alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

AUG 7 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 97-7138

v. E.D. Oklahoma

RAMON MEDINA MOLINA,

Defendant - Appellant.

(D.C. No. 97-CV-272-S) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before ANDERSON, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34 (a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. This cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

This matter is before us on the application of Ramon Medina Molina for a

Certificate of Appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 with respect to the

district court’s denial of Mr. Molina’s action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

Mr. Molina was convicted in federal district court of drug conspiracy,

interstate travel to promote racketeering, conspiracy, interstate travel with the

intent to commit murder, and killing an individual in furtherance of a continuing

criminal enterprise. He was sentenced to three consecutive life imprisonment

terms and two concurrent terms of five years each. We affirmed those

convictions on direct appeal. See United States v. Molina, 75 F.3d 600 (10th

Cir.), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1249 (1996). Our review on direct appeal not only

included numerous issues raised by Mr. Molina directly, but also issues advanced

by his codefendants, which Mr. Molina adopted. We found all of the issues to be

without merit, referring specifically to our opinion in United States v. McCullah,

76 F.3d 1087 (10th Cir. 1996), cert. denied, 117 S. Ct. 1699 (1997).

In his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, Mr. Molina reasserts some

issues which we refused on direct appeal and asserts others which are

procedurally barred. Mr. Molina then proceeds to assert that he received

ineffective assistance of counsel because of the foregoing and other errors, many

of which are made essentially in the form of bare conclusions.
-3-

We have reviewed all of Mr. Molina’s allegations, as well as the entire file,

and conclude that the district court did not err in denying relief for the reasons

stated in the district court’s order dated November 13, 1997. As to the ineffective

assistance of counsel claim, we are satisfied that there is no reasonable

probability that the results of the proceedings would be different and that no

argument presented rises to the level of the required substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Accordingly, we deny

Mr. Molina’s application for a certificate of appealability, and the appeal is

DISMISSED.

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Stephen H. Anderson

Circuit Judge
<PAGE>   1

EXHIBIT 12

                         ADVANTA CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
         CONSOLIDATED COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   THREE MONTHS ENDED
  ($ IN THOUSANDS)                                      MARCH 31,
  ----------------                                      ---------
                                                 2001              2000
                                                 ----              ----
<S>                                            <C>               <C>
Income (loss) from continuing operations       $(37,356)         $  5,290
Federal and state income tax
  expense (benefit)                             (16,880)            3,310
                                               --------          --------
Earnings (loss) before income
  tax expense (benefit)                         (54,236)(A)         8,600
Fixed charges:
  Interest                                       24,276            20,179
  One-third of all rentals                          269               429
  Preferred stock dividend
    of subsidiary trust                           2,248             2,248
                                               --------          --------
  Total fixed charges                            26,793            22,856
                                               --------          --------
Earnings (loss) before income
  tax expense (benefit) and fixed charges      $(27,443)         $ 31,456
Ratio of earnings to
  fixed charges (B)                                 N/M(C)          1.38x
</TABLE>

(A)  Earnings (loss) before income taxes in 2001 included $40.8 million of
     unusual charges associated with restructuring our corporate functions to a
     size commensurate with our ongoing businesses and other employee costs.

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

(C)  The ratio calculated in the three months ending March 31, 2001 is less than
     1.00 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
     $54,236 for the period.
EX-10.1



 




Exhibit 10.1




Schedule of 2006 Salary and Target Bonus for Named




Executive Officers (as defined in Item 402(a)(3) of
Regulation S-K)




Effective May 1, 2006, the annual salary compensation for
each of the Named Executive Officers is:






		
	 	
    Robert J. Keegan, Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer
    and President, $1,150,000.
	 
	 	
    Richard J. Kramer, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
    Officer, $530,000; and
	 
	 	
    C. Thomas Harvie, Senior Vice President, General Counsel
    and Secretary, $457,000;
	 
	 	
    Jonathan D. Rich, President, North American Tire, $455,000;
	 
	 	
    Joseph M. Gingo, Executive Vice President, Quality Systems and
    Chief Technical Officer, $385,000.



     
Target bonuses for 2006 under the Company’s Performance
Recognition Plan for each of the Named Executive Officers are:






		
	 	
    Mr. Keegan, $1,700,000;
	 
	 	
    Mr. Kramer, $470,000; and
	 
	 	
    Mr. Rich, $400,000;
	 
	 	
    Mr. Harvie, $290,000;
	 
	 	
    Mr. Gingo $260,000.



     
Payment of 2006 bonuses will be made from a payment pool, the
size of which will depend on the extent to which the specific
financial performance targets established by the Committee are
met. The target aggregate payment pool for 2006 is approximately
$30 million. Earnings before interest and taxes less
finance charges (“EBIT”) and operating cash flow are
the financial performance measures under the Performance
Recognition Plan for fiscal year 2006. Funding of the 2006
payment pool will be based 50% on each performance measure and
could range from zero to 200% of the target amount depending on
the level of operating cash flow and EBIT achieved. In addition,
payouts for the participants may be adjusted based on individual
performance.
#### William A. HILL, Appellant, v. STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 22410.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 13, 1943.

W. E. Myres, of Fort Worth, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The appellant was assessed a penalty of ten years in the State Penitentiary upon his conviction for the offense of rape.

He has filed proper application asking that the appeal be withdrawn, which is accordingly granted.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                            9
<LEGEND>
     THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  DERIVED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL INFORMATION.
</LEGEND>


<MULTIPLIER>                                   1000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            168
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                            203
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                    0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                    0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     5,641
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                            200
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                              200
<LOANS>                                        36,767
<ALLOWANCE>                                       370
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 44,450
<DEPOSITS>                                     34,955
<SHORT-TERM>                                        0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                               532
<LONG-TERM>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                           66
<OTHER-SE>                                      8,898
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 44,450
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 3,179
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                 281
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   99
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                3,559
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              2,068
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 37
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           1,454
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      24
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 1,004
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   481
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                      304
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .46
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .46
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   3.51
<LOANS-NON>                                       103
<LOANS-PAST>                                      294
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                     0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                  346
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       0
<RECOVERIES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                 370
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                              370
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                             0
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

      Schedule of Year-To-Date Principal and Interest Distributions
                                  to 
                         Certificate Holders

                                                      Ending
Class          Interest      Principal     Losses     Balance
<S>            <C>           <C>           <C>        <C> 
A1              1,321,312.50     712,959.39     0.00   234,187,040.61
A2                  6,750.00   1,156,817.60     0.00        43,182.41
A3                112,500.00           0.00     0.00    20,000,000.00
A4                106,875.00           0.00     0.00    19,000,000.00
A5                 81,725.62           0.00     0.00    14,529,000.00
APO                     0.00      15,039.74     0.00       931,532.01
AR                      0.56           0.00     0.00           100.00
B1                 18,573.75       2,578.75     0.00     3,299,421.25
B2                  5,911.88         820.79     0.00     1,050,179.21
B3                  5,062.50         702.87     0.00       899,297.13
B4                  1,687.50         234.29     0.00       299,765.71
B5                  1,650.63           0.00   352.32       450,787.67
M                  20,261.25       2,813.03     0.00     3,599,186.97





</TABLE>
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP (LOGO)


Suite 3600                                          Telephone:(303)  292-5400
555  Seventeenth  Street                            Facsimile:(303)312-4000
Denver, Colorado 80202-3942



INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT ON MANAGEMENT'S ASSERTION ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH
THE UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS

Board of Directors of
National Mortgage Corporation
Englewood, Colorado

We have examined management's assertion about National Mortgage Corporation (the
"Company's")  compliance with the minimum servicing standards  identified in the
Mortgage Bankers Association of America's UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR
MORTGAGE BANKESRS (USAP) as of and for the year ended December 31, 1997 included
in the  accompanying  management  assertion.  Management is responsible  for the
Company's compliance with those minimum servicing standards.  Our responsibility
is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the entity's compliance
based on our examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on a test basis,  evidence about the Company's  compliance  with the
minimum  servicing   standards  and  performing  such  other  procedures  as  we
considered  necessary  in the  circumstances.  We believe  that our  examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a
legal  determination  on the  Company's  compliance  with the minimum  servicing
standards.

In our  opinion,  management's  assertion  that the  Company  complied  with the
aforementioned minimum servicing standards as of and for the year ended December
31, 1997 is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
March 6, 1998


Deloitte & Touche
Tohmatsu
International                     -18-
Exhibit 13.1

Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 20-F of TRICOM, S.A. (the "Company") for the annual period ended December 31,
2002 (the "Periodic Report"), I, Carl Carlson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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 the best of my knowledge the Periodic Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

|Dated: April 29, 2004 |  | /s/CARL CARLSONCarl Carlson
Chief Executive Officer
|--------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.1





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63


OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE











I, John Barbo, the President, Chief Executive Officer and principal executive officer of Man Investments (USA) Corp., the general partner of Man-AHL Diversified I L.P. (the “Partnership”), certify that (i) the Annual Report of the Partnership on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership.




Date: March 31, 2011





/s/ John Barbo


John Barbo


President and Chief Executive Officer
#### HOEFFNER v. STATE.

No. 22192.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 17, 1942.

Houston McMurry, of Henrietta, for appellant.

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

GRAVES, Judge.

The conviction is for operating an automobile upon a public highway while intoxicated ; penalty assessed at a fine of $75.

There is no notice of appeal found in the record. Such notice is necessary before the jurisdiction of this court attaches. Art. 827, C.C.P.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.
Yearly Certificateholders' Statement (K)

CAPITOL REVOLVING HOME EQUITY LOAN TRUST 1997-1

        Undersubsection 5.3 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November 1,1997 by and between Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B., a federally chartered savingsbank, as Transferor and Servicer, and US Bank National Assoc., as Trustee andCustodial Agent (hereinafter as such agreement may have been, or may from timeto time be, amended, supplemented or otherwise modified, the Pooling andServicing Agreement”), Chevy Chase Bank, F.S.B., as the Servicer, isrequired to prepare certain information each month regarding currentdistributions on the Certificates and the performance of the Capitol RevolvingHome Equity Loan Trust 1997-1 (the “Trust”) during the relatedCollection Period. The information that is required to be prepared with respectto the distribution to Holders (the “Certificateholders”) of theCertificates for the calendar year ended December 31, 2003 is set forth below.Certain of the information is presented on the basis of an original principalamount of $1,000 per Certificate, as the case may be. Capitalized terms used andnot otherwise defined herein have the meanings assigned them in the Pooling andServicing Agreement. 

```

A.   Information Regarding the Current Year Distribution to Certificateholders
       (Per $1,000 Original Principal Amount of a Certificate).

     1.   The amount, if any, of principal included in
           such distribution, separately stating the
           components thereof (including the portion
           thereof attributable to collections in respect of
           the Mortgage Loans)............................                $60.33

     2.   The amount of Investor Certificate Interest included in
           such distribution, the related Investor Certificate
           Rate and the portion
           thereof attributable to collections in
           respect of the Mortgage Loans..................               $1.8967
```

        INWITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Certificate to be duly executedthis 23rd day of February, 2004. 

```

                                            CHEVY CHASE BANK, F.S.B.
                                            as Servicer

                                            By: /s/ Mark A. Holles   
                                                Mark A. Holles
                                                Group Vice President
```
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

January 9, 2018

No. 04

- 17

- 00359

- CR

Ernesto Javi er LOPEZ, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016

- CRP

- 000926

- D3 Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s second motion for extension of time is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief is due

on January 8, 2018

.

_________________________________ Karen Angelini, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 9th day o f January, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
(LOGO)

Suite 21O0
220 West Main Street
Louisville, Kentucky 40202-5313
Telephone: (502) 562-2000 Facsimile: (502) 562-2073



INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS' REPORT

To the Stockholder of
Great Financial Bank, FSB
Louisville, Kentucky

We have examined  management's  assertion  about Great  Financial  Bank,  FSB's
compliance  with the minimum  servicing  standards  identified  in the  Mortgage
Bankers Association of America's UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE
BANKERS  (USAP) as of and for the year ended  December 31, 1997 included in the
accompanying  management  assertion report on compliance with minimum  servicing
standards.  Management is responsible for Great Financial Bank, FSB's compliance
with those minimum  servicing  standards.  Our  responsibility is to express an
opinion  on  management's  assertion  about the Bank's  compliance  based on our
examination.

Our  examination  was  made in  accordance  with  standards  established  by the
American  Institute of Certified Public Accountants and,  accordingly,  included
examining,  on  a  test  basis,  evidence  about  Great  Financial  Bank,  FSB's
compliance  with the minimum  servicing  standards  and  performing  such other
procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  We believe that our
examination  provides a reasonable  basis for our opinion.  Our examination does
not provide a legal determination on Great Financial Bank, FSB's compliance with
the minimum servicing standards.

In our opinion,  management's  assertion that Great Financial Bank, FSB complied
with the  aforementioned  minimum  servicing  standards  as of and for the year
ended December 31, 1997 is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
February 5, 1998

6588

DELOITTE TOUCHE
TOHMATSU
INTERNATIONAL
#### DUCKETT v. STATE.

No. 23229.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 23, 1946.

Newman & McCollum, of Brady, for appellant.

Mark Callaway, Dist. Atty., of Brown-wood, and Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

At a former day of this term of court an opinion was handed down reversing this cause. The State filed a motion for rehearing. Upon consideration of this motion, the former opinion is withdrawn and the following is substituted in lieu thereof:

The appeal is from a conviction on a charge of assault to rape.

The record before us, as certified' by the trial judge, shows that at the time of the commission of the alleged offense, the prosecutrix was the wife of the appellant. Ordinarily a husband cannot be guilty of assault with intent to rape his wife. Frazier v. State, 48 Tex.Cr.R. 142, 86 S.W. 754, 122 Am.St.Rep. 738, 13 Ann.Cas. 497.

Because no violation of law is shown, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded. The State’s motion for rehearing is overruled.