alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 12-09-00053-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

FERRELL SCOTT, § APPEAL FROM THE 114TH

APPELLANT

V. § JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Appellant was convicted of murder

for which sentence was imposed on November 5, 1992. He subsequently filed a motion for DNA

testing, which the trial court denied by written order signed on August 27, 2008. Appellant now

seeks to appeal his conviction and sentence as well as the denial of his motion for DNA testing. We

dismiss for want of jurisdiction. 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2 provides that an appeal is perfected when notice of

appeal is filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or

after the day the trial court enters an appealable order. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1). When a timely

motion for new trial has been filed, notice of appeal shall be filed within ninety days after the

sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(2). Appellant did not file

a motion for new trial. Therefore, his notice of appeal from his conviction and sentence was due on

or before December 5, 1992, and his notice of appeal from the order denying his motion for DNA

testing was due on or before September 26, 2008. However, Appellant did not file his notice of

appeal until February 18, 2009 and did not file a motion for extension of time to file his notice of

appeal as permitted by Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.3. See TEX.R. APP. P. 26.3 (appellate

court may extend time for filing notice of appeal if, within fifteen days after deadline for filing notice
2

of appeal, appellant files notice of appeal in trial court and motion complying with Texas Rule of

Appellate Procedure 10.5(b) in appellate court). Moreover, on December 28, 1994, this court

affirmed Appellant’s conviction for murder. See Scott v. State, 894 S.W.2d 810 (Tex. App.–Tyler

1994, pet. ref’d). 

On February 20, 2009, this court notified Appellant that the information received in this

appeal does not show the jurisdiction of this court. Appellant was further notified that the appeal

would be dismissed unless the information was amended, on or before March 2, 2009, to show this

court’sjurisdiction. Appellant’s counsel responded that he does not oppose dismissal of the appeal.

Based upon the foregoing analysis, we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction of this

appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered March 11, 2009.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
|WELLS FARGO(logo) | CMBS Department
MAC N9401-011
1055 10th Avenue SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414
|----------------- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------





Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc.

1585 BROADWAY

NEW YORK, New York 10036-8200



RE:      Annual Statement of Compliance for
Morgan Stanley Capital I Inc. Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2012-C5



Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of July 1, 2012 (the "Agreement"),
the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Custodian ("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies
as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2016 (the "Reporting Period"):



(a)A
review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made
under such officer's supervision; and



(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge,
based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout
the Reporting Period.



February 27, 2017





|/s/
    GAIL VANNEST | 
|-------------------- | 
|GAIL VANNEST         | 
|Vice
    President   | 



|Wells
    Fargo Bank, N.A. | 
|-------------------------- |
NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF NAF RETIREMENT PLANS

To verify service subject to a Nonappropriated Fund (NAF) retirement plan and/or that an individual

was a participant in the NAF retirement plan, contact the appropriate NAF Component

Names of Retirement Plan Address

United States Army Nonappropriated

Fund Employee Retirement Plan

US Army Community & Family Support Center

 NAF Employee Benefits Office

4700 King Street

Alexandria, VA 22302-4407

Phone: 1-877-384-2340

Fax: (703) 681-7369

Web Site: www.NAFBENEFITS.com

E-Mail: nafbenefit@cfsc.army.mil

United States Air Force Nonappropriated

Fund Retirement Plan for Civilian

Employees

HQ Air Force Services Agency

HQ AFSVA/SVXBR

10100 Reunion Place, Suite 502

San Antonio, TX 78216-4318

Phone: (210) 652-2834 (DSN 487)

Fax: (210) 652-2610 (DSN 487)

E-Mail: Barbara.bonnell@agency.afsv.af.mil

Retirement Plan for Nonappropriated

Fund Civilian Employees of U.S. Marine

Corps Community Service Activities, the

Personal and Family Readiness Division

and Miscellaneous NAFs

Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps

Personal and Family Readiness Division

3044 Catlin Avenue

Quantico, VA 22134-5099

Phone: (703) 784-3879 (DSN 278)

Fax: (703) 784-3761

E-Mail: terry.white@usmc-mccs.org

Bureau of Naval Personnel Retirement

Plan

Naval Personnel Command (PERS-65)

Morale, Welfare & Recreation Division

5720 Integrity Drive

Millington, TN 38055-6530

Phone: (901) 874-6715

Fax: (901) 874-6844

E-Mail: eucile.ballenger@persnet.navy.mil

Navy Exchange Service Command

(NEXCOM) Retirement Plan for Civilian

Employees

Navy Exchange Service Command

3280 Virginia Beach Boulevard

Virginia Beach, VA 23452

Phone: (757) 440-4728

Fax: (757) 440-4503

E-Mail: William_m_giles@nexnet.navy.mil

Retirement Annuity Plan for Employees

of the Army and Air Force

Exchange Service (AAFES)

Headquarters, Army and Air Force Exchange Service

FA-T (Benefits)

P.O. Box 650428

Dallas, TX 75865-0428

Phone: 1-800-519-3381

Fax: (214) 312-3596

E-mail: benefits@aafes.com

U.S. Coast Guard Commandant (G-WPC-6)

2100 2nd Street SW, Room 6306

Washington, DC 20593

Phone: (202) 267-1342

Fax: (202) 267-4580

E-mail: cbozeman@comdt.uscg.mil
#### SANDERS et al. v. LOWRIMORE et al.

No. 1286.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Oct. 1, 1937.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 22, 1937.

L. R. Pearson and W. S. Adamson, both of Ranger, for appellants.

R. N. Grisham, of Tyler, for appellees.

FUNDERBURK, Justice.

At a former term this court reversed and remanded this cause, as shown by the opinion of the court. Sanders v. Lowrimore, 73 S.W.(2d) 148. The judgment rendered in accordance with said opinion was reversed by the Supreme Court. Lowrimore v. Sanders, 103 S.W.(2d) 739. The opinion of the Supreme Court would have required that the judgment of the trial court be affirmed, but for its conclusion reached upon consideration of a motion for rehearing that the Court of Civil Appeals had omitted to pass upon a duly presented question of the excessiveness of the verdict. Because that question was one over which the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to determine under the facts shown by the record, the. court reconsidered its original opinion and set aside its judgment, in so far as it affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and, instead, ordered a remand of the case to this court to be finally disposed of accordingly as such disposition may be affected by our conclusion as to whether or not the verdict was excessive.

The verdict was for $15,000 damages. Included therein the jury was well warranted by the evidence in finding as an element thereof hospital charges and doctors’ fees in the sum of $2,300. If so, that fact would properly limit the inquiry to a question of whether there was evidence that the difference of $12,700 would be excessive, for permanent injury to a 26 year old attractive married woman, consisting of a shortening of one leg three or three and a half inches and an accompanyng atrophy of such member, the loss of the value of her services, and mental and physical suffering. In considering the question of excessiveness of the verdict, we should, of course, accept as true the evidence tending to support the verdict, and reject conflicting evidence tending to show excess. There was evidence to support the conclusion that Mrs. Lowrimore was in the hospital about one year. She was unable to work at the time of the trial, which was about three years after the occurrence of the accident. She suffered much physical pain during the year she was in the hospital, and was not entirely free from suffering at the time of the trial. There was evL dence to justify the inference that aside from physical pain- Mrs. Lowrimore must have greatly suffered mentally. •

*289It is not deemed of any benefit for us to state more particularly all the considerations which lead us to conclude that we are not warranted in disturbing the verdict on the ground of excessivenéss.

This conclusion, under the former opinion of this court, as modified by the opinion of the Supreme Court, requires that the judgment of the trial court'be affirmed, and it is accordingly so ordered.
#### Dora Watterman et al., *Respondents, v. David*Falk et al., Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

March 13, 1958.

*Abraham M. Feinslein*and *Julius Siegel*for appellants.

*Murray Rosof*for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

Upon the expiration of the original Term, the landlords were required to elect whether to treat the tenants as trespassers or as tenants from year to year *(Kennedy v. City of New York,*196 N. Y. 19). They permitted the tenants to remain in possession and accepted rent for the next four months at the rate stipulated in the lease. Absent proof of any other understanding between the parties, it must be presumed that the lease was renewed for another year at the same terms. (See *Cole*v. *Sanford, 77*Hun 198, and cases -there cited.)

*1075Final order unanimously modified on the law and facts by reducing landlords’ recovery for rent to $125 for the month commencing November 1, 1957, together with appropriate costs in the court below, and as so modified, affirmed, with $25 costs of this appeal to the tenants.

Pette, Hart and Di Giovanna, JJ,, concur.

Final order modified, etc.
----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**SECTION      1350 CERTIFICATION**

|   | (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 Abington                Bancorp. |

|   |   | /s/              Robert W. White                                              |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Robert                W. White                                                |   |
|   |   | Chairman,                President and Chief                Executive Officer |
|   |   | June                25, 2007                                                  |   |

*A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act has been provided to Abington Bancorp, Inc. and will be      retained by Abington Bancorp, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange      Commission or its staff upon request. *
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 14 - 00063 - CR WAYLON HOWARD SKINNE R, APPELLANT

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 30th District Court Wichita County, Texas Trial Court No. 51,845 -

A, Robert P. Brotherton, Presiding May 22 , 2014 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK, and PIRTLE, JJ. Waylon Howard Skinner pled guilty to aggravated assault causing bodily injury and, pursuant to a plea bargain, was placed on deferred adjudication for te n years. T he State subsequently moved to proceed with the adjudication of his guilt and alleged six different violation s of the terms and conditions of appellant’s community supervision. The motion was subsequently heard , and appellant pled true to five of the six alleged violations . Upon hearing evidence, t he trial court found all of the allegations to be true, adjudicated appellant’s guilt, and sentenced him to twelve years confinement. Appellant2

argues that the evidence is insufficient to support the allegation to which he failed to plead true. We affirm the judgment. Our review of an order adjudicating guilt is ordinarily limited to determining whether the tr ial court abused its discretion in determining that appellant violated the conditions of community supervision. Johnson v. State , 3 86 S.W.3d 347, 350 (Tex. App. — Amarillo 2012, no pet.). Furthermore, proof of only one violation is enough to support revoca tion. Garcia v. State , 387 S.W.3d 20, 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 2012) (stating that proof of a single violation will support revocation of probation). Here, appellant asserts that the State failed to prove the allegation to which he pled not true. Yet, he does not deny pleading true to the other five violations alleged in the motion to adjudicate guilt . Nor does he attack those pleas of true now or the trial court’s findings that the other five allegations were proven true. And, given that proof of only one v iolation supports a decision to adjudicate guilt, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the State’s motion, adjudicating appellant’s guilt, convicting appellant, and sentencing him. Accordingly, the sole issue before us is overruled, and the judgment is affirmed. Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish.
Exhibit 10.4


 





Form of Sales Agreement


 


	Customer: China National Forest Products Corp.	Contract No.:
	 	 
	Supplier: Zhejiang FLS Mushroom Co., Ltd	Signed at:


 


Contract Date:


 


1. Product, unit, quantity, price per unit,
and total amount


 


	No.	 	Product Name	 	Unit (Ton)	 	Quantity	 	Price Per Unit 

    (RMB)	 	Total Amount (RMB)	 	Note
	1	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	2	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	 
	Total amount (RMB) (including tax): 	 	 


 


2. Payment method and term: Customer shall
make the payment by bank’s acceptance bill or wire transfer.


 


3. Quality requirements: to meet the national
requirements for related agricultural products.


 


4. Place and method of delivery: the warehouse
in No. 888 Tianning Street, Lishui, Zhejiang. Customer is responsible for picking up.


 


5. Transportation and expenses: Customer picks
up the goods and bears the transportation costs.


 


6. Package standard and requirements: the packages
should be qualified for multiple loads and unloads and to endure long-distance transportation. Package standard is to ensure the
goods will reach destination safely and in undamaged condition with normal multiple loads and unloads.


 


7. Inspection standards and methods: to meet
the quality standard as required by Customer. If Customer does not express any disagreement on the quality upon receiving the goods,
it will be considered as qualified.


 


8. Financial responsibility: as required by
law, the governing law of this agreement is the law of signing place. This agreement will take effect as of the date of signing
and is binding to both parties. None of the parties could make changes to or terminate this agreement unilaterally within the execution
period of this agreement.


 


9. Others: if any other issues occur, supplemental
agreements can be added after negotiation between both parties. Supplemental agreement is equally effective as this agreement.


 




     


     


    

 


10. Effectiveness and changes: this agreement
will take effect once the seals of both parties are affixed. Any changes can be made with written consent of both parties.


 


For corporate chop:


 


	Customer	 	Supplier
	Name: China National Forest Products Corp.  	 	Name:  Zhejiang FLS Mushroom Co., Ltd  
	Address: No. 20 Anyuan Rd, Chaoyang District, Beijing, China	 	Address: No. 888 Tianning Street, Lishui, China
	Legal Representative: Zhan Lin	 	Legal Representative: Yefang Zhang
	Bank:	 	Bank:
	Account No.: 	 	Account No.:
	Tax No. 	 	Tax No. 
	Postcode:	 	Postcode:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 187 (Thursday, September 26, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 78967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21985]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

[Docket No. EP 290 (Sub-No. 5) (2024-4)]


Quarterly Rail Cost Adjustment Factor

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Approval of rail cost adjustment factor.

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

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board has adopted the fourth 
quarter 2024 Rail Cost Adjustment Factor and cost index filed by the 
Association of American Railroads.

DATES: Applicability Date: October 1, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pedro Ramirez, (202) 245-0333. If you 
require an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 
please call (202) 245-0245.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The rail cost adjustment factor (RCAF) is an 
index formulated to represent changes in railroad costs incurred by the 
nation's largest railroads over a specified period of time. The Surface 
Transportation Board (Board) is required by law to publish the RCAF on 
at least a quarterly basis. Each quarter, the Association of American 
Railroads computes three types of RCAF figures and submits those 
figures to the Board for approval. The Board has reviewed the 
submission and adopts the RCAF figures for the fourth quarter of 2024. 
The fourth quarter 2024 RCAF (Unadjusted) is 0.961. The fourth quarter 
2024 RCAF (Adjusted) is 0.375. The fourth quarter 2024 RCAF-5 is 0.354. 
Additional information is contained in the Board's decision, which is 
available at www.stb.gov.

    Decided: September 20, 2024.

    By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Primus, and Schultz.
Zantori Dickerson,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2024-21985 Filed 9-25-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
Attachment 5: OPEN FFS PLAN CONTACTS FOR ORDERING AUDIO 

CASSETTE TAPES OR CDs 

Plan 

Code 

Plan 

Name 

Material 

Type Contact Phone Fax 

47 APWU CDs Jennifer Simon (410)424-1507 (410)424-1572 

10 & 11 BCBS Audio Cassette Tapes Paula Spurway (202)942-1274 (202)942-1263 

31 GEHA CDs Bunny Kimbrough (816)257-5500 

ext. 5104 

(816)257-3333 

45 Mail Handlers Audio Cassette Tapes Gloria Gedrich (301)517-2032 (301)517-2127 

32 NALC Audio Cassette Tapes Kathleen Thomas (703)729-8104 (703)729-8109 

44 SAMBA CDs Sandy Webb (301)984-4122 (301)984-6224
---

EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICERANDCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERPURSUANT
TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Derek Page, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Sombrio Capital Corp., (the Company), hereby certify pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

| | (i)  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB, as amended by Amendment
        No. 1, of the Company for the quarter ended April 30, 2007 (the “Quarterly
        Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | ---- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                
| | (ii) | the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.                                                                                                                     

| | By:    | /s/ Derek Page             
| | ------ | ---------------------------
| | Name:  | Derek Page                 
| | Title: | Chief Executive Officer and
| |        | Chief Financial Officer    
| | Date:  | August 27, 2007            

---
Payroll Office Letter P-97-13 was not issued.
Exhibit
        32.1
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        PURSUANT TO**
 **18
        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**
 **AS
        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**
 **SECTION
        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**
  In
        connection with the annual report of Nacel Energy Corporation Inc. (the
        "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending December 31, 2007, as filed
        with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
        I, Brian Lavery, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
        Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
        1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
        that:
 
 (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 result of operations of the Company.
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, another
        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 the Company and
        will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
        Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 /s/ Brian
                    M.
                    LaveryBrian
                    LaveryChief Executive OfficerChief Financial OfficerFebruary 14, 2008
  20
EXHIBIT 10.2
 Second Amendment to the Second Amended and Restated
Airline Charter Associate Agreement
      AMENDMENTS
 Amendment Effective Date
 Term
  Ticketing Authority
 In-Kind Obligations Year 9 In-Kind Period
 General
 1




---



##### 



ORBITZ, LLC
    
    
    
    UNITED AIR LINES, INC./s/ Stephen C. Praven
    
    
    
    /s/ Jeff FolandName:  Stephen C. Praven
    
    
    
    Name:  Jeff FolandTitle:    VP, Business Development
    
    
    
    Title:    SVP  Worldwide Sales & Distribution
 2