alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

September 24, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00628

- CR

Roy TIPPITT

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 187th Judicial Di strict Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2018CR13262 Honorable Stephanie R. Boyd, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Roy Tippitt entered into a plea bargain with the State, pursuant to which he pled nolo contendere to the charged offense. The trial court imposed sentence in accordance with the agreement on June 3, 2019, and signed a certificate stating this “is a plea

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

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(a)(2). Tippitt did not file a motion for new trial. Therefore, a notice of appeal was due July 3, 2019, or the notice and a motion for extension of time to file, were due fifteen days later on July 18, 2019. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2(a)(1)

, 26.3. The record does not contain a notice of appeal , but Tippitt filed a n untimely motion for extension of time to file the notice of appeal on September 11, 2019

.
The clerk’s record includes the trial court’s Rule 25.2(a)(2) certification and the wri tten plea bargain agreement

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d). The record appears to support the trial court’s certification that Tippitt does not have a right to appeal and waived any right of appeal

. See Dears v. State , 154 S.W.3d 610 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005) ( holding that court of appeals should review clerk’s record to determine whether trial court’s certification is accurate). This court must dismiss an appeal “if a certification that shows the defendant has the right of appeal has not been made part of the r ecord.” T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d)

.
Tippitt is given notice that this appeal will be dismissed unless, by Octo ber 14, 2019, (1) he files a response establishing that a notice of appeal and a motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal were timely filed and (2) an amended certification showing that Tippitt has the right to appeal is made part of the appellate record

. See Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522(Tex. Crim. App. 19 96) (holding that timely notice of appeal is necessary to invoke court of appeals’ jurisdiction) ; T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 25.2(d); 37.1; Daniels v. State , 110 S.W.3d 174 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 2003, order), disp. on merits, No. 04

- 03

- 00176

- CR, 2003 WL 21508347 (July 2, 2003, pet. ref’d) (not designated for publication). If appellant fails to satisfactorily respond within the time provided, the appeal will be dismissed.

We order all appellate deadlines are suspended until further order of the court. We further order the clerk of this court to serve copies of this order on the attorneys of record and the court reporter

.

______________________________ ___ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 24th day of September, 2019

.

______________________ _____________ LUZ ESTRADA

, Chief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit 32.1 Certification by the Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  In connection with the Annual Report of HepaLife Technologies, Inc. (the Company) on the Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frank Menzler, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the Report filed by the Company 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 that Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company on the dates and for the periods presented therein.  HEPALIFE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.Date: September 19, 2007By:/s/ Frank MenzlerFrank Menzler
President and Chief Executive Officer  This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>
 
Exhibit 11.1

     
                 OPEN ENVIRONMENT CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
                      Computation of Net Income Per Share     

<TABLE>     
<CAPTION> 
 
                                Three Months Ended         Nine Months Ended
                                  September 30,              September 30,
                                1995         1994          1995         1994
                             -----------  -----------   -----------  -----------
                                                         (Restated)
<S>                          <C>          <C>           <C>          <C> 
Weighted average shares of
 common stock outstanding
Common stock equivalents:      7,408,984    4,610,560     6,326,243    4,768,956
 Series A Convertible            
  Preferred Shares                            999,998       377,289      622,709
 Dilutive effect of         
  stock options                1,163,141    1,126,481     1,215,795      931,283
                             -----------  -----------   -----------  -----------
                               8,572,125    6,737,039     7,919,327    6,322,948
                             ===========  ===========   ===========  ===========
 
Net income                    $  266,978   $  279,115    $1,465,008   $  280,589
                             ===========  ===========   ===========  ===========

Net income per share               $0.03        $0.04         $0.18        $0.04
                             ===========  ===========   ===========  ===========
</TABLE>
Case 5:22-cr-00034-H-BQ Document 384 Filed 08/08/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 895
Case 5:22-cr-00034-H-BQ Document 384 Filed 08/08/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 896
Case 5:22-cr-00034-H-BQ Document 384 Filed 08/08/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 897
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential.



# United States Court of Appeals

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

In re: DILLIS V. ALLEN,

Appellant

______________________

2022

- 2023

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. 14/677,820

.

______________________

O R D E R

The a ppellant having failed to file the brief required by

Federal Circuit Rule 31(a) within the time permitted by the

rules, it is

ORD ERED that the notice of appeal be, and the same

hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in

accordance with the rules.

FOR THE COURT

December 1, 2022

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: November 30, 2022 Case: 22-2023 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 12/01/2022
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.3

                    AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

     THIS AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (the "Amendment") is entered
into as of the 31st day of January, 1997, by and between Renaissance Solutions,
Inc. (the "Corporation") and David P. Norton (the "Employee").

     Whereas, the Corporation and the Employee are parties to an Employment
Agreement dated as of January 31, 1995, as amended by Amendment No. 1 to
Employment Agreement, dated as of July 1, 1996; and

     Whereas, pursuant to Section 1 of the Employment Agreement, the term of the
Employment Agreement is two years; and

     Whereas, the Corporation and the Employee desire to extend the term of the
Employment Agreement by an additional year;

     Now, therefore, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

     1.   Section 1 of the Employment Agreement is hereby amended and restated
in its entirety to read as follows:

          "1.  Term of Employment.  The Corporation hereby agrees to employ the
               ------------------                                              
          Employee, and the Employee hereby accepts employment with the
          Corporation, upon the terms set forth in this Agreement, for the
          period commencing on the date hereof (the "Commencement Date") and
          ending on the third anniversary of the date hereof, unless earlier
          terminated in accordance with the provisions of Section 4 hereof (such
          period being hereinafter referred to as the "Employment Period").
          Each of the one-year periods commencing on the Commencement Date and
          on each of the first and second anniversaries thereof is referred to
          herein as an "Employment Year.""

     2.   The second sentence of Section 3.1 of the Employment Agreement is
hereby amended and restated in its entirety to read as follows:

          "The Board of Directors may increase, but not decrease the annual base
          salary for the second or third Employment Year."

     3.   In all other respects, the Employment Agreement are hereby ratified
and shall remain in full force and effect.

 
<PAGE>
 
     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment as of
the day and year set forth above.

                                    RENAISSANCE SOLUTIONS, INC.


                                    By: /s/ William T. Jenkins
                                       -------------------------------------

                                    Title:  Vice President Finance and
                                            Administration


                                    EMPLOYEE:


                                    /s/  David P. Norton
                                    ----------------------------------------
                                    David P. Norton

                                      -2-
#### ALBIDREZ v. STATE.

No. 26234.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 4, 1953.

Charness & Shaw, S. P. Boling, Lubbock, for appellant.

Travis Shelton, Dist. Atty., Forrest Bowers, Asst. Dist. Atty., Lubbock, George P.- Blackburn, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Commissioner.

This is a conviction for assault with intent to murder; the punishment, five years in the penitentiary.

The indictment alleges the name of the injured party to be “Gregoria Salas.”

The injured party testified that her name was “Mrs. Gregory Salas,” by which name she was known and under which she conducted all her business transactions and carried her bank account, and that she was the widow of Gregory Salas. She further testified that her real name was “Mirella T. Salas,” and that she had at no time been called, referred to, or known by the name of “Gregoria Salas,” the name stated in the indictment.

The state takes the position and introduced evidence to show that the Spanish name for “Gregory” is, in the masculine gender,' “Gregorio,” and that the Spanish equivalent of Gregorio is, in the feminine gender, “Gregoria” (the name used in the indictment). It' is insisted that, by thus applying the Spanish interpretation to the several names mentioned, “Gregoria” means “Gregory,” the given name of the injured party’s husband. By this process of interpretation, the state takes the position that the name, “Gregoria Salas,” as used in the indictment, had reference to and was tantamount to alleging the name, “Mrs. Gregory Salas.”

In the case of Garcia v. State, 151 Tex.Cr.R. 593, 210 S.W.2d 574, we had occasion to call attention to the fact that all trials for violations of the laws of this state are to be conducted in the English language.

*523An accused in this state, therefore, could not be charged with notice that a Spanish interpretation was to be applied to the words used in the indictment. To sustain the state’s contention would be to hold to the contrary.

The state’s case' must stand or fall upon the proof showing that the appellant assaulted “Gregoria Salas,” as charged in' the indictment. This the state has failed to prove.

The facts being insufficient to support the conviction, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded. .

Opinion approved by the court.
IV

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 14

Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to certain regulations of the

Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 6, 1993

Mr. MURPHY (for himself and Mr. OXLEY) submitted the following concurrent

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress with respect to certain

regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

Whereas it is in the public interest to reduce the frequency

of workplace accidents and the human and economic

costs associated with such injuries;

Whereas workplace accidents involving powered industrial

trucks are often the result of operation by poorly trained,

untrained, or unauthorized operators;

Whereas Federal regulations promulgated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and codified at

29 C.F.R. 1910.178 require that operators of powered industrial trucks be trained and authorized;
2

•HCON 14 IH

Whereas existing regulations lack any guidelines to measure

whether operators of powered industrial trucks are in

fact trained and authorized;

Whereas operator training programs have been demonstrated

to reduce the frequency and severity of workplace accidents involving powered industrial trucks; and

Whereas a petition to amend existing regulations to specify

the proper components of a training program for operation of powered industrial trucks has been pending before the Occupational Safety and Health Administration

since March 1988: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Occupational Safety and Health Ad3 ministration is requested to publish, within one year of

4 passage of this resolution, proposed regulations amending

5 the regulation published as 29 C.F.R. 1910.178 to specify

6 the components of an adequate operator training program

7 and to provide that only trained employees be authorized

8 to operate powered industrial trucks.

Æ
(logo) Grant Thornton

 

 

**Report of Independent RegisteredPublic Accounting Firm**

** **

|  

 

 

  | **Audit • Tax  •Advisory**

**Grant Thornton LLP**

1201 Walnut St, Suite 2200

Kansas City, Missouri 64106

T 816.412.2400

F 816.412.2404 |
|--------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Board of Directors 

Situs Holdings, LLC

 

We have examinedmanagement’s assertion, included in the accompanying CertificationRegarding Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria(“Management’s Assertion”), that Situs Holdings, LLC (the“Company”) complied with servicing criteria set forth in Items1117, 1119, 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(vii) of the U.S.  Securities andExchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Operating or Trust AdvisorServices Platform (the “Platform) as of and for the year ended December31, 2016. The platform consists of asset-backed transactions and securitiesdefined by management in Appendix B of Management’s report. Management isresponsible for the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’sassertion about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria for the Platform based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conductedin accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting OversightBoard (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis,evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria for the Platform and performing such other procedures as we considerednecessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selectedasset-backed transactions and securities constituting the Platform andevaluating whether the Company performed servicing activities related to thosetransactions and securities in compliance with the applicable servicingcriteria for the period covered by this report. Accordingly, our testing maynot have included servicing activities related to each asset-backed transactionor security constituting the Platform. Further, our examination was notdesigned to detect material noncompliance that may have occurred prior to theperiod covered by this report and that may have affected the Company’sservicing activities during the period covered by this report. We believe thatour examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examinationdoes not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance withthe applicable servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion,management’s assertion that Situs Holdings, LLC complied with theaforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year endedDecember 31, 2016, for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 

 

/s/ Grant Thornton LLP

 

Kansas City, Missouri 

February 28, 2017
EXHIBIT 21 

SUBSIDIARIES OF STANADYNE HOLDINGS, INC. 

Stanadyne Intermediate Holding Corp., a Delawarecorporation 

Stanadyne Corporation, a Delaware corporation 

Stanadyne, SpA, an S.p.A. company incorporated in Italy 

Stanadyne Amalgamations Private Limited,a private limited company incorporated in India (fully consolidated based on the company’s 51% controlling share, while the remaining 49% is recorded as a minority interest. As a result of additional investment in 2010, Stanadyne’scontrolling share increased from 51.1% to 64.9%.) 

Stanadyne Changshu Corporation, a company incorporated in the People’s Republic ofChina 

SUBSIDIARIES OF STANADYNE CORPORATION 

Stanadyne, SpA, an S.p.A. company incorporated in Italy 

Stanadyne Amalgamations Private Limited,a private limited company incorporated in India (fully consolidated based on the company’s 51% controlling share, while the remaining 49% is recorded as a minority interest. As a result of additional investment in 2010, Stanadyne’scontrolling share increased from 51.1% to 64.9%.) 

Stanadyne Changshu Corporation, a company incorporated in the People’s Republic ofChina
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 190

AMENDMENT
In the Senate of the United States,

November 22 (legislative day, November 23), 1992.

Resolved, That the resolution from the House of Representatives (H. Con. Res. 190) entitled ‘‘Concurrent resolution providing for the sine die adjournment of the First Session of the One hundred Third Congress’’ do pass with the

following

AMENDMENT:

Page 1 line 3, strike out all after ‘‘of’’ down to and

including ‘‘23,’’ in line 5 and insert: Friday, November

26, or the legislative day of Tuesday, November 30, or the

legislative day of Wednesday December 1,

Attest:

Secretary.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SE PTEMBER 5, 2014

NO. 03

- 14

- 00330

- CV

Lester Tengley, Appellant

v.

Limestone Canyon Apts., Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEA R, PEMBERTON, AND FI ELD
DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the tr i a l court on April 30, 2014. Having

revi ewed the record , the Court holds that Lester Tengley has not prosecuted his appeal and did

not comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal

for want of prosecution. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication

of costs is made.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated financial statements found on pages 1 and 3 of the Company's
Form 10-Q for the year-to-date, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUL-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1996
<CASH>                                            1852
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    10983
<ALLOWANCES>                                       651
<INVENTORY>                                      64375
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 77174
<PP&E>                                            9521
<DEPRECIATION>                                    2317
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   87139
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            61357
<BONDS>                                           3087
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                       22307
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     87139
<SALES>                                          31213
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 31213
<CGS>                                            27448
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    27448
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  2251
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 853
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    841
<INCOME-TAX>                                       324
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                517
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       517
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.14
        

</TABLE>
Case 3:22-cv-00611-M Document 60 Filed 07/27/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1225