alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 224 (Monday, November 20, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 69725]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29623]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00-2481; MM Docket No. 00-101; RM-9885]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Buckhead and Sparta, GA

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule; denial.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission denies the request of Barinowski Investment 
Company to substitute Channel 274C3 for Channel 274A, reallot the 
channel from Sparta to Buckhead, GA, as its first local aural service, 
and modify the license of Station WPMA-FM accordingly. See 65 FR 37753, 
June 16, 2000. The Commission found that the proposal would not result 
in a preferential arrangement of allotments because it would remove the 
sole local aural service from the more populous community and result in 
more presently underserved people losing service.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW., 
Room TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 00-101, adopted October 25, 2000, and 
released November 3, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision is 
available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, 
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-29623 Filed 11-17-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
IA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 280

Providing for the appointment of Frank Anderson Shrontz as a citizen regent

of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 19, 1993

Mr. MINETA (for himself, Mr. NATCHER, and Mr. MCDADE) introduced the

following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on House

Administration

JOINT RESOLUTION

Providing for the appointment of Frank Anderson Shrontz

as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That, in accordance with section 5581 of the Revised Stat4 utes of the United States (20 U.S.C. 43), the vacancy on

5 the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, in

6 the class other than Members of Congress, occurring by

7 reason of the resignation of Robert James Woolsey, Jr.
2

•HJ 280 IH

1 of Maryland on April 2, 1993, is filled by the appointment

2 of Frank Anderson Shrontz of Washington. The appoint3 ment is for a term of 6 years and shall take effect on

4 the date on which this joint resolution becomes law.

Æ
Case 4:22-cr-00252-P Document 111 Filed 02/08/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID 370
Case 4:22-cr-00252-P Document 111 Filed 02/08/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID 371
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

SCOTTIE H. GIBSON,

#201901879

§

§

 Petitioner, §

§

v. § No. 3:22-cv-02057-M (BT)

§

DALE S. HANNA,

 Respondent.

§

§

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The Court has taken under consideration the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation 

of United States Magistrate Judge Rebecca Rutherford dated October 28, 2022. The Court has 

made a de novo review of those portions of the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation to 

which objections were made. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Findings, Conclusions, 

and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are accepted, and the objections are 

overruled. 

Considering the record in this case, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability. The 

Court adopts and incorporates by reference the Magistrate Judge’s Findings, Conclusions and 

Recommendation filed in this case in support of its finding that Petitioner has failed to show (1) 

reasonable jurists would find this Court’s “assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or 

wrong,” or (2) reasonable jurists would find “it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim 

of the denial of a constitutional right” and “debatable whether [this Court] was correct in its 

procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). If Petitioner files a notice of 

Case 3:22-cv-02057-M-BT Document 9 Filed 11/14/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 47
2

appeal, he must pay the $505.00 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis. 

SO ORDERED this 14th day of November, 2022.

Case 3:22-cv-02057-M-BT Document 9 Filed 11/14/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 48
1 

### Cause No. PD -0145- 15 

## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS FOR TEXAS

CYNTHIA AMBROSE, § Petitioner/Appellee, § § On Discretionary Review

v. § From the Fourth Court of § Appeals

–

San Antonio THE STATE OF TEXAS, § 04

- 15 -00788- CR Respondent/Appellant. §



### STATE’S NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FOR ORAL ARGUMENT

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE COURT:

Now comes the State of Texas, Respondent in the above styled and

numbered cause, and hereby gives notice to the Court that the undersigned

Assistant Criminal District Attorney intends to appear and present oral argument,

which the Court has permitted and scheduled for October 7, 2015.

Respectfully Submitted:

______________________________ S. Patrick Ballantyne Assistant Criminal District Attorney Bexar County, Texas State Bar # 24053759 101 W. Nueva St., 7 th floor San Antonio, Texas 78205 210-335-2277 (phone) sballantyne@bexar.org PD-0143-15 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS Transmitted 9/3/2015 9:02:36 AM Accepted 9/3/2015 9:12:58 AM

ABEL ACOSTA CLERK2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, S. Patrick Ballantyne, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of this

Brief was transmitted this 3 rd day of September, 2015, to Dayna L. Jones
(daynaj33@gmail.com), attorney of record for Petitioner, by email and electronic
service through a court approved eFiling system.

______________________ S. Patrick Ballantyne
From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 11:02 AM
To: Bryson, Joe; Chappell, Linda; Wayland, Robertj
Cc: Culligan, Kevin; Elman, Barry Subject: RE: Question on 111(d) RIA table

Nationwide you estimate that states/utilities will pay $10 billion for DS EE in 2020? If that’s the case, it’s a very large amount of money.

From: Bryson, Joe [mailto:Bryson.Joe@epa.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 10:58 AM
To: Chappell, Linda; Higgins, Cortney; Wayland, Robertj
Cc: Culligan, Kevin; Elman, Barry Subject: RE: Question on 111(d) RIA table

Those values are correct.

Why do you ask?

Best, Joe

Joe Bryson US EPA, Climate Protection Partnerships Division (202) 343-9631

From: Chappell, Linda
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 10:48 AM
To: Higgins, Cortney; Wayland, Robertj; Bryson, Joe
Cc: Culligan, Kevin; Elman, Barry Subject: RE: Question on 111(d) RIA table

Hi Courtney,

I believe those estimates for demand side EE costs are correct. I am including Joe Bryson in this conversation to confirm.Linda

Linda M. Chappell Ph.D. Air Economics Group, OAQPS, US EPA 109 TW Alexander Drive, Mail Code C439-02 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 telephone 919-541-2864; 919-541-0839; email- chappell.linda@epa.gov

From: Higgins, Cortney [mailto:Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov]
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 10:46 AM
To: Wayland, Robertj
Cc: Culligan, Kevin; Elman, Barry; Chappell, Linda Subject: Question on 111(d) RIA table

Hi Bob,

Is there a typo for the table below (either in units or the values)? The pagination of what we have is off, because I compiled the RIA chapters in one document, but the title should be sufficient to find the table in the RIA.

From RIA. Page 3A-2-19



### Table 3-6. Annualized Gross Cost of Demand- Side Energy Efficiency (3% discount rate, billions 2011$)

2018 2020 2025 2030 Option 1 4.1 10.2 28.9 42.7 Option 2 3.6 8.0 20.6 29.8
Source: Greenhouse Gas Abatement Measures TSD

Regards, Cortney
Case 6:22-cr-00018-H-BU Document 23 Filed 06/29/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 40
Case 6:22-cr-00018-H-BU Document 23 Filed 06/29/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 41
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

MYRA BROWN and ALEXANDER 

TAYLOR, 

Plaintiffs,

v.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION and 

MIGUEL CARDONA, in his official capacity as 

Secretary of Education, 

Defendants. 

 Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00908-P 

NOTICE OF APPEAL

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that all Defendants in this case hereby appeal to the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit from this Court’s November 10, 2022 Order (ECF No. 37) and 

Final Judgment (ECF No. 38). 

Case 4:22-cv-00908-P Document 39 Filed 11/10/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 566
2 

Dated: November 10, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

BRIAN M. BOYNTON

Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General

BRIAN D. NETTER 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

MARCIA BERMAN

Assistant Branch Director

/s/ Cody T. Knapp 

CODY T. KNAPP (NY #5715438)

KATE TALMOR

R. CHARLIE MERRITT

SAMUEL REBO

Trial Attorneys

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division

Federal Programs Branch

1100 L St. NW

Washington, D.C. 20005

Telephone: (202) 532-5663

Facsimile: (202) 616-8470

 E-mail: cody.t.knapp@usdoj.gov 

Counsel for Defendants

Case 4:22-cv-00908-P Document 39 Filed 11/10/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 567
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 10, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk 

of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will automatically serve a copy to all counsel of record.

/s/ Cody T. Knapp 

CODY T. KNAPP

Case 4:22-cv-00908-P Document 39 Filed 11/10/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 568
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ABILENE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

NO. 1:22-CR-008-02-H

NOEL VELASQUEZ,

Defendant.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF TIIE LINITED STATES MAGISTRATE JIJDGE

CONCERNING PLEA OF GI,JILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry

of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent of the Defendant, and the Report and Recommendation

Conceming Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, and no objections thereto

having been filed within fourteen (14) days of service in accordance with 28 U'S'C'

$ 636OX1), the undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge conceming the Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is

hereby accepted by the court. Accordingly, the court accepts the plea of guilty and

Defendant is hereby adjudged guilty.

Sentence will be imposed in accordance with the Court's scheduling order.

SO ORDERED

Dated September k 2022.

JAMES SLEYHENDRIX

LTNITE STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

L

Case 1:22-cr-00008-H-BU Document 74 Filed 09/16/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 159
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF FNBH BANCORP, INC.

Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350):

I,
Barbara Draper, President and Chief Executive Officer of FNBH Bancorp, Inc., certify, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) that:

(1)       
          The quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
          2006, which this statement accompanies, fully complies with requirements of
          Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and;

(2)       
          The information contained in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the
          quarterly period ended September 30, 2006, fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of FNBH Bancorp,
          Inc.

|Date:  November 9, 2006 |  | FNBH BANCORP, INC.By /s/ Barbara Draper      
      Barbara Draper
Its: President and Chief Executive Officer
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 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 FNBH Bancorp, Inc.
and will be retained by FNBH Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Ex parte HAAS.

No. 21855.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 15, 1941.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 26, 1941.

Elihu E. Berwald, of Dallas, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the Honorable Grover Adams, Judge of the Criminal District Court of Dallas County, declining to discharge appellant from the custody of the Sheriff of said county upon a hearing of a writ of habeas corpus.

It appears from the record that appellant was. taken into custody by the Sheriff of Dallas County under and by virtue of an executive warrant issued by the Governor of this state in response to an extradition warrant issued by the Governor of the State of Tennessee, where appellant was charged by affidavit filed in the Justice Court of Shelby County, with the offense of passing a worthless check to the Hotel Peabody and thereby fraudulently obtaining from said hotel the sum of $200.

The requisition warrant, accompanied by the affidavit charging appellant with an offense, as well as the executive warrant issued by the Governor of this state, seem to be in due form and no question is made as to their regularity. These documents, which appear to be duly authenticated, were offered in evidence upon the hearing of the writ of habeas corpus, and no objection was interposed .thereto. Appel*810lant was identified by Mr. Franks, credit manager of the hotel, as the person who passed the check and against whom the complaint was filed in the Justice Court of Shelby County, Tennessee.

Appellant offered in evidence a complaint filed in the Justice Court of Precinct No. 1 of Dallas County, charging him with passing a hot check. This complaint was dismissed by the Justice Court upon a motion of the District Attorney. No other evidence on the part of appellant was introduced. At the conclusion of the hearing, appellant was remanded to the custody of the Sheriff of Dallas County to be delivered to R. W. McGee', the person designated by the Governor of the demanding state to receive and return appellant to said state.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment of the court below is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA §

§

v. § CASE NO.: 3:22-CR-00326-L

§

DARIAN PRUNTY (24) §

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CONCERNING PLEA OF GUILTY

After reviewing all relevant matters of record, including the Notice Regarding Entry of a Plea of Guilty, the Consent 

of the defendant, and the Report and Recommendation Concerning Plea of Guilty of the United States Magistrate Judge, 

and no objections thereto having been filed within fourteen days of service in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the 

undersigned District Judge is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge concerning the 

Plea of Guilty is correct, and it is hereby accepted by the Court. Accordingly, the Court accepts the plea of guilty, and 

DARIAN PRUNTY is hereby adjudged guilty of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2, namely, Possession 

with the Intent to Distribute a Controlled Substance, Aiding and Abetting. Sentence will be imposed in accordance with 

the Court's scheduling order. 

☒ The defendant is ordered to remain in custody. 

☐ The Court accepts the findings of the United States Magistrate Judge by clear and convincing evidence that the 

defendant is not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released and should therefore 

be released under § 3142(b) or (c). 

☐ Upon motion, this matter shall be set for hearing before the United States Magistrate Judge who set the conditions 

of release for determination, by clear and convincing evidence, of whether the defendant is likely to flee or pose a 

danger to any other person or the community if released under § 3142(b) or (c). 

☐ The defendant is not ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2) pending determination of whether it has 

been clearly shown that there are exceptional circumstances under § 3145(c) why the defendant should not be 

detained under § 3143(a)(2), and whether it has been shown by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is 

not likely to flee or pose a danger to any other person or the community if released under § 3142(b) or (c). This 

matter shall be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge who set the conditions of release.

SIGNED this 2nd day of October, 2024. 

 ________________________________________ 

 SAM A. LINDSAY

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cr-00326-L Document 568 Filed 10/02/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1785
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVTSION

STATE OF TEXAS,

Plaintiff,

v 2:22-CY-094-2

ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al.,

Defendants.

ORDER

Before the Court is the Immigration Reform Law Institute's Application for Admission

Pro Hac Vice ("Application") (ECF No. ll2), filed on November 3, 2023. Gir:n M. D'Andrea

("Applicant") is an attomey licensed in Washington, D.C., and she informs the Court that her local

counsel of record has offices in Frisco, Texas. Id. at 1,3.

However, Local Rule 83.10 states that "local counsel is required in all cases where an attomey

appearing in a case does not reside or maintain the attomey's principal office in this distict."

Local counsel "means a member ofthe bar ofthis court who resides or maintains the attomey's principal

office in this district and whose residence or principal offrce is located within 50 miles ofthe courthouse

in the division in which the case is pending." Id. Accordingly, the Application is DEFERRED for

fourteen days to provide Applicant with time to identify local counsel within 50 miles ofthis courthouse.

SO ORDERED.

November -/,zozl

MA W J. KACSMARYK

STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:22-cv-00094-Z Document 115 Filed 11/07/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1575
Agenda – August 2015 Refunding

Treasury Dealer Meetings – July 30- July 31, 2015

Dealer ___________________

To allow more time for discussion, please e-mail your responses prior to 12:00 PM on Monday, July 27, 2015 to 

Debt.Management@treasury.gov and NY.QTR@ny.frb.org. Even if you are not scheduled to meet with Treasury officials 

this quarter, your responses are still appreciated. 

I. Marketable Borrowing Estimates

Central

Estimate

Range that would not 

surprise you

Low/High

July-September 2015 /

 Ending Cash Balance /

October-December 2015 /

 Ending Cash Balance /

FY 2015 Total Net Marketable Borrowing 

FY 2016 Total Net Marketable Borrowing /

FY 2017 Total Net Marketable Borrowing /

II. Budget Deficit and Growth Estimates 

FY 2015 /

FY 2016 /

FY 2017 /

Real GDP(4Q/4Q % Chg) CY2015

Real GDP(4Q/4Q % Chg) CY2016

Nominal GDP(4Q/4Q % Chg) CY2015

Nominal GDP(4Q/4Q % Chg) CY2016

III. Quarterly Note and Bond Issuance Estimates

3-year note (Aug/Sep/Oct) / / / / - / /

10-year note (Aug) /

10-year note reopening (Sep/Oct) / / - /

30-year bond (Aug) /

30-year bond reopening (Sep/Oct) / /

2-year note (Aug/Sep/Oct) / / / / - / /

5-year note (Aug/Sep/Oct ) / / / / - / /

7-year note (Aug/Sep/Oct ) / / / / - / /

5-year TIPS reopening (Aug)

10-year TIPS reopening (Sep)

30-year reopening TIPS (Oct)

2-year FRN reopening (Aug/Sep)

2-year FRN (Oct)

IV. Bill Issuance Estimates

52-week bill size (Aug/Sep/Oct) / / / / / - / / 

Total change in bills outstanding 8/15-10/15 /

Total change in bills outstanding FY 2015 /

CMB issuance Aug‘15 – Oct‘15 (size/date) / / / /

Discussion Topics

1. Please discuss your latest economic and fiscal forecasts for FY2016 and FY2017. Do you believe the current financing 

schedule is well-suited to meet Treasury’s financing needs though the end of FY2016?

2. Discuss your outlook for positioning and volatility in the Treasury market over the next year. How does this compare to 

positioning in prior periods at this stage in the rate cycle? Are there any notable differences in investor behavior this time? 

3. Given the money market mutual fund reforms that will take effect in 2016 and the recent announcements from various 

money market mutual fund families about changes to their prime and government fund offerings, at what levels do you 

anticipate T-bills and FRNs will trade relative to other money market rates going forward? 

4. On July 13, 2015, Treasury along with several other agencies and institutions released a study on Treasury market structure 

and the events of October 15, 2014. Please comment on the report, including any thoughts on its analytical findings, 

observations about market structure, areas for further work, and conclusions/recommendations.
Julia



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

October 16, 2013

N o. 04

- 12

- 00787

- CV

Helen HERRERA

, Appell ant

v.

Julia MARTINEZ,

Appellee

From the County Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 7296

Honorable Diana J. Bautista, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

We grant appellant’s motion to file an amended brief. We order the amended brief due

October 31, 2013 . Appellant is advised that no extensions of this deadline will be granted. If the

amended brief is not filed by the date ordered, the court will review only the issues contained in

appellant’s original brief.

Appellee’s motion for extension of time to f ile her brief is granted. We order appellee’s

brief due November 4, 2013.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 16th day of October, 2013

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of CourtM INUTES

Court of Appeals

Fourth Court of Appeals District

San Antonio, Texas

October 16, 2013

N o. 04

- 12

- 00787

- CV

Helen HERRERA

, Appell ant

v.

Julia MARTINEZ,

Appellee

From the County Court, Atascosa County, Texas

Trial Court No. 7296

Honorable Diana J. Bautista, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

We grant appellant’s motion to file an amended brief. We order the amended brief due

October 31, 2013 . Appellant is advised that no extensions of this deadline will be granted. If the

amended brief is not filed by the date ordered, the court will review only the issues contained in

appellant’s original brief.

Appellee’s motion for extension of time to f ile her brief is granted. We order appellee’s

brief due November 4, 2013.

/s/ Luz Elena D. Ch apa

Luz Elena D. Chapa , Justice

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

court on this 16th day of October, 2013

.

/s/ Keith E. Hottle

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

ENTERED THIS 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2013

.

VOL. _____ PAGE _______