alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00677-CR

John Douglas Houston

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

94th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 12-CR-2404-C

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified by 

this Court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 31, 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME, BALANCE SHEET, AND CASH FLOWS AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        3,282
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                         53
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,170
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                           645
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                     109
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,259
<COMMON>                                         1,111
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                236
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   1,295
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        188
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             1,241
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 234
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      100
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   2,201
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    5,259
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        2,343
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                               129
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                           0
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,955
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            422
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                  34
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                       0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           108
<NET-INCOME>                                       185
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         10
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      175
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                           111
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             698
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.12
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.12
        

</TABLE>
exv10w19



 





Exhibit 10.19









October 21,2004




Mr. David Fiore

American Achievement Corporation

7211 Circle S Road

Austin, TX 78745



     Re: Employment Agreement Amendment



Dear David:




     Reference is made to your employment agreement with the Company,
originally dated as of July 13, 1999, as amended and in effect on the date
hereof (the “Agreement”). Please be advised that the period ending thirty
days after the six month anniversary of a Change of Control referenced in
Section 7.7(a) of the Agreement is hereby extended to expire on December
31, 2004. All other provisions of the Agreement will continue in effect
pursuant to their terms. Terms used herein and not otherwise defined have
the meanings set forth in the Agreement.



     If you are in agreement with the foregoing, please sign and return
one copy of this Agreement, it being understood that all counterpart
copies will constitute but one agreement with respect to the subject
matter of this letter.

	 	 	 	 	 
	 	Very truly yours,





American Achievement Corporation

 	 
	 	By:  	
 	 
	 	 	Name:  	Mac La Follette 	 
	 	 	Title:  	Managing Director 	 
	 




Accepted and agreed to as of the date hereof:



	 	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	
	 	 
	

	 	
 	 	 
	

	 	David G. Fiore            10/22/04	 	 







			
	 	 	 
	7211 Circle S Road

Austin, TX 78745
	 	Phone: 512-444-0571
[No. 45823-0-I.

Division One.

November 6, 2000.]

#### Concrete Coring Company, *Respondent,*v. Lumpkin, Inc., et al., *Appellants.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 99-2-21653-9, Patricia H. Clark, J., entered December 8, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Coleman, J., concurred in by Becker, A.C.J., and Cox, J.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 11, 2013

NO. 03-11-00455-CR

Dustin Anthony Simmang, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 207TH DISTRICT COURT OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES ROSE AND GOODWIN

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, it is the opinion of this Court that there was no error requiring reversal in the trial 

court’s judgments of conviction: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the 

Court that the trial court’s judgments of conviction are in all things affirmed; and it appearing 

that the appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is made; 

and that this decision be certified below for observance.
# C_2022248EN.01015601.xml

| 30.6.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 248/156 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.6.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 248/156

---

Prior notification of a concentration

(Case M.10778 – TA ASSOCIATES / CLEARLAKE / KOFAX)

Candidate case for simplified procedure

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 248/13)

1.

This notification concerns the following undertakings:

| — | TA Associates Management L.P. (‘TA Associates’, U.S.A.), |
| --- | --- |

—

TA Associates Management L.P. (‘TA Associates’, U.S.A.),

| — | Clearlake Capital Group, L.P. (‘Clearlake’, U.S.A.), |
| --- | --- |

—

Clearlake Capital Group, L.P. (‘Clearlake’, U.S.A.),

| — | Kofax Parent Limited (‘Kofax’ or ‘Target’, U.S.A.) ultimately controlled by Thoma Bravo, L.P. (U.S.A). |
| --- | --- |

—

Kofax Parent Limited (‘Kofax’ or ‘Target’, U.S.A.) ultimately controlled by Thoma Bravo, L.P. (U.S.A).

TA Associates and Clearlake will acquire within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) and 3(4) of the Merger Regulation joint control of Kofax.

The concentration is accomplished by way of purchase of shares.

2.

| — | for TA Associates: private equity firm, active in business services, consumer, financial services, healthcare and technologies; |
| --- | --- |

—

for TA Associates: private equity firm, active in business services, consumer, financial services, healthcare and technologies;

| — | for Clearlake: private investment firm, active in software and technology-enabled services, energy and industrials, food and consumer products; |
| --- | --- |

—

for Clearlake: private investment firm, active in software and technology-enabled services, energy and industrials, food and consumer products;

| — | for Kofax: provider of intelligent automation software for digital workflow transformation to automate and improve business workflows by simplifying the handling of data and documents. |
| --- | --- |

—

for Kofax: provider of intelligent automation software for digital workflow transformation to automate and improve business workflows by simplifying the handling of data and documents.

3.

Pursuant to the Commission Notice on a simplified procedure for treatment of certain concentrations under Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (2) it should be noted that this case is a candidate for treatment under the procedure set out in the Notice.

4.

Observations must reach the Commission not later than 10 days following the date of this publication. The following reference should always be specified:

M.10778 – TA ASSOCIATES / CLEARLAKE / KOFAX

Observations can be sent to the Commission by email, by fax, or by post. Please use the contact details below:

Email: COMP-MERGER-REGISTRY@ec.europa.eu

Fax +32 22964301

Postal address:

| European Commission |
| --- |
| Directorate-General for Competition |
| Merger Registry |
| 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |

European Commission

Directorate-General for Competition

Merger Registry

1049 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1 (the ‘Merger Regulation’).

1

(2)  OJ C 366, 14.12.2013, p. 5.

2

---
#### GANDY et al. v. THOMAS.

No. 4425.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Texarkana.

Nov. 30, 1933.

L. A. Kayser, of Tyler, for plaintiffs in error.

Curtis E. Hill, of Gilmer, for defendant in error.

JOHNSON, Chief Justice.

L. O. Gandy and E. L. (Ed) Butts were defendants in the trial courts and are plaintiffs in error in this court, ¿nd will be referred to as appellants. O. N. Thomas, plaintiff in the trial courts, is defendant in error in this court, and will be referred to as appellee.

It appears that appellee sued appellants in the justice court of precinct No. 1, Upshur county, Tex., and on May 23, 1932, obtained judgment against appellants for the sum of $176.15 and costs. Appellants appealed to the county court of Upshur county and filed their appeal bond with the justice of the peace, and it was by him approved on May 23, 1932, and the transcript was sent up to and filed in the county court of Upshur county, on May 31, 1932. The county court was then in session at its May term, 1932, which term of the county court convened on May 16th and adjourned on June 4, 1932. Two days after the filing of the transcript in the county court, and on June 2, 1932, appellee appeared and procured the entry of judgment ■by default against appellants and the sureties on their appeal bond. The appellants have, by writ of error, presented the case to this court for review, and under proper assignment of error assert the following proposition: “Where, as in this case, an appeal, from a personal judgment rendered in Justice Court against defendants, is perfected by defendants to County Court during a then current term of the County Court and after appearance day of such current term, the defendants are not required to appear at the then current term of the County Court to which such case was appealed, and the County Court is without jurisdiction to render personal judgment by default against the defendants at such current term.”

Article 2456, R. C. S. 1925, provides: “ * * * When such bond has b'een filed with the justice, the appeal shall be held to be thereby perfected and all parties to said suit or to any suit so appealed shall make their appearance at the *next*term of court to which said case has been appealed without further notice.”

The “next term” of the county court at which this statute requires all the parties to make their appearance is not thought to mean *450the “current term” then in session at the time of the filing of the appeal bona in the justice court.’ The term “next” has reference to that which comes after, and means that term of the county court which convenes subsequent to the date of filing the appeal bond in the justice court. Hence, the judgment of the county court was in error in adjudging the appellants to be in default at the term of the county court in session at the time the appeal bond was filed and approved in the justice court.

The judgment of the county court is reversed, and the cause remanded.
#### LOVING v. STATE.

No. 19988.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 24, 1938.

J. M. Griffith, of Austin, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

The conviction is for burglary; penalty assessed at eight years confinement in the penitentiary.

Since perfecting his appeal, the appellant has filed a written motion, duly verified, requesting the dismissal thereof. The request is granted, and the appeal is, dismissed.
| **Loan Servicing (Details) (USD $)In Thousands, unless otherwise specified** | Dec. 31, 2014                                                | Dec. 31, 2013                                                | Dec. 31, 2012                                                |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------|
| **Banking and Thrift [Abstract]**                                            |                                                         |                                                         |                                                         |
| Unpaid balance of loans serviced for others                                  | $ 254,223frme_UnpaidPrincipalBalanceOfLoansServicedForOthers | $ 271,871frme_UnpaidPrincipalBalanceOfLoansServicedForOthers | $ 167,879frme_UnpaidPrincipalBalanceOfLoansServicedForOthers |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Unpaid Principal Balance Of Loans Serviced For Others
+ References
No definition available.
+ Details**Name:**frme_UnpaidPrincipalBalanceOfLoansServicedForOthers**Namespace Prefix:**frme_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**debit**Period Type:**instant |
| X                                                                                                                                                            |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_BankingAndThriftAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
Exhibit 11



                 STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


                                              Nine Months Ended September 30,
                                              -------------------------------
                                                  2003             2002
                                              -------------------------------
Net Income                                         1,544           1,789
  Less dividends on preferred stock                  (19)            (19)
                                              -------------------------------
Net Income available to common
  stockholders                                     1,525           1,770
Average shares outstanding - both basic
  and diluted                                    668,360         668,360
Earnings per share - Basic and diluted          $   2.28        $   2.65


                                              Three Months Ended September 30,
                                              --------------------------------
                                                  2003             2002
                                              --------------------------------

Net Income                                           341             595
  Less dividends on preferred stock                   (6)             (6)
                                              --------------------------------
Net Income available to common
  stockholders                                       335             589
Average shares outstanding - both basic
  and diluted                                    668,360         668,360
Earnings per share - Basic and diluted          $   0.50        $   0.88
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL REFRIGERATION EQUIPMENT

U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 Tuesday, September 23, 2008 9 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET, Room 8E-089



## Purpose

The Department of Energy (DOE) will present its methodology for the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) analysis and example results. The Department also will explain its plans for the remaining analysis—the analysis to support the Final Rule—and will seek input from stakeholders on its planned methodologies, assumptions, and data sources.



## Agenda

9:00-9:05 am Welcome

9:05-9:15 am Opening Remarks, In troductions and Agenda Review Doug Brookman

9:15-9:30 am Rulemaking Overview

Charles Llenza Overview of the analyses in the rulemaking, the tools DOE uses to generate results for each analysis, and the issues on which DOE would like input during today’s meeting.

9:30-10:00 am Comments from Participants Doug Brookman Open forum for participants to make a brief summary statement and/or identify thei r key issues regarding the NOPR analyses, methods, data, and results.

10:00-11:00 am Engineering Analysis

Aris Marantan and Matt Millard Summary presentation and di scussion regarding the approach used and factors considered for the market and technology assessment, screeni ng analysis, and engineering analysis, and a characterization of the results.

11:00-11:15 am Break2 11:15 am-12:00 pm Energy Use Analysis and Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

Dave Winiarski Summary presentation and di scussion regarding the approach used and factors considered for the markups to determine equipment price analysis, energy use analysis, life-cycle cost and payback period analyses, and a

characterization of the results.

12:00-1:00 pm Break for Lunch (on your own)

1:00-1:30 pm National Impact Analysis

Dave Winiarski Summary presentation and di scussion regarding the approach used and factors considered for the national energy savings, net present value, and shipments analysis,

and a characterization of the results.

1:30- 2:15 Trail Standard Levels and Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Dave Winiarski Summary presentation and di scussion regarding the approach used and factors considered for the manufacturer impact analysis.

2:15-2:45 Utility Impact Analys is, Employment Impact Analysis, Environmental Assessment, Regulatory Impact Analysis

Dave Winiarski Summary presentation and di scussion regarding the approach used and factors considered for the utility, employment, environmental, and regulatory analyses and a

characterization of the results.

2:45-3:15 pm Break

3:15-3:45 pm Discussi on of Other Issues Doug Brookman Open forum to discuss any re maining questions or issues identified by participants.

3:45-4:30 pm Next Steps and Closing Remarks

Charles Llenza Participants will discuss outstanding issues and concluding

remarks.

4:30 pm Adjourn
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13

- 50948 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. JESUS ALON S O CANTU

- ROSAS , also known as Jesus Villa

- Mireles, Defendant

- Appellant
Appeal s from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:06

- CR

- 967

- 1

Before DAVIS, CLEMENT, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jesus Alon s o Cantu

- Rosas appeals the consecutive 24

- month sentence imposed upon revocation of his supervised release following his conviction and 82

- month sentence for possession with intent to distribute marijuana. Cantu

Rosas argues that the district co urt committed significant procedural error by failing to recognize its authority to order that his revocation sentence run partially concurrent with the 82

- month drug sentence.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR
. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED September 2, 2014 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 13-50948 Document: 00512753079 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/02/2014No. 13

- 50948
Can tu

- Rosas challenges the district court’s incorrect statement regarding its authority to impose a partially concurrent sentence for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, we review for plain error only. See United States v. Kirklin , 701 F.3d 177, 178

- 79 (5th Cir. 2012). The Government concedes that the district court committed a clear and obvious error by stating that it was statutorily barred from imposing a partially concurrent revocation sentence. See United States v. Mathena , 23 F.3d 87, 91

- 93 ( 5th Cir. 1994); 18 U.S.C. § 3584(a); U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3(c)

. However, Cantu

- Rosas cannot show that his substantial rights were affected because he does not demonstrate a reasonable probability that he would have received a lesser sentence but for the error. See United States v. Davis , 60 2 F.3d 643, 647 (5th Cir. 2010). Nor does he dem onstrate that we should exercise discretion to remand because the error seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of his judicial proceedings

. See Kirklin , 701 F.3d at 180; United States v. Lopez

- Velasquez , 526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir. 2008) . Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 13-50948 Document: 00512753079 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/02/2014
```

[Federal Register: January 28, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 18)]
[Notices]               
[Page 4526]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28ja10-23]                         


[[Page 4526]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

 
Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance; 
Office of Food for Peace; Announcement of FFP Guidance for FY2010 Title 
II Proposals for Emergency Relief and Recovery Activities in Zimbabwe; 
Notice

    Pursuant to the Food for Peace Act of 2008, notice is hereby given 
that the FFP Guidance for FY2010 Title II Proposals for Emergency 
Relief and Recovery Activities in Zimbabwe will be available to 
interested parties for general viewing.
    For individuals who wish to review, the FFP Guidance for FY2010 
Title II Proposals for Emergency Relief and Recovery Activities in 
Zimbabwe will be available via the Food for Peace Web site: http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/humanitarian_assistance/ffp/zimbab.html on or 
about February 2, 2010. Interested parties can also receive a copy of 
the FFP Response to Zimbabwe Country Specific Guidance Comments by 
contacting the Office of Food for Peace, U.S. Agency for International 
Development, RRB 7.06-152, 1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC 20523-7600.

Juli Majernik,
Grants Manager, Policy and Technical Division, Office of Food for 
Peace, Bureau for Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance.
[FR Doc. 2010-1776 Filed 1-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
```