alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-11-00190- CR

Stephan ie Murr ile, Appellan t

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 8 O F TRAVIS CO UNTY

NO. C-1 -CR- 10- 2125 56 HO NORAB LE CARLOS HUM B ERTO B ARRERA, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
Appellant Stephanie Murrile attempted an appea l from a J anuar y 7, 2010 trial court

1 order deny

ing her “Motion to Suppress Ba sed on C o l l at er al Estoppel” that soug ht dismiss al of
t h e char g ing instrument on double jeopar dy g rounds. Appellee State of Texas filed a motion to dismiss this appea l for want of jurisdiction, arg uing that the J anuar y 7 order is interlocut o ry and
not appea lable beca

use Murrile has not been convicted or sentenc ed. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a) (2);
W orkman v. State , 343 S.W .2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961). The State contends that Murrile’s

reme dy is by pretria l writ of habe as cor pus. Ex parte Apolinar , 820 S.W .2d 792, 794 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (prohibiting appe l l at e courts from considering specia l plea as equivalent of pretria l

Although the order ref

lects that it was signe d on “January 7, 2010,” the y ear appea rs to be 1 a ty pog raphic al er

ror, a s the cha

rg ed off ense oc curr ed on Jul y

17, 2010.writ of habea s corpus) ; see Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 27.05 (West 2006) (def ining defe ndant’s specia l plea). Wit h few exceptions, we do not have jurisdiction to revie w interlocutory order s. Id

. 2
We ag ree that we lack appellate jurisdiction to revie w a pretria l order deny ing a motion to suppress. See Apolinar , 820 S.W .2d at 794 (noting that appellate courts lack jurisdic t i o n to revie w interlocutory order s unless expressly provided by l aw ); McKow n v. State , 915 S.W .2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—For

t Wort h 1 9 9 6, no pet.) (conc luding that appea l from pretria l order deny ing motion to
suppress evidenc e was not immediately appea lable and dismiss ing appea l for lack of jurisdiction).

Acc ording ly , we g rant the State’s motion and dis m i s s Murrile’s appea l for want of jurisdiction.

J eff Rose, J ustice
Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose and Goodwin Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: Aug ust 31, 2011 Do Not Publish

Some interlocutory order s in criminal cases are appeala b l e, for instance: (1) defenda nts 2 on defe rre d adjudicat i o n m ay immediately appea l ruling s on pretria l motions, (2) defenda nts may appea l the denial of a mot i o n t o reduc e bond, and (3) defe ndants may appea l from the denial of a pretria l application for writ of habea s corpus alleg ing doubl e jeopar dy

. McKown v. State , 915 S.W .2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.—For t Worth 1996, no pet.). 2
Summary of Compensation of the Directors



 Exhibit 10.2 
  
 Summary of Compensation of the Directors of Allin Corporation 
  
 At the commencement of each year of service, each non-employee director of Allin Corporation (the “Company”) is
entitled to receive an option to acquire 5,000 shares of common stock of the Company at an exercise price equal to the closing price of the common stock on the date of the grant. The option grant will vest on the first anniversary of the date of the
grant if the individual is serving as a director on that date. 
  
 Non-employee directors of the Company also receive $2,500 for each Board of Directors meeting attended and $500 for each separate committee meeting attended on a date on which no full board meeting is held. Directors of the Company who are
also employees do not receive additional compensation for attendance at Board and committee meetings. All directors are reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses in connection with attendance at Board and committee meetings. 
  

 53
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.60

          ANNUAL BASE SALARY FOR THE COMPANY'S NAMED EXECUTIVE OFFICERS
                          EFFECTIVE AS OF APRIL 4, 2005

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                          APPROVED BASE
                              EXECUTIVE OFFICER                              SALARY
                              -----------------                           -------------
<S>                                                                       <C>
Steven B. Engle
      Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board                     $436,800
Matthew D. Linnik, Ph.D.
      Chief Scientific Officer and Executive Vice President of Research     $305,482
Bruce K. Bennett, Jr.
      Vice President of Manufacturing                                       $209,847
Josefina T. Elchico
      Vice President of Quality Systems                                     $202,000
William J. Welch
      Vice President of Sales and Marketing                                 $245,424
</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<CIK>                        0000872588 
<NAME>                       LAS VEGAS ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK INC. 

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             Oct-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                  Oct-31-1997
<CASH>                                         2,399,491
<SECURITIES>                                   1,087,890
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              3,487,381
<PP&E>                                          334,045
<DEPRECIATION>                                  192,509 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                9,770,922
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         1,865,129
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    1,000
<COMMON>                                       34,895
<OTHER-SE>                                     47,445,080
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   9,770,922
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  6,620,831
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               385,785
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             189,508
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,752,405)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,752,405)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,752,405)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.19)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.19)
        


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted form Swift Energy
Operating Partners 1995-B, Ltd's Balance Sheet and Statement of Operations
contained in its form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 1996.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         2,481,565
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  32,447
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,545,858
<PP&E>                                         184,308
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (14,502)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,715,664
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          238,231
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,477,433
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,715,664
<SALES>                                        35,623
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               133,853
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  18,326<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                40,034
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            40,034
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   40,034
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation deple-
tion and amortization expense.  Excludes general and administrative and interest
expense.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

March 06, 2009

Mr. Jim Hund

Hund, Krier, Wilkerson & Wright

P. O. Box 54390

Lubbock, TX 79453-4390

Mr. John Smithee

Templeton Smithee Hayes Heinrich & Russell, L.L.P.

P.O. Box 15010

Amarillo, TX 79105-5010

RE:Case Number:  07-0522

Court of Appeals Number:  07-05-00456-CV

Trial Court Number:  2003-522,183

Style:BENNY P. PHILLIPS, M.D.

v.

DALE BRAMLETT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS INDEPENDENT ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF VICKI BRAMLETT, DECEASED, SHANE FULLER AND MICHAEL FULLER

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinions and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 07-0522Page 1**
Notice is hereby given that, on July 20, 1999, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), UOP LLC and Nonlinear Dynamics Incorporated (NDI) have filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties and (2) the nature and                     Start Printed Page 6633                    objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties are Nonlinear Dynamics Incorporated (NDI), Ann Arbor, MI; and UOP LLC, Des Plaines, IL. The nature and objectives of the venture are to conduct research for “Combinatorial Tools and Advanced Data Analysis Methods for Heterogeneous Catalysis”.                

Constance K. Robinson,

Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 00-3126  Filed 2-9-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Steven L. Beshear Governor Robert D. Vance Secretary

Commonwealthof Kentucky 

### Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet

Department for EnvironmentalProtection Division for Air Quality

803SchenkelLane Frankfort, Kentucky 40601-1403 www.air.ky.gov March 3,2008

Mr. Richard Schutt, Chief Air PlanningBranch U.S. EPA, Region4 Atlanta Federal Center 6 1Forsyth Street, SW Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960

Dear Mr. Schutt:

The Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet, Division for Air Quality hereby submitsto the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a proposed revision to Kentucky's State Implementation Plan (SIP). This proposed revision includes the pre-hearing draft of the Regional Haze SIP for Kentucky's Class 

### I Area in accordancd with the requirements of the Clean 

### Air Act Section 169A, and the regional haze and best available retrofit technology (BART) rules of 40 

### CFR 51.308. The proposed SIP revision documents reasonable progress goals for Kentucky's Class 

### I area Mammoth Cave National Park.

This SIP package includes a hard copy of the SIP narrative and DVDs containingthat narrative and all of the associated appendices. 

### In addition, the documents, including comments received from the Federal Land Managers (FLMs) and cabinet responses located in Appendix N, are available electronically at: ftp://kydaqusr: Aqua-222akyftpO 1 .ky. gov.
A public hearing regarding this proposed SIP revision is scheduled for April 7, 2008, at the Division's main officein Frankfort, Kentucky. A copy of the public hearing notice for this proposed SIP revision is enclosed and included 

### in Appendix N. The cabinet's response to comment information received during thepublic commentperiod will be provided in a subsequentsubmittal.

Your prompt consideration of this proposed SIP revision is appreciated. If you have any questions or comments concerning this matter, please contact Mr. Martin Luther, of 

### my staff, at (502) 573-33

### 82 or martin.luther@ky.gov.

JSL:rnrl Enclosures Printed on Recycled Paper An Equal OpportunityEmployerMIFID
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 237 (Friday, December 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 77046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31268]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical Systems; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Civil and Mechanical Systems 
(1205).
    Date and Time: January 21 and 22, 2001, 8 a.m., to 5 p.m.
    Place: NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 530, Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Alison Flatau, Program Director, Dynamic 
Systems and Control, Sensor Technologies for Civil and Mechanical 
Systems, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 545, 
Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 292-8360.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate nominations for the FY'01 Dynamic 
Systems and Control Individual Investigator Award (IIA) Review Panel 
proposals as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information, financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matter are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: December 1, 2000.
Karen J. York,
Committee Management Office.
[FR Doc. 00-31268 Filed 12-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76212-76213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30966]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Business-Cooperative Service


Maximum Dollar Amount on Loan and Grant Awards Under the Rural 
Economic Development Loan and Grant Program for Fiscal Year 2001

AGENCY: Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Rural Business-Cooperative Service hereby announces the 
maximum dollar amount on loan and grant awards under the Rural Economic 
Development Loan and Grant (REDLG) program for fiscal year (FY) 2001. 
The maximum dollar award on zero-interest loans for FY 2001 is 
$450,000. The maximum dollar award on grants for FY 2001 is $200,000. 
The maximum loan and grant awards stated in this notice are effective 
for loans and grants made during the fiscal year beginning October 1, 
2000, and ending September 30, 2001. REDLG loans and grants are 
available to Rural Utilities Service electric and telephone utilities 
to assist in developing rural areas from an economic standpoint.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Wing, Loan Specialist, Rural 
Business-Cooperative Service, USDA, STOP 3225, Room 6870, 1400 
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250. Telephone: (202) 720-
9558. FAX: (202) 720-6561. E-mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9acacdf3f4fddae8efe9b4efe9fefbb4fdf5ec"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0a5a5d63646d4a787f79247f796e6b246d657c">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The maximum loan and grant awards are 
determined in accordance with 7 CFR 1703.28. The maximum loan and grant 
awards are calculated as 3.0 percent of the projected program levels; 
however, as specified in 7 CFR 1703.28(b), regardless of the projected 
total amount that will be available, the maximum size may not be lower 
than $200,000. The projected program level during FY 2001 for zero-
interest loans is $15 million and the projected program level for 
grants is $3 million. Applying the specified 3.0 percent to the program 
level for loans results in the maximum loan award of $450,000. Applying 
the specified 3.0 percent to the program level for grants results in an 
amount lower than

[[Page 76213]]

$200,000. Therefore, the maximum grant award for FY 2001 will be 
$200,000.

    Dated: November 21, 2000.
Wilbur T. Peer,
Acting Administrator, Rural Business-Cooperative Service.
[FR Doc. 00-30966 Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-XY-U


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77693-77694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31471]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 33951]


Norfolk Southern Railway Co.--Corporate Family Transaction 
Exemption--Yadkin Railroad Co.

    Norfolk Southern Railway Company (NSR), a Class I rail carrier, has 
filed a notice of exemption to renew its lease \1\ and to operate 
approximately 30 miles of rail line owned by Yadkin Railroad Company 
(Yadkin), a Class III carrier and a subsidiary of NSR, located in the 
State of North Carolina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ NSR notes that the lease of the rail line by the Carolina 
and Northwestern Railway Company, a predecessor of NSR, was 
previously approved in Carolina & Northwestern Railway Company, 
Control, Etc., 282 I.C.C. 802 (1951). NSR further notes that the 
extension of the lease contemplated by the transaction in STB 
Finance Docket No. 33951 extends the term of the lease arrangement 
until 2025 with an optional 25-year extension thereafter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transaction is scheduled to be consummated prior to December 
31,

[[Page 77694]]

2000. The earliest the transaction can be consummated is December 7, 
2000, the effective date of the exemption (7 days after the exemption 
was filed).
    NSR has filed its notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(3) as 
the proposed renewal of its lease with Yadkin is exempt because it is 
within the NSR corporate family and will not result in adverse changes 
in service levels, operational changes, or a change in the competitive 
balance with carriers outside the NSR corporate family.
    As a condition to this exemption, any employee affected by the 
transaction will be protected by the conditions imposed in Mendocino 
Coast Ry., Inc.--Lease and Operate, 354 I.C.C. 732 (1978), as modified 
in Mendocino Coast Ry., Inc.--Lease and Operate, 360 I.C.C. 653 (1980), 
aff'd sub nom. RLEA v. ICC, 675 F.2d 1248 (D.C. Cir. 1982).
    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33951, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be 
served on Maquiling B. Parkerson, Esq., Norfolk Southern Corporation, 
Three Commercial Place, Norfolk, VA 23510-2191.

    Decided: December 5, 2000.
By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-31471 Filed 12-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DARVIS LAKEITH ALLEN, §

PLAINTIFF, §

§

V. § CIVIL CASE NO. 3:22-CV-2030-M-BK

§

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, §

ET AL., §

DEFENDANTS. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation 

in this case. No objections were filed. The Court reviewed the proposed Findings, Conclusions, 

and Recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, 

Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate.

SO ORDERED this 6th day of February, 2023.

Case 3:22-cv-02030-M-BK Document 8 Filed 02/06/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 143
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 20, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-40809

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RAY PEREZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:00-CR-439-7

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

Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Ray Perez appeals the sentence following his guilty-plea

conviction for possessing 470 kilograms of cocaine with the

intent to distribute. He contends that the district court should

have awarded him a two-level reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2(b). 

He has not established that the district court clearly erred in

denying the reduction because he has not shown that he was

“substantially less culpable than the average participant.” 
No. 03-40809

-2-

United States v. Lokey, 945 F.2d 825, 840 (5th Cir. 1991); United

States v. Gallegos, 868 F.2d 711, 713 (5th Cir. 1989).

Perez also complains about the district court’s

consideration of the Government’s motion for a downward departure

based upon Perez’s substantial assistance, pursuant to U.S.S.G. 

§ 5K1.1. To the extent Perez asserts that he was not awarded a

departure, he is incorrect. To the extent that Perez is arguing

that the 55-month reduction he received was insufficient, he has

not established that the district court abused its discretion in

the extent of the departure. See United States v. Bell, 371 F.3d

239, 243 (5th Cir. 2004), cert. denied (U.S. Oct. 4, 2004)

(No. 04-5954). The judgment of the district court is therefore

AFFIRMED.