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

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-15-00247-CR

JEFFERY LEE MANNS APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM THE 396TH DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

TRIAL COURT NO. 1213452D

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

Appellant Jeffery Lee Manns attempts to appeal from the denial of his 

motion for DNA testing. The trial court entered its order denying the motion on 

March 13, 2015. Appellant’s notice of appeal was therefore due on April 13, 

2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.2(a)(1). Appellant mailed his notice of appeal on 

or about July 2, 2015, which was received by the trial court on July 15, 2015.

 1

See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

On July 24, 2015, we notified Appellant of our concern that we lacked 

jurisdiction over this appeal. We stated that unless any party desiring to continue 

the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal, the 

appeal may be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 44.3. 

Appellant and his counsel filed responses, but they do not show grounds for 

continuing the appeal. 

Appellant states that he did not receive notice of the trial court’s order until 

June 9, 2015, and that he filed his notice of appeal within thirty days of that 

notice. The rules of appellate procedure set out rules that must be followed to 

invoke this court’s jurisdiction over an appeal. White v. State, 61 S.W.3d 424, 

428–29 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). If the jurisdiction of a court of appeals is not 

properly invoked, the power of the appellate court to act is as absent as if it did 

not exist. Id. Appellate jurisdiction is invoked by giving timely and proper notice 

of appeal. Id. Although Appellant may not have received timely notice of the trial 

court’s order, we cannot suspend the rules of appellate procedure to extend the 

time for filing a notice of appeal. See Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 209 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1998). Because Appellant did not timely file his notice of appeal, we 

have no jurisdiction over this appeal. See id. 

Absent appellate jurisdiction, we can take no action other than to dismiss 

the appeal. See id.; see also Bevers v. State, No. 02-04-00464-CR, 2004 WL 

2568099, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Nov. 12, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op., not 

designated for publication) (dismissing untimely appeal and noting that a writ of 
3

habeas corpus from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals is the appropriate 

means of seeking an out-of-time appeal). Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for 

want of jurisdiction. 

/s/ Lee Gabriel

LEE GABRIEL

JUSTICE

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; GABRIEL and SUDDERTH, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: October 8, 2015
No. 09-9459.

#### Carolyn E. O’Connor, Petitioner v. United States.

560 U.S. 902, 130 S. Ct. 3312,

176 L. Ed. 2d 1181,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3961.

May 17, 2010.

Motion of petitioner for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis denied.
No. 09-8930.

#### Curtis Windom, Petitioner v. Walter A. McNeil, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, et al.

559 U.S. 1051, 130 S. Ct. 2367,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3040.

176 L. Ed. 2d 566,

April 5, 2010.

Petition for writ of certio-rari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 578 F.3d 1227.
No. 09-858.

#### John Stephen Woodward, Petitioner v. Minnesota.

559 U.S. 1007, 130 S. Ct. 1897,

176 L. Ed. 2d 366,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 2684.

March 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Minnesota denied.
Exhibit 10.24

 

ATTACHMENT A

 

ELEVENTH AMENDMENT (2010-1) TO THE

PENSION PLAN FOR EMPLOYEES OF AMPHENOL CORPORATION
 AS AMENDED AND RESTATED EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2002

 

Pursuant to Section 12.1 of the Pension Plan for Employees of Amphenol Corporation as amended and restated effective January 1, 2002 (the “Plan”), the Plan is hereby amended as follows:

 

1.             Effective December 1, 2010, Section 4.1(a)(1) of Exhibit H (Sidney Hourly: Accrued Benefit) is amended by (a) adding the following new subsection (i), (b) substituting the following subsection (ii) for the existing subsection (i), and (c) renumbering existing subsections (ii) — (x) as subsections (iii) — (xi).  As amended, the provision reads as follows:

 

(i)            $37.00 for Participants terminating employment in the Eligible Class on or after December 1, 2010;

 

(ii)           $34.00 for Participants terminating employment in the Eligible Class on or after January 1, 2008, but prior to December 1, 2010;

 

(iii)          $30.00 for Participants terminating employment in the Eligible Class on or after January 1, 2005, but prior to January 1, 2008;

 

(iv)          $26.50 for Participants terminating employment in the Eligible Class on or after January 1, 2002, but prior to January 1, 2005;

 

(v)           $23.50 for Participants terminating employment in the Eligible Class on or after January 1, 1999, but prior to January 1, 2002;

 

(vi)          $20.50 for Participants terminating employment in the Eligible Class on or after November 1, 1997 but prior to January 1, 1999;

 

(vii)         $20.00 for Participants terminating employment in the Eligible Class on or after November 1, 1996 but prior to November 1, 1997;

 

(viii)        $19.00 for Participants terminating employment in the Eligible Class subsequent to October 31, 1993 but prior to November 1, 1996;

 

(ix)           $18.50 for Participants terminating employment in the Eligible Class subsequent to October 31, 1990 but prior to November 1, 1993;

 

(x)            $18.00 for Participants terminating employment in the Eligible Class subsequent to November 4, 1989 but prior to November 1, 1990; or

 











 

(xi)           $17.00 for Participants terminating employment in the Eligible Class subsequent to October 31, 1987 but prior to November 5, 1989.

 

2
CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT

                                       of

                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION

                                       of

                           INSIGNIA/ESG HOLDINGS, INC.


             Pursuant to Section 242 of the General Corporation Law



                 
     The undersigned, being the Secretary of Insignia/ESG Holdings, Inc., hereby
certify as follows:
                 
     FIRST: The name of the Corporation is Insignia/ESG Holdings, Inc.
                
     SECOND: The Certificate of Incorporation of Insignia/ESG Holdings, Inc. was
filed  with the  Secretary  of State of  Delaware  on the 6th day of May,  1998.

     THIRD:  The  Certificate of  Incorporation  is hereby amended to change the
name of the  Corporation  to Insignia  Financial  Group,  Inc.  To reflect  such
amendment,  Article FIRST of the Certificate of  Incorporation is hereby amended
to read as follows:  

          "FIRST: The name of the Corporation is Insignia Financial Group, Inc."

     FOURTH: The foregoing amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation will be
effective as of October 30, 1998.
                  
     FIFTH: The foregoing amendment to the Certificate of Incorporation has been
duly adopted in accordance with Section 242 of the General Corporation Law.


<PAGE>

                                        2
4440/39038-088  NYLIB2/554890 v1                09/03/98  09:30 AM  (10559)

          IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  the undersigned has executed this Certificate of
     Amendment  and  affirmed  that the  statements  made  herein are true under
     penalties    of   perjury    this    16th   day   of    October,    1998.
  
     


                                        /s/Adam B. Gilbert
                                         ------------------
                                         Adam B. Gilbert
                                         Secretary
11 TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND , TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Bobby Sewell, * From the 161st District Court of Ector County, Trial Court No. B

- 16

- 10

- 0948

- CV.

Vs. No. 11

- 1 9

- 00 121

- C V * April 30 , 20 2 1

City of Odessa, DC Oris, Jesse Duarte

, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey

, C. J. Daryl Smith, Leslie Goodson, (P anel consists of: Bailey , C.J., Joe Barrera, and Bill Carpenter, W illiams, J.

, and Wright, S.C.J., sitting by assignment) (Trotter, J., not participating)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opi nion,

the judgment of the tr ia l court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by

reason of this appeal are taxed against Bobby Sewell

.
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 151 (Thursday, August 6, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42063-42064]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21015]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


National Register of Historic Places; Request for Comments; 
Eastern Greene Township Rural Historic District; Determination of 
Eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places

    On February 24, 1995, the Eastern Greene Township Rural Historic 
District, Franklin County, Pennsylvania was determined eligible for the 
National Register of Historic Places for its historic and architectural 
importance, following a request from the Federal Highway 
Administration. The district consists of a landscape farmed 
continuously since the eighteenth century and reflects the agricultural 
patterns of the rich Cumberland Valley. Important features found in the 
district include intact farmsteads, with their significant collection 
of barns, farmhouses and outbuildings, the field patterns, fencerows, 
family cemeteries, and the network of the historic farm roads. The 
finding of eligibility was based upon review of documentation submitted 
by the Federal Highway Administration, the Pennsylvania Historical and 
Museum Commission, and Greene Township. All agreed that the historic 
district is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
    Since the determination of eligibility was issued, the National 
Park Service has received a request that the boundary

[[Page 42064]]

of the district be redrawn to exclude lands located within the Borough 
of Chambersburg, based upon a claimed loss of historic integrity of the 
area. Documentation relative to the historic integrity of this portion 
of the district was submitted to the National Register. Copies of this 
documentation are available from the National Register at the address 
below. In order to accommodate those who wish to provide new 
information concerning the boundary of the Eastern Greene Township 
Rural Historic District, the National Park Service is providing a 60 
day comment period. A written statement on the determination of 
eligibility will be issued by the National Park Service within 30 days 
of the close of the comment period.
    The determination of eligibility remains in effect pending review 
of responses submitted during the comment period. In order to revise 
the boundary the National Park Service must receive authoritative 
information, which evaluated in conjunction with documentation already 
on file, results in a finding that the determined eligible boundary 
does not accurately delineate the historic district in accordance with 
established National Register standards.
    Comments should be addressed to the National Register of Historic 
Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St., N.W., Room NC400, 
Washington, D.C. 200240.
Carol D. Shull,
Keeper of the National Register of Historic Places, National Register, 
History and Education.
[FR Doc. 98-21015 Filed 8-5-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
No. 09-9582.

#### Corey Mims, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1081, 130 S. Ct. 2122,

176 L. Ed. 2d 746,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3201.

April 19, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit denied.

Same case below, 360 Fed. Appx. 88.
#### Decouteau v. 4th Judicial Dist. Ct.

OP 16-0725

12/07/16

Denied

Original Proceeding Supervisory Control
SERVED: AUGUST 4, 2014 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AERO MICRONESIA 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-2012- 0468 

IN THE MATTER OF 

AERO MICRONESIA 

FAA DOCKET NO. [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

FDMS NO. FAA-20i2- 0469 

HEARING NOTICE 

..... 'l 

< ~ .. -~ ~; f'"' . .-:_; ---· ·-., 

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that testimony and evidence will be heard and considered 

on December 1, 2 and 3, 2()14, inclusive, in the U.S. District Court, District of Hawaii 

300 Ala Moana Blvd., Honolulu, Hawaii 968501

• Hearings will commence at 9:00 a.m. 

and conclude at 4.:00 p.m. each day. The parties shall vacate the courthouse on or before . 

5:00 p;m. each day. 

Counsel may present the cases in any sequence them deem appropriate. Administrative 

matters should be brought to the attention of Pat Matthews, Staff Assistant [202-366-

5121], Patricia.Matthews@dot.gov. 

~---f· -. ~~-···--(4/ / .;.:. ·. .,_. . ! '\ ( , .. ..., ~-' w ~ 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 

1 As of the date ofthis notice a courtroom has not been assigned. Parties should check the Court Calendar 

the day of the hearing for the exact courtroom. The parties may also check with the Clerk's Office. 
I , 

CORRECTED 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

David M. Kirstein and Lyndsey M. Grunewald 

Kirstein & Young, PLLC, Respondent's Counsel 

1750 K Street, N.W., Suite 200 

Washington, DC 20006 

TEL: 202-331-3348 

FAX: 202-331-3933 

Michael R. Quinn, President 

Aero Micronesia, Inc. dba Asia Pacific Airlines, Inc., Respondent 

156 Diablo Road, Suite 203 

Danville, CA 94526 

TEL: 925-362-4430 

FAX: 925-362-4432 

Don Bobertz, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, A WP-7 

PO Box 92007 

Los Angeles, CA 90009-2007 

TEL: 310-725-3454 

FAX: 310-725-6816 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office ofHearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

FDMS NOS. FAA-2012-0468 

& FAA-2012-0469 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
406 P.2d 745

#### STATE of Arizona, Appellee, v. Talman ANDRESS, Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CR 18.

Court of Appeals of Arizona.

Oct. 20, 1965.

Darrell F. Smith, Atty. Gen., Gary K. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Phoenix, for appellee.

Sheldon Stern, Phoenix, for appellant.

HATHAWAY, Judge.

The appellant was charged with aggravated assault and bound over to the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, on October 8, 1964. The offense charged was subsequently reduced to malicious mischief and the appellant entered a guilty plea thereto. He was fined $200 and sentenced to six months imprisonment in the county jail.

The appellant bases his appeal on the grounds that the six months jail sentence, together with a fine in the sum of $200, is excessive and constitutes an abuse of the trial court’s discretion. He urges this court to modify the judgment under the authority of A.R.S. § 13-1717, subsec. B.

The facts of the case which appellant sets forth in his brief show that his conviction had evolved from the tossing of a “cherry bomb” from an automobile, in which he was riding with two companions, into another moving vehicle.. The exploding missile caused burns to the driver of the other vehicle, for which he received hospital treatment.

It is well settled in this jurisdiction that if sentence upon conviction of a crime is within the limits of the penalty prescribed by appropriate statute, it will not be revised or reduced on appeal unless it clearly appears the sentence imposed is excessive, resulting in an abuse of discretion. State v. Sowards, 98 Ariz. -, 406 P.2d 202, filed September 24, 1965; State v. Morris, 97 Ariz. 417, 401 P.2d 147 (1965); State v. Salinas, 95 Ariz. 62, 386 P.2d 790 (1963); State v. Buckmaster, 94 Ariz. 314, 383 P.2d 869 (1963); State v. Castano, 89 Ariz. 231, 360 P.2d 479 (1961). As stated by our Supreme Court in State v. Maberry, 93 Ariz. 306, 380 P.2d 604 (1963):

> “Because a defendant appears in person before the trial judge, the trial judge is, in most instances, better able than we to evaluate him and to determine what .is necessary to rehabilitate him to constructive activity. It is for this reason that the legislature has given the trial court wide discretion to sentence a defendant for a period somewhere between a statutory minimum and a statutory maximum. * * We have traditionally been prone to uphold a sentence declared by a trial *111judge when it is in conformity with the statute and there is no clear evidence that he has abused his power in the particular case.”

Admitting in his brief that his record “ * * * surely leaves something to be desired * * *,” appellant points out that he is now engaged to be married and is a student at Phoenix College. The record before us reveals no abuse of discretion by the trial judge in the imposition of sentence. Appellant was represented by counsel throughout the proceedings and received a sentence which is within the limits prescribed by A.R.S. § 13-1645.

Judgment affirmed.

NOTE: This cause was decided by the Judges of Division Two as authorized by § 12-120, subsec. E.

KRUCKER, C. J., and MOLLOY, J., concurring.
**Exhibit 32.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350****AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**     I, Frank T. Sample, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant toSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of Visicu, Inc. on Form10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2006 fully complies with the requirements ofsection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained insuch Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of Visicu, Inc.       Dated: November 3, 2006 By: /s/ Frank T. Sample Frank T. Sample      President, Chief Executive Officer and      Chairman of the Board of Directors
Letter extending the Management Agreement Graham Capital Management L.P.



 Exhibit 10.4(a) 
 June 1, 2011 
 Graham Capital Management, L.P. 

Rock Ledge Financial Center 
 40 Highland Avenue

 Rowayton, CT 06853 
 Attention:
Mr. Paul Sedlack 
 Re: Management Agreement Renewals 
 Dear Mr. Sedlack: 
 We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the
commodity pools to which reference is made below (the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2012 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged.

  

	 	•	 	 Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P. II 



 

	 	•	 	 Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II 


  

	 	•	 	 CMF Graham Capital Master Fund L.P. 


 Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Ms. Jennifer Magro at the address above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any
questions I can be reached at 212-296-1302. 
 Very truly yours, 
 CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC 
  

			
	By:	 	/s/ Jennifer Magro
		 	Jennifer Magro
		 	Chief Financial Officer and Director
		
	By:	 	/s/ Paul Sedlack
	
	Print Name: Paul Sedlack

 JM/sr
No. 09-9816.

#### Juan David Segura-Lopez, Petitioner v. United States.

559 U.S. 1100, 130 S. Ct. 2391,

176 L. Ed. 2d 782,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 3657.

April 26, 2010.

Petition for writ of cer-tiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 358 Fed. Appx. 557.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40723

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOSE ARMANDO FRANCO-MURILLO, also known as Jose Franco-Murillo,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:11-CR-84-1

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jose Armando

Franco-Murillo has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v.

Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Franco-Murillo has not filed a response. 

We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record

reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents

no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 17, 2012

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-40723 Document: 00511824077 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/17/2012
No. 11-40723

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

2

Case: 11-40723 Document: 00511824077 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/17/2012