alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

NUMBER 13-11-00283-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE MID-CONTINENT CASUALTY COMPANY

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Garza, Vela, and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam1

Relator, Mid-Continent Casualty Company, filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

and a motion for emergency relief on May 4, 2011. That same day, the Court granted 

the motion for emergency relief and stayed the trial court’s order of April 27, 2011, 

requiring the production of discovery, pending further order of this Court, or until the 

case is finally decided. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b). The Court requested that the real 

 

1

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is 

not required to do so.”); TEX. R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

parties in interest, Jose E. Garcia and Mary A. Garcia, by and through counsel, file a 

response to the petition for writ of mandamus. See id. R. 52.4, 52.8. 

On May 27, 2011, the parties to this original proceeding notified the Court that 

they had reached a settlement regarding the underlying litigation. Accordingly, they 

jointly requested that we abate this original proceeding for thirty days to allow them to 

prepare the final settlement and dismissal paperwork. The Court granted the motion 

and abated this original proceeding. We directed the parties to file an appropriate 

motion with the Court requesting consideration of this cause, the dismissal of this 

cause, or an extension of time to finalize the settlement. 

On June 29, 2011, relator filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this original 

proceeding on grounds that the parties have resolved and settled the underlying 

litigation. Relator requests that we dismiss the petition and order the parties to the 

proceeding to bear their own costs. 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the unopposed motion to 

dismiss, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted in part and denied in part. 

Accordingly, the stay previously imposed by this Court is LIFTED. See id. R. 52.10(b) 

(“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the 

case is finally decided.”). Relator’s motion is DENIED insofar as we do not issue 

judgments in conjunction with original proceedings, and accordingly, as a general rule, 

do not assess costs in such cases. See id. R. 43.4. Relator’s motion is GRANTED

insofar as we DISMISS this original proceeding without regard to the merits. 

 

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

12th day of July, 2011.
EXHIBIT 23

              Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

The Board of Directors and
Stockholders of Porta Systems Corp.
Syosset, New York

      We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectuses
constituting a part of the Registration Statements (Reg. No. 33-12146) on Form
S-8, (Reg. No. 33-41992) on Form S-8, (Reg. No. 333-48839) on Form S-3, (Reg.
No. 333-68321) on Form S-8, and (Reg. No. 333-72369) on Form S-8 of our report
dated March 15, 2000, except for Notes 2 and 6 as to which the date is April 10,
2000 as they relate to the Company's senior and subordinated debt, relating to
the consolidated financial statements of Porta Systems Corp. and subsidiaries
appearing in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 1999.

      We also consent to the reference to us under the caption  "Experts" in the
Prospectuses.

                                                  /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
                                                  ---------------------------
                                                  BDO SEIDMAN, LLP

Melville, New York
April 12, 2000
#### STATE et al. v. QUINTANA PETROLEUM CO. et al.

Motion No. 14283; No. 7634.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Jan. 3, 1940.

For former opinion, see 133 S.W.2d 112.

Gerald C. Mann, Atty. Gen., George W. Barcus and A. S. Rollins, Asst. Attys. Gen., and Hobart Huson, of Refugio, for the State.

Crain, Vandenberge & Stofer, of Victoria, for plaintiff in error O'Connor.

Harry Holmes, of Houston, for defendant in error Quintana Petroleum Co.

K. W. Gilmore, of Houston, for defendant in error Humble Oil & Refining Co.

Sanders & Scott, of Amarillo, amici curiae.

SMEDLEY, Commissioner.

In motion for rehearing filed in behalf of the State of Texas by the Attorney General it is argued that the judgment rendered herein, affirming the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals, Quintana Petroleum Co. v. State, 127 S.W.2d 354, is inconsistent with what is said in the opinion filed herein on November 22, 1939, State v. Quintana Petroleum Co., Tex.Sup., 133 S.W.2d 112, as to the nature of the interests granted to the lessee and reserved by the lessor and the method of assessing and valuing such interests for taxation. This argument seems to grow out of a construction placed by the State’s Attorney upon the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals and the assumption that affirmance by the Supreme Court of the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals amounts to an approval of what is said in the opinion of that court.

To prevent misconception of the effect or meaning of the affirmance of the judgment rendered by the Court of Civil Appeals and without intimating that the construction placed on the opinion of that court in said motion for rehearing is either correct or incorrect, we deem it sufficient to say that the affirmance of the judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals was not intended as an approval of the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals as that opinion is construed in the said motion for rehearing, but the said judgment was affirmed for the reasons stated and on the conclusions expressed in the opinion filed herein on November 22, 1939. With this explanation, the said motion for rehearing is overruled.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.
Exhibit








Exhibit 10.02
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO
THE E.W. SCRIPPS COMPANY 
2010 LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN
The E. W. Scripps Company 2010 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as previously amended and restated as of February 24, 2015 (the “Plan”) is amended, effective February 21, 2017, as follows:
1.    Section 18 of the Plan is hereby superseded and replaced in its entirety as set forth below:
“Section 18.    Withholding Taxes.  To the extent required by Applicable Law, a Participant shall be required to satisfy, in a manner satisfactory to the Company or Subsidiary, as applicable, any withholding tax obligations that arise by reason of a Stock Option or SAR exercise, the vesting of or settlement of Shares under an Award, an election pursuant to Section 83(b) of the Code or otherwise with respect to an Award. The Company and its Subsidiaries shall not be required to issue or deliver Shares, make any payment or to recognize the transfer or disposition of Shares until such obligations are satisfied. The Committee may permit or require these obligations to be satisfied by having the Company withhold a portion of the Shares that otherwise would be issued or delivered to a Participant upon exercise of the Stock Option or SAR or upon the vesting or settlement of an Award, or by tendering Shares previously acquired, provided that in no event shall the value of any Shares so withheld exceed the amount of taxes required to be withheld based on the maximum statutory tax rates in the Participant’s applicable taxing jurisdictions. Any such elections are subject to such conditions or procedures as may be established by the Committee and may be subject to disapproval by the Committee.”
2.    Except as explicitly set forth herein, the Plan will remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned authorized officer of The E. W. Scripps Company the (“Company”) hereby certifies that this amendment to the Plan was approved and adopted by the Board of Directors of the Company effective February 21, 2017, and, therefore, the Company has caused this amendment to the Plan to be executed this 21st day of February, 2017. 
THE E.W. SCRIPPS COMPANY


By:      /s/ Julie L. McGehee       
Julie L. McGehee, ESQ
Secretary and Vice President
## Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

In re Jamie Lee Bledsoe

No. 06

- 22

- 00102

- CR Original Mandamus Proceeding

Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice

van Cleef

, Chief Justice Morriss and Justice

Stevens participating

.

A s stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find that Relator is not entitled to the relief

sought. Therefore, we deny the petition.

RENDERED AUGUST 4 , 2022

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
Exhibit31.01

 

Certificationof Chief Executive Officer

Pursuantto Exchange Act Rule 13a-15f

** **

I, Donald Barnes, Chief Executive Officerof Presidential Life Corporation certify that:

 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, 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; and

 

(b) Designed such internal controlover financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to providereasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and

 

(c) Evaluated the effectivenessof the company's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(d) Disclosed in this report anychange in the company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual reportthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over financial reporting.

 

 

(a) All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the company'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 the company's internal control over financial reporting.
ATTACHMENT	A	

AEROSERVICIO	PILOT	PERSONNEL

Position Name

Mexican 

Licence 

Number

Capitan Lopez Pradis Rodrigo 200400443

Capitan Ramirez Hernandez Hermes 200602004

Capitan Montemayor Ramos Jesus Eduardo 201116904

Capitan Ricaño Alcazar Daniel Enrique 200501555

Capitan Marquez Zavala Jose Carlos 200103447

Capitan Onofre Sanchez Jesus Fernando 200700379

Copiloto Melendez Valdez Mario Eduardo 200201210

Copiloto Escorza Mejia Enrique 201217853

Copiloto Lopez Lopez Marco Miguel 200500275

Copiloto Palacios Becerril Luis Antonio 201118780

Copiloto Villalobos Moreno Josue 201217755

Copiloto Rito Serrano Luis Ignacio 201218760
#### GEORG v. STATE.

No. 18525.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 10, 1936.

Jos. V. Frnka, of Columbus, for appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

Disturbing the peace is the offense; penalty assessed at a fine of $25.

The transcript in the present instance shows that the prosecution was instituted in the justice court, precinct No. 5, Colorado county, Tex., where a jury found appellant guilty and assessed against him a fine of $5 and costs. An appeal was taken to the county court, and upon a trial de novo in that court, appellant was found guilty and his punishment fixed at a fine of $25. From his conviction in the county court appellant appeals to this court.

This case having been appealed from an inferior court to the county court and the fine imposed in that court not exceeding $100, it could not be appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeals by reason of article 53, C.C.P.1925. There are many decisions to the effect that the Court of Criminal Appeals is without jurisdiction in cases apr pealed from the justice court to the county court in which the fine imposed is less than $100. See Alkek v. State, 113 Tex.Cr.R. 400, 22 S.W.(2d) 454; Nichols v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 84 S.W.(2d) 725; Lindley v. State (Tex.Cr.App.) 55 S.W.(2d) 846; and other cases cited in Vernon’s Ann.C.C.P., 1925, vol. 1, art, 53, and notes thereunder.

The appeal is dismissed.
Exhibit 99(b)





                                 EXHIBIT 99(b)

                       IMPORTANT FACTORS AND ASSUMPTIONS
                     REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS


These cautionary statements are  being made pursuant to the  provisions of the
Private Securities  Litigation Reform  Act of 1995  and with the  intention of
obtaining the  benefits of the "safe harbor" provisions of the Act.  Investors
are  cautioned  that any  forward-looking statements  made  by Portec  are not
guarantees of future performance and that actual results may differ materially
from those in  the forward-looking statements as a  result of various factors,
including:  customers' integration of products currently being supplied by the
Company; the success of Portec or its competitors in obtaining the business of
the  customer base;  the  ability to  pass on  increased  costs to  customers;
variations in currency-exchange  rates in view  of the Company's  non-domestic
business; labor relations at  Portec, its customers, and its  suppliers, which
may  affect the  continuous  supply of  product;  and the  ability  to improve
acquisitions' operations.

In making statements about  Portec's fiscal-1997 operating results, management
has assumed relatively  stable economic  conditions in the  United States  and
worldwide,  no unanticipated swings in the  business cycles affecting customer
industries, and  a  reasonable legislative  and  regulatory climate  in  those
countries where Portec does business.

Readers  are cautioned not to place undue reliance on Portec's forward-looking
statements, which speak only as of the date such statements are made.
#### GRACE v. STATE.

No. 17907.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 12, 1936.

Carney & Carney, of Atlanta, for. appellant.

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

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The offense is murder; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The indictment appears regular and properly presented. The record is before this court without statement of facts and bills of exception.

No error having been perceived, the judgment is affirmed.
Page 40 of 46

EXHIBIT 11

STATEMENT RE COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS

The following presents the computation of per share earnings reflecting the assumption that dilutive stock options are exercised.



|                                                  |  | (IN THOUSANDSEXCEPT PER SHARE DATA) |       
|------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------------- | ------
|                                                  |  | 2005                                |       
|                                                  |  |                                     |       
|Net earnings (1)                                  |  | $                                   | 18,967
|                                                  |  |                                     |       
|                                                  |  |                                     |       
|                                                  |  |                                     |       
|Weighted average common shares outstanding (2)    |  |                                     | 6,826 
|                                                  |  |                                     |       
|Common share equivalents relating to stockoptions |  |                                     | 1     
|                                                  |  |                                     |       
|Adjusted common and common equivalent             |  |                                     |       
|shares for computation (3)                        |  |                                     | 6,827 
|                                                  |  |                                     |       
|                                                  |  |                                     |       
|                                                  |  |                                     |       
|Net earnings per share:                           |  |                                     |       
|Basic  (1/2)                                      |  | $                                   | 2.78  
|Diluted (1/3)                                     |  | $                                   | 2.78  

---
#### DALLAS JOINT STOCK LAND BANK OF DALLAS v. D. E. MAGEE.

No. 2299 — 7463.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section A.

Feb. 28, 1940.

Lawther, Cramer, Perry & Johnson, of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.

Slay & Simon, of Fort Worth, for defendant in error.

HICKMAN, Commissioner.

We had a mistaken view of the record when w'e granted the writ in this case. A careful consideration thereof, after submission, in connection with the application and briefs, has led us to the conclusion that the opinion of the Court of Civil Appeals, reported in 117 S.W.2d 473, is correct, and should be permitted to stand. It is accordingly approved. Any further writing on the case could hardly be justified.

The judgment of the Court of Civil Appeals is affirmed.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-23-00051-CR

DAMIEN TYRONE ADKISON,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 19th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-1327-C1

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Damien Tyrone Adkison was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a child and 

indecency with a child by contact and sentenced to 37 years and five years in prison, 

respectively. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.

Adkison’s appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and an Anders brief in 

support of the motion asserting that he has diligently reviewed the appellate record and 

that, in his opinion, the appeal is frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 

1396, 18 L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Counsel's brief evidences a professional evaluation of the 
Adkison v. State Page 2

record for error and compliance with the other duties of appointed counsel. We conclude 

that counsel has performed the duties required of appointed counsel. See Anders, 386 U.S. 

at 744; High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807, 812 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978); see also Kelly v. State, 436 

S.W.3d 313, 319-320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); In re Schulman, 252 S.W.3d 403, 407 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2008).

In reviewing an Anders appeal, we must, "after a full examination of all the 

proceedings, ... decide whether the case is wholly frivolous." Anders, 386 U.S. at 744; see 

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80, 109 S. Ct. 346, 102 L. Ed. 2d 300 (1988); accord Stafford v. 

State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 509-11 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). An appeal is "wholly frivolous" or 

"without merit" when it "lacks any basis in law or fact." McCoy v. Court of Appeals, 486 

U.S. 429, 439 n. 10, 108 S. Ct. 1895, 100 L. Ed. 2d 440 (1988). After a review of the entire 

record in this appeal, we have determined the appeal to be wholly frivolous. See Bledsoe 

v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 826-27 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). Accordingly, we affirm the trial 

court's judgment. 

Counsel's motion to withdraw from representation of Adkison is granted. 

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson, and

Justice Smith

Affirmed; motion granted

Opinion delivered and filed November 9, 2023

Do not publish 

[CRPM]
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Appalachian States Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission

      ( print page 81039)    

# TIME AND DATE: 

10 a.m.-12:30 p.m. November 1, 2024

# PLACE: 

Harrisburg Hilton and Towers. One North Second Street, Harrisburg, PA 17101/Virtually via MS Teams.

# STATUS: 

The meeting will be open to the public.

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

*Portions Open to the Public:*                         The primary purpose of this meeting is to (1) Review the independent auditors' report of the Commission's financial statements for fiscal year 2023-2024; (2) Review the Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW) disposal information for 2023; (3) Consider a proposed revised budget for fiscal year 2024-2025 and a proposed budget for fiscal year 2025-2026; (4) Review the status of commercial LLRW disposal facilities and recent developments; (5) Review and Discuss proposed changes to the bylaws; and (6) Elect the Commission's Officers.                    

*Portions Closed to the Public:*                         Executive Session, if deemed necessary, will be announced at the meeting.                    

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

Rich Janati, Administrator of the Commission at 717.787.2480.

Rich Janati,

Administrator, Appalachian States Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission.

[FR Doc. 2024-22126 Filed 10-4-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P