alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-50817

Summary Calendar

_____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARTENOGENES SAENZ-GUEVARA;

JOSE LUIS GARCIA-BALLESTEROS;

ELADIO QUINTERO-NAVARRETTE,

Defendants-Appellants.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-95-CR-76

_________________________________________________________________ September 18, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Artenogenes Saenz-Guevara (“Saenz”), Jose Luis GarciaBallesteros (“Garcia”), and Eladio Quintero-Navarrette (“Quintero”)

were convicted for conspiring together to possess with intent to

distribute heroin.-2-

S aenz and Quintero contend that the evidence introduced at

trial was insufficient to support their convictions for conspiracy

to possess with intent to distribute heroin. The testimony of the

i nformant was sufficient to establish Saenz’s and Quinter o’s

participation in the drug conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. § 846, because

it showed an agreement and that Saenz and Quintero kn ew of the

conspiracy, intended to join it, and participated voluntarily in

it. U nited States v. Inocencio

, 40 F.3d 716, 725 (5th Cir. 1994).

The jury could have found Saenz and Quintero guilty beyond a

reasonable doubt. U nited States v. Martinez

, 975 F.2d 159, 160-61

(5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied , 113 S.Ct. 1346 (1993).

Garcia challenges his conviction by alleging that the district

court erred in denying his motion to suppress. This court reviews

the district court’s factual findings under the clearly erroneous

standard, and the district court’s conclusions of law de novo

.

United States v. Tellez

, 11 F.3d 530, 532 (5th cir. 1 993), cert.

denied

, 114 S.Ct. 1630 (1994). Contrary to Garcia’s argument, the

information provided by the informant was sufficiently reliable and

detailed to “cause an officer of reasonable caution to believe that

an offense has been or is bein g committed.” U nited States v.

Carrillo-Morales

, 27 F.3d 1054, 1062 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied

,

115 S.Ct. 1163 (1995). The totality of the circumstances show that

there was probable cause to have arrested Garcia without a warrant.-3-

See Illinois v. Gates , 462 U.S. 213, 244 (1983); United States v.

Fisher

, 22 F.3d 574, 579 (5th Cir.), cert . denied , 115 S.Ct. 529

(1994).

A F F I R M E D.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           FEB-2-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-28-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                FEB-2-1997
<CASH>                                       1,536,234
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,172,645
<ALLOWANCES>                                   867,961
<INVENTORY>                                  9,814,682
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            28,191,972
<PP&E>                                     129,612,934
<DEPRECIATION>                              71,348,374
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             147,007,118
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      108,316,847
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     1,521,426
<OTHER-SE>                                  33,640,740
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               147,077,118
<SALES>                                    156,099,050
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           156,099,050
<CGS>                                      119,106,451
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              119,106,451
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             179,221
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              5,136,907
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,143,053
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          2,993,854
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,993,854
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37
        

</TABLE>
FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT AUG 6, 2007 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 07- 11293 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -000 84 -C R -002 -1 U N I T E D S T A T E S O F A M E R I C A , P la in tif f - A p p e lle e , v ersu s M I C H A E L D . D U N N , D e f e n d a n t- A p p e lla n t.

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e S o u th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A u gu s t 6, 2007) B efo re H U L L , W IL S O N an dP R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M: S t anl eyH ou se , appo i nt ed coun se l for M i chae l D un n i n thi s di re ctcr i m i nal2

a nd s e nt e nc i ng appe a l , ha s m ove d t o w i thdr a w f r om f urthe rr e pr e s e nt a t i on of the ap p e lla n t a n df

ile dab r ie f

p u r s u a n t to A n d e r s v . C a lif o rn ia , 3 8 6 U .S . 7 3 8 , 8 7 S .C t. 1 3 9 6 , 1 8 L .E d .2 d4 9 3 ( 1 9 6 7 ) . O u rin d e p e n d e n t r e v ie w o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls th atco u n sel ’ s assessm en to f th e rel at i v e m eri to f th e ap p eal i s co rrect . B ecau se in d e p e n d e n t e x a m in a tio n o f th e e n tir e r e c o r dr e v e a ls n o a r g u ab le is s u e s o f m e r it, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , and D un n’ s c on vi ct i on and sent ence ar e AF F I RME D.
Order entered January 24, 2020

In The 

## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 01338

- CV

IN RE TOMMY LEE STEW ART, Rela t or

O rigi nal Proceeding from the 291st Judicial District Co urt

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F81

- 12433

- U



### O RDER

Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Carlyle

Bas e d on t he cou r t’s opinion of this dat e , we DENY relator’s October 31, 2019 petition

for writ of mandamus

.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE UNAUDITED INTERIM CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR
BILLING CONCEPTS CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED JUNE
30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          96,331
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   41,941
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,873
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               152,512
<PP&E>                                          52,376
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,442
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 249,779
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          136,825
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           417
<OTHER-SE>                                     109,432
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   249,779
<SALES>                                          3,143
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               111,345
<CGS>                                            3,031
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   76,444
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  31
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (31,311)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (4,721)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (26,590)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (26,590)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.68)



</TABLE>
### AS **Boilers -**  **Document Control Numbers regarding limited -**  **use boilers Ma**  **ry Johnson** to

: Higgins, Cortney Cc : RobertJ W ayland, Jim Eddinger, Jonathan Averback

From: M ary Johnson/RTP/USEPA/US To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov> Cc: RobertJ W ayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA , Jim Eddinger/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Jonathan Averback/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Thursday, 10/25/2012 3:12 PM Cortney, Per your request, see below for Document Control Numbers for comment letters regarding limited - use boilers with respect to the Area Source Boiler Rule. **Document Control Number:** EPA- HQ - OAR- 2006 - 0790 - 2443 (comment letter from Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO)) **Document Control Number:** EPA- HQ - OAR- 2006 - 0790 - 2424 (comment letter from Dominion) **Document Control Number:** EPA- HQ - OAR- 2006 - 0790 - 2448 (comment letter from The Clean Energy Group) Thanks. Mary Mary Johnson Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Ai r Quality Planning and Standards Mail Code D 243 - 01 Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 Phone: (919) 541 - 5025 Fax: (919) 541 - 5450
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         267,357
<SECURITIES>                                   120,834
<RECEIVABLES>                                   55,670
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,258
<INVENTORY>                                      5,181
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               469,823
<PP&E>                                         654,185
<DEPRECIATION>                                  88,933
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,131,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           92,988
<BONDS>                                        929,571
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    393,618
<COMMON>                                           700
<OTHER-SE>                                    (285,227)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,131,650
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               195,552
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  179,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,349
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              82,315
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (199,417)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (224,398)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (224,398)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (7.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
AUSTIN 

*c. MANN 

-.elu 

Belton, Tcxtl0 

Dear Sir: 

., 

Your letter of 

it ia lawful to rem0ve a 

l 6k lnwheg ther 

County Clerk, efter tmmb 

.bate, 16 received. 

the County or Ri6- 

yours very truly
Exhibit 10.73



BORLAND SOFTWARE CORPORATION



NOTICE OF GRANT OF STOCK OPTION



                        Notice is hereby given of the following option grant (the "Option") to purchase shares of the Common Stock of Borland Software Corporation (the "Corporation"):



                Optionee:



                Grant Date:



                Vesting Commencement Date:



                Exercise Price:  $ _________ per share



                Number of Option Shares:  __________ shares



                Expiration Date:



	                Type of Option:
	 	Incentive Stock Option

	 	 	Non-Statutory Stock Option 








                        Exercise Schedule:  The Option shall become exercisable for twenty-five percent (25%) of the Option Shares upon Optionee's completion of one (1) year of Service measured from the Vesting Commencement Date and shall become exercisable for the balance of the Option Shares in a series of thirty-six (36) successive equal monthly installments upon Optionee's completion of each additional month of Service over the thirty-six (36) month period measured from the first anniversary of the Vesting Commencement Date.  In no event shall the Option become exercisable for any additional Option Shares after Optionee's cessation of Service.



                        Optionee understands and agrees that the Option is granted subject to and in accordance with the terms of the Borland Software Corporation 2002 Stock Incentive Plan (the "Plan").  Optionee further agrees to be bound by the terms of the Plan and the terms of the Option as set forth in the Stock Option Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A.  Optionee hereby acknowledges the receipt of electronic delivery of the official prospectus for the Plan.  A copy of the Plan is available upon request made to the Corporate Secretary at the Corporation's principal offices.



                        Employment At Will.  Nothing in this Notice or in the attached Stock Option Agreement or in the Plan shall confer upon Optionee any right to continue in Service for any period of specific duration or interfere with or otherwise restrict in any way the rights of the Corporation (or any Parent or Subsidiary employing or retaining Optionee) or of the Optionee, which rights are hereby expressly reserved by each, to terminate Optionee's Service at any time for any reason, with or without cause.



                        Definitions.  All capitalized terms in this Notice shall have the meaning assigned to them in this Notice or in the attached Stock Option Agreement.

DATED: __________________



	BORLAND SOFTWARE CORPORATION

	 	 
	By:
	 
	 	 
	 	 
	Title:
	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 
	OPTIONEE
	 
	 	 
	Signature:
	 
	 	 
	 	 
	Address:
	 
	 	 
	 	 
	 	 







ATTACHMENTS

Stock Option Agreement
Exhibit
      32.2








**Chief
      Financial Officer’s Certification required under Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002**





In
      connection with the quarterly report of TIB Financial Corp. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, David P. Johnson, Executive Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Report fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934 and that, to my knowledge, the information contained in the Report
      fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
      of operation of the Company.








Date: May
                9, 2006
            /s/
                David P. JohnsonDavid
                P. Johnson
              Executive
                Vice President and Chief Financial Officer











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 TIB Financial Corp. and will be retained
      by
      TIB Financial Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
      or
      its staff upon request.
Order entered September 2 2 , 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 22 - 00764 - CV IN RE STEVE N DAVIDSON, IN HIS C APACITY AS TRUSTEE OF THE

PETER DEMOORE TRUST , Relator O riginal Proceeding from the Probate Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. PR - 21 - 02976 - 2

O RDER Before Justices Myers, Nowell, and Goldstein Based on the Court’s opinion of today’s date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus

. We also LIFT the stay issued by this Court’s August 4, 2022 Order.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 31.1  I, Dr. Shelby T. Brewer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report. 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects, the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc. as of, and for, the periods presented in this report. 4. Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc.'s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc. and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc., including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc.s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and c) Disclosed in this report any change in Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc.'s most recent fiscal quarter (Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc.'s fourth quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc.'s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc.s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc.'s auditors and the audit committee of Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc.'s board of directors: a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc.'s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in Commodore Applied Technologies, Inc.s internal control over financial reporting.  Date: May 21, 2007   By   /s/ Dr. Shelby T Brewer       Dr. Shelby T. Brewer, Chief Executive Officer
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3625

___________

Max D. Siegel; Angela M. Siegel, *

*

Appellants, *

*

v. *

* Appeal from the United States

Deutsche Bank National Trust * District Court for the

Company; Morgan Stanley Dean * District of Nebraska.

Witter Capital I, Inc., Trust 2002-NC4; *

Litton Loan Servicing LP; New Century * [UNPUBLISHED]

Mortgage Corp.; S21-T9N-R16 Pt. S 1/2*

SE 1/4 Parcel 6 & 7, Buffalo County, *

Nebraska (commonly known as 3425 W.*

56th Street, Kearney, Nebraska), *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: December 15, 2010

Filed: February 14, 2011

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MURPHY, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Max and Angela Siegel appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their

1

complaint alleging violations of the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, the Truth in

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

1

for the District of Nebraska.
Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1601, the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

(FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692, the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. §

1681, as well as ancillary state common-law fraud and civil conspiracy claims. 

In 2002, the Siegels signed a 30-year adjustable rate mortgage note with

defendant New Century Mortgage Corporation and simultaneously executed a deed

of trust to New Century as security on the note. New Century assigned the original

deed of trust to defendant Deutsche Bank as Trustee for Morgan Stanley. The Siegels

struggled to meet their mortgage payments and in late 2005, defendant Litton Loan

Servicing began foreclosure proceedings in Nebraska state court on behalf of

Deutsche Bank. The Siegels challenged the foreclosure in state court. These

proceedings culminated with a decision fromthe Nebraska Supreme Court, Deutsche

Bank National Trust Company v. Siegel, 279 Neb. 174, 777 N.W.2d 259 (2010),

confirming the foreclosure decree and subsequent judicial sale. The Siegels

commenced this federal action against the above-named defendants on December 1,

2008. 

The district court dismissed the complaint in its entirety. It concluded that the

Nebraska Consumer Protection Act claim and the TILA claim had accrued on June

11, 2002, and were thus time-barred under the respective statutes of limitation. It

dismissed the FDCPA claim after determining that the defendants could not be

classified as debt collectors under the statutory scheme. It dismissed the FCRA claim

on the ground that the underlying assertions of fact did not suggest wrongdoing on

the part of the defendants and, in any event, were too vague to state a viable claim. 

Finally, it concluded that the Siegels had not established their state common-law

fraud and civil conspiracy claims with sufficient particularity, asrequired under Rule

9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and dismissed them as well.

Having reviewed the record and considered the Siegels’ arguments, we affirm

on the basis of the analysis set forth in the district court’s thorough memorandum and

order. See 8th Cir. Rule 47B.

______________________________

-2-