ compensation are to increase the annual Board retainer from
$35,000 to $40,000, and to increase the annual Board Committee chair retainers
from $5,000 to $7,500. Retainer fees are payable quarterly in arrears.


 


The other elements of non-employee directors’
compensation structure are summarized as follows:


 


•                  The meeting fees for board and committee
meetings are $1,500 per meeting.


 


•                  Annual grant at the conclusion of the annual
shareholders meeting 3,000 deferred shares of Company common stock with
restrictions that lapse upon the earlier of the first anniversary of grant, the
director’s death, disability, retirement or a change in control of the Company.
Directors were previously granted 7,000 stock options per year.


 


•                  New directors receive a one-time grant of
4,000 deferred shares of Company common stock upon their election to the Board,
to assist in attracting and retaining qualified new directors. All directors
serving at the conclusion of the first Board meeting in 2005 received a
one-time grant of 4,000 deferred shares of Company common stock. The
restrictions will lapse upon the earlier of the third anniversary of grant, the
director’s death, disability, retirement or a change in control of the Company,
as such terms are defined in the 2000 Stock Incentive Plan.


 


Amendments to 2000 Stock Incentive
Plan.   On
October 28, 2004 and November 1, 2004, respectively, the Compensation
Committee and the Governance Committee of the Board approved amendments to the
Equifax Inc. 2000 Stock Incentive Plan (the “2000 Plan”) to permit the issuance
of deferred shares of Company common stock to non-employee directors of the
Company as part of its overall stock compensation plan for directors.


 


Expense Reimbursement.   Directors are also entitled to
reimbursement of reasonable travel expenses associated with Board and Committee
meetings as well as costs and expenses incurred in attending director education
programs and other Company-related seminars and conferences.


 


Stock Ownership Guidelines for
Directors.  
On November 1, 2004, the Governance Committee of the Board approved
guidelines that require non-employee directors to own Company stock having a
value of at least four times the annual cash retainer (currently $140,000).
These guidelines are to be achieved by the fourth anniversary of the director’s
initial election to the Board.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AS REPORTED ON FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,155,938
<SECURITIES>                                11,949,518
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,364,020
<PP&E>                                         236,369
<DEPRECIATION>                                 144,644
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,071,419
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,445,047
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        480
<COMMON>                                       126,418
<OTHER-SE>                                  18,499,474
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,071,419
<SALES>                                         83,060
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,060
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,771,308
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,438
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,899,140)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (5,899,140)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (5,899,140)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.48)
        

</TABLE>
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 23, 2009 

s1116 

Order 

 

November 23, 2009 

139652 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139652 

 COA: 280333 

Wayne CC: 07-006633-01 

RONALD DWIGHT SMITH, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 6, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
Exhibit 23.1   The
Board of Directors J.
Crew Group, Inc.:   We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the previously filed registration
statement No. 333-60658 on Form S-8 of J. Crew Group, Inc. 1997 Stock Option
Plan of our report dated April 4, 2005, with respect to the consolidated
balance sheets of J. Crew Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of January 29, 2005
and January 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
cash flows, and changes in stockholders deficit for each of the years in the
three-year period ended January 29, 2005, and the related financial statement
schedule, which report appears in the January 29, 2005 annual report on Form
10-K of J. Crew Group, Inc.  Our
report refers to the adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standard No.
150, Accounting for Certain Financial Instruments with Characteristics of both
Liabilities and Equity in the third quarter of fiscal 2003.  Our
report also indicates that J. Crew Group, Inc. and subsidiaries have restated
the consolidated statements of cash flows for each of the years in the two-year
period ended January 31, 2004, to reclassify the proceeds from construction
allowances from cash flows from investing activities to cash flows from
operating activities.   New
York, New York April 29, 2005
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

WESTERN DISTRICT 

DAVID L. SCRIP, JR. 

 v. 

WASHINGTON COUNTY JUVENILE 

PROBATION AND UNEMPLOYMENT 

COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW 

PETITION OF: WASHINGTON COUNTY 

JUVENILE PROBATION 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 89 WAL 2016 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court 

ORDER

PER CURIAM 

 AND NOW, this 6th day of September, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

and the ancillary Motion for Leave to Supplement Petition for Allowance of Appeal are 

hereby DENIED.
Exhibit 31.1
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Jerry D. Chase, certify that:
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Terayon Communication Systems, Inc.;and  2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;        Date: May 2, 2005 By:  /s/ Jerry D. Chase    Jerry D. Chase    Chief Executive Officer
Summary of 2006 Executive Officer Base Salary



 Exhibit 10.30 
 SUMMARY OF 2006 EXECUTIVE OFFICER BASE SALARIES 
 The following is a summary of the 2006 base salaries established
for the executive officers of Adolor Corporation. For additional information regarding the compensation of the Company’s executive officers, please refer to the Company’s Proxy Statement relating to the 2006 Annual Meeting of Stockholders.

  

				
	 Name and Principal Position
	  	2006 Base Salary
	 James E. Barrett, Ph.D.
	  	$	351,500
	 Senior Vice President, Chief Scientific Officer and President, Research
	  		
		
	 Michael R. Dougherty
	  	$	333,900
	 Senior Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
	  		
		
	 *Roger D. Graham, Jr.
	  	$	338,800
	 Senior Vice President, Sales and Marketing
	  		
		
	 Thomas P. Hess
	  	$	196,300
	 Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial Officer
	  		
		
	 David Jackson, M.D.
	  	$	358,600
	 Senior Vice President and Chief Medical Officer
	  		
		
	 Martha E. Manning, Esq.
	  	$	274,750
	 Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
	  		



	*	Roger Graham was granted options to purchase 10,000 shares of common stock of the Company on January 6, 2006, which vested immediately upon grant in lieu of $49,000 guaranteed
annual bonus.
ANNUAL SERVICING CERTIFICATION

In connection  with the loans  serviced by FT MORTGAGE COMPANIES   during fiscal
year ended DECEMBER 31, 1997 we confirm the following:

         1)  All real estate taxes, special assessments and any charges that may
become a  lien  upon the  property and which come due in the last calendar  year
have  been paid.  This also  includes the  verification  with taxing authorities
for non-escrowed mortgages.

         2)  All FHA insurance premiums or private mortgage insurance  premiums,
if applicable, have been paid and are in full force and effect.

         3)  All  properties  are  adequately   insured  and  your  interest  as
Mortgagee,  is properly provided for in the mortgage clause.  This includes both
flood and hazard insurance.

         4)  For those  loans  being  escrowed  for the  payment  of  taxes  and
insurance, sufficient amounts are being collected monthly to provide for payment
of future items.

         5)  All property  inspections  have  been  completed  according  to the
provisions of our servicing agreement, if applicable.

         6)  All other provisions of the servicing agreement have been adhered

         7)   Any  exceptions to this certification  are listed on an attachment
along  with any  explanation  concerning  their  completion.  If there  are none
listed, it should be considered that there are no exceptions.


By:/s/Linda Chandler
(Name)

Vice President
(Title)

March 31, 1998
(Date)
<PAGE>   1
EXHIBIT 12


                         ADVANTA CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
       CONSOLIDATED COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES (A)
                             (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                         THREE MONTHS ENDED                 NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                            SEPTEMBER 30,                      SEPTEMBER 30,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        2000             1999             2000              1999
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                  <C>              <C>              <C>               <C>
Net earnings (loss)                  $  15,744        $  14,178        $(159,882)        $  33,263
Federal and state income tax
  expense                                    0            9,256                0            21,564
Earnings (loss) before income
  tax expense (benefit)                 15,744           23,434         (159,882)           54,827
Fixed charges:
  Interest                              52,005           41,935          151,490           128,529
  One-third of all rentals                 712              771            2,233             2,364
  Preferred stock dividend
   of subsidiary trust                   2,248            2,248            6,743             6,743
  Total fixed charges                   54,965           44,954          160,466           137,636
Earnings (loss) before income
 taxes (benefits) and fixed
 charges                                70,709           68,388              584           192,463
Ratio of earnings to
 fixed charges                            1.29x            1.52x             N/M (B)          1.40x
</TABLE>

(A)  For purposes of computing these ratios, "earnings" represent income before
     income taxes plus fixed charges. "Fixed charges" consist of interest
     expense, one-third (the proportion deemed representative of the interest
     factor) of rental expense on operating leases, and preferred stock
     dividends of subsidiary trust.

(B)  The ratio calculated based on the loss in the nine months ended September
     30, 2000 is zero and therefore not meaningful. In order to achieve a ratio
     of 1.00, earnings before income taxes and fixed charges would need to
     increase by $159,882 for the nine months ended September 30, 2000.