alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-16-00165-CR

ALBERT DAWSON, JR.,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 77th District Court

Limestone County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13561-A

_____________

No. 10-16-00172-CR

ALBERT DAWSON, JR.,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 2nd 25th District Court

Colorado County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR15-067
Dawson v. State Page 2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Albert Dawson Jr. seeks to appeal the trial court’s denial of his pro se postconviction motion to reduce his illegal sentences in these two cases. Dawson’s letter, 

which is being treated as a notice of appeal,1 states that the trial court denied Dawson’s 

motion to reduce his illegal sentence in both cases. 

Cause No. 13561-A: This case is from the 77th District Court in Limestone County. 

We do not have jurisdiction of a direct appeal of the trial court’s denial of a postconviction motion to reduce an illegal sentence. See Abbott v. State, 271 S.W.3d 694 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2008) (stating that standard for determining jurisdiction is not whether appeal 

is precluded by law, but whether appeal is authorized by law); Everett v. State, 91 S.W.3d 

386, 386 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.) (stating that court has jurisdiction over criminal 

appeals only when expressly granted by law). No law authorizes such a direct appeal. 

Cf. Ex parte Rich, 194 S.W.3d 508, 512-13 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006) (defendant may raise 

challenge to illegal sentence for first time on habeas corpus review). Accordingly, the 

appeal of the trial court’s denial of Dawson’s motion to reduce his illegal sentence in 

Cause No. 13561-A is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

Cause No. CR-15-067: This case is from the 2nd 25th District Court in Colorado 

County. We do not have territorial jurisdiction of an appeal from Colorado County, 

which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the First Court of Appeals. See TEX. GOV’T.

 

1 A defendant’s letter that demonstrates a desire to appeal is sufficient to serve as a notice of appeal. See 

Palma v. State, 76 S.W.3d 638, 641-42 (Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, pet. ref’d); see also Pharris v. State,

196 S.W.3d 369, 372 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2006, no pet.).
Dawson v. State Page 3

CODE ANN. §§ 22.220(a), 22.201(b, k) (West Supp. 2015). Accordingly, the appeal of the 

trial court’s denial of Dawson’s motion to reduce his illegal sentence in Cause No. CR-15-

067 is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Dismissed

Opinion delivered and filed June 2, 2016

Do not publish

[CR25]
**EXHIBIT 32.02**

**Section 1350 Certification**

**In connection with this quarterly report of ML SystematicMomentum FuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the datehereof (this “Report”), I, Barbra E. Kocsis, Chief Financial Officer of MerrillLynch Alternative Investments LLC, the manager of ML Systematic Momentum FuturesAccess,LLC certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:**

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2. The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: November 14, 2007                      |                 |
|----------------------------------------------|----------------------|
|                                         |
| By                                           | /s/ BARBRA E. KOCSIS |   |   |
| Barbra E. Kocsis                             |
| Chief Financial Officer                      |
| (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) |
|                                              |                      |  |  |  |

 

----
Exhibit 31.1
 RULE 13a-14(a) CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
      (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 the registrant, 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)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to
provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the
preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principals;
 (c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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
 (d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financing reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter
(the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
  (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonable likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and
 (b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involved management or other employees
who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial
reporting.
  DIVERSIFIED RESTAURANT HOLDINGS, INC.By:
    /s/  T. Michael AnsleyT. Michael AnsleyPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
| (1)   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                           |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|            |                                                                                                                                                 |
| (2)   | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

|            |   |                        |   |
|-----------------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|
| August 10, 2010 | By:    | /s/ Samuel Wolf   |   |
|            |   | Samuel Wolf                 |   |
|            |   | Principal Executive Officer |   |
|            |   |                        |   |
##### Table of Contents



SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549
 FORM 6-K
 REPORT OF FOREIGN PRIVATE ISSUER PURSUANT TO
RULE 13a-16 OR 15d-16 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
 For the month of May 2007
 Commission File Number: 001-32179
 INTEROIL CORPORATION
  NEW BRUNSWICK, CANADA
 60-92 COOK STREET
PORTSMITH, QLD 4870, AUSTRALIA
 (61) 7 4046 4600
  o þ
 o
 o
  o þ




---



TABLE OF CONTENTS  SIGNATURESExhibit IndexShareholder Rights Plan    Table of Contents  
 SIGNATURES
  INTEROIL CORPORATIONBy:
    
    /s/ Phil MulacekPhil MulacekChief Executive OfficerDate: June 8, 2007




---



##### Table of Contents



INTEROIL CORPORATION
FORM 6-K FOR THE MONTH OF MAY 2007
 
 Exhibit Index
 1.
    
    Shareholder Rights Plan
Exhibit 10(cc)

AMENDMENT TO THE AGILYSYS, INC.

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN

THIS AMENDMENT to the Agilysys, Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan (the Plan) is executed by Agilysys, Inc. (the
Company) as of the date set forth below.

WHEREAS, the Company adopted the Plan effective in 1999 for
the benefit of certain employees;

WHEREAS, the Compensation Committee (the Committee) of the Board of
Directors of the Company (the Board) has recommended that the Plan be terminated;

WHEREAS, pursuant
to Section 13.1 of the Plan, the Company has the right at any time and for any reason to terminate the Plan in accordance with such Section; and

WHEREAS, by action of the Committee, to be ratified by the Board, the Company has determined to terminate the Plan.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby terminated effective as of March 25, 2011, in accordance with Section 13.1 and Treasury Regulation Section 1.409A-3(j)(4)(ix). Distribution of all benefits
remaining in the Plan at the time of distribution shall be made as soon as practicable after March 25, 2012, (preferably before March 31, 2012, and in any event not later than June 30, 2012) in a single lump sum payment that is the
Actuarial Equivalent as of the date of distribution of the Participants Accrued Annual Retirement Benefit payable for the Participants life beginning at his Normal Retirement Date. Defined terms used and not otherwise defined herein
shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Plan.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company, by its duly
authorized officers, has caused this Amendment to the Plan to be signed effective as of March 25, 2011.



AGILYSYS, INC.By:

/s/    KATHLEEN A.
WEIGANDIts:

General Counsel, Secretary & SVP HRBy:

/s/    HENRY R.
BONDIts:

SVP & CFO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-1-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-1-1995
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     6615
<ALLOWANCES>                                       174
<INVENTORY>                                      10333
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 19631
<PP&E>                                           26961
<DEPRECIATION>                                   18901
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   31482
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            16776
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                          1864
<OTHER-SE>                                        2782
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     31482
<SALES>                                          53293
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 53293
<CGS>                                            40621
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    40621
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     4
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1401
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   3165
<INCOME-TAX>                                        42
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               3123
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      3123
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.47
        

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 3.5
 CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION
OF
SPECTRA ENERGY PARTNERS GP, LLC
  Name.
  Registered Office; Registered Agent.
 
  
  Spectra Energy Transmission, LLC, its sole memberBy:
    /s/ C. Gregory HarperC. Gregory HarperAuthorized Person
| (1)   | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities     Exchange Act of 1934;      and |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|-----------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                          |   |                                                                          |
|-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                          |   |                                                                          |   |
| May      19  , 2008 | By:    | /s/ Steven      Y. Moskowitz                              |   |
|                          |   | Steven      Y. Moskowitz                                                      |   |
|                          |   | President      and Chief Executive Officer (principal executive      officer) |   |
|                          |   |                                                                          |   |
----

| 0-17071                                  |   | 35-1544218                        |
|------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|
| (Commission File Number)                 |   | (IRS Employer Identification No.) |
|                                     |   |                              |
| 200 East Jackson Street                  |   |                              |
| Muncie, Indiana                          |   | 47305-2814                        |
| (Address of principal executive offices) |   |  (Zip Code)                  |

----

|   | (d) | (99.1) Press Release dated June 6, 2012. |
|--------|-----|------------------------------------------|

----

----

----
#### FISHER v. STATE.

No. 21034.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 10, 1940.

Tom B. Scott and John E. V. Jasper, both of Dallas, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was charged with burglary, and by further proper averments it was also alleged that he had theretofore been convicted of two successive felonies prior to the commission of the instant burglary charged, and the verdict of the jury found him guilty of the present burglary charge and also that he had previously been convicted of the successive felonies alleged in the indictment, whereupon the court assessed his punishment at confinement in the penitentiary for life under the habitual criminal statute.

The indictment properly charges the present offense and also properly charges the prior felony convictions. The record contains no statement of facts and no bills of exception are brought forward.

In such condition nothing is presented for review, and the judgment is affirmed.
#### TEXAS NAT. BANK OF BEAUMONT v. MOORE.

No. 3430.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

July 7, 1938.

Nall & Weller, of Beaumont, for appellant.

John Land, of Beaumont, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

On February 4, 1935, in cause No. 10,-698, the Texas National Bank of Beaumont v. Mrs. E. F. and W. T. Moore, on the docket of the county court of Jefferson County at law, judgment by default was rendered in favor pf plaintiff for $228.27 against the defendants. Under execution duly issued in that case the sheriff of Jefferson County levied upon all the right, title, and interest of W. T. Moore in two certain tracts of land in Jefferson County. On the 14th day of May, 1938, on the ex parte application of W. T. Moore, complaining of the Texas National Bank, and others, addressed to the county court of Jefferson County at law, the judge of that court granted the relator a temporary injunction against respondents, restraining the further execution of the judgment as described above.

The point made by relator against the judgment is that on the face of the record “valid and legal return of the citation in said cause No. 10,698” was not had upon him and his codefendant. There was no allegation that due service, in fact, was not made upon him and his codefendant; the allegation was simply that, on the face of the record, due service was not shown. Relator does not make the point that he and his co-defendant, or either of them, had a good defense against the cause of action plead against them in cause No. 10,698 by relator, the Texas National Bank, nor does he allege that he and his codefendant did not know that the judgment had been entered against them within such time that they could have filed a motion for new trial, nor do they plead any excuse for failing to file a motion for a new trial, nor do they offer any excuse for their failure to prosecute an appeal from the judgment as rendered against them on default. On the facts stated, the judge of the lower court erred in granting a temporary injunction. Allen v. Trentman, Tex.Civ.App., 115 S.W.2d 1177.

The judgment of the lower court is reversed and the injunction dissolved.
<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 THREE MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                              MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         92,511
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  47,963
<ALLOWANCES>                                    3,095
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              162,375
<PP&E>                                         49,507
<DEPRECIATION>                                 25,088
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                241,185
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         137,877
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          386
<OTHER-SE>                                     99,627
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  241,185
<SALES>                                         2,034
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               75,083
<CGS>                                           1,997
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  50,185
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  4
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (19,365)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    1,832
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (17,533)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (17,533)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.46)


</TABLE>
www.iata.org

International Air Transport Association 

703 Waterford Way, Suite 600 

Miami, FL 33126 

Tel: +1 305 264 7772 

Fax: +1 305 264 8088

Christa Fornarotto 

Associate Administrator for Airports 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW, Room 600 East 

Washington, DC 20591 

Miami, November 5, 2012 

Re: Privatization Pilot Program (Docket FAA 2009-1144) 

Dear Ms. Fornarotto, 

On behalf of the member airlines of the International Air Transport Association, many of which operate

out of Luis Muñoz Marin International Airport (SJU), I would like to express support for the final 

application from the Puerto Rico Ports Authority (PRPA) and Puerto Rico Public-Private Partnerships 

Authority for the participation in the FAA Airport Privatization Pilot Program. 

Prior to the start of the bidding process, the Puerto Rico Public-Private Partnerships Authority undertook a 

very collaborative approach to establish airline buy-in. This ensured a bidding process with a final offer 

that received broad support from the airline community. We strongly believe this approach and the 

results validate the existing requirements as set in the privatization pilot language such as the need for 

majority airline support. We encourage FAA to maintain this course and review any future privatization

requests on a case by case basis. Moreover, we would like to ensure maintenance of the current 

privatization framework including the majority in interest clause to safeguard privatization delivers value 

for all Stakeholders. 

The application in SJU provides the needed capital, operational and infrastructure improvements for SJU 

without raising costs to users, a rather unique and positive outcome compared to many previous 

privatizations on a global scale. 

We remain ready to provide further information to FAA regarding our position. 

Sincerely 

Cyriel Kronenburg 

Head of Infrastructure & Government Affairs 

North America & the Caribbean 

C: +1 (954) 663 6796 

kronenburc@iata.org
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

TODD GRAVES, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 17-4099 

(D.C. No. 2:16-CR-00494-TS-2) 

(D. Utah) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before HARTZ, MATHESON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

This matter is before the court on the government’s motion to enforce the 

appeal waiver contained in defendant Todd Graves’s plea agreement. Graves pleaded 

guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he 

waived his right to appeal his conviction or sentence, provided his sentence was 

within the statutory maximum and not above the advisory guideline range determined 

by the district court to apply. Graves’s sentence was below the statutory maximum 

and within the advisory guidelines range. Nevertheless, he filed a notice of appeal. 

 *

 This panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not 

materially assist in the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 

10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. 

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law 

of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its 

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

October 18, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

The government filed a motion to enforce the plea agreement pursuant to 

United States v. Hahn, 359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam). 

In response, Graves’s counsel did not provide any reason why the appeal waiver 

should not be enforced. This court gave Graves an opportunity to file a pro se 

response to the motion to enforce, but he has not done so. 

We have reviewed the motion and the record, and we conclude that Graves’s 

proposed appeal falls within the scope of the appeal waiver and that nothing in the 

record indicates that he did not knowingly and voluntarily waive his appellate rights 

or that enforcing the waiver would result in a miscarriage of justice. See id. at 1325 

(describing factors this court considers to determine whether to enforce an appeal 

waiver). 

Accordingly, we grant the motion to enforce the appeal waiver and dismiss the 

appeal. 

Entered for the Court 

Per Curiam