alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

-- -- -- --

NO. 18-1104

CORA SUE SANCHEZ,

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS

REPRESENTATIVE OF THE

ESTATE OF ANTHONY TONY

SANCHEZ, JENNIFER PASOWICZ

AND JULIE MARIE SANCHEZ

v.

ROBERT'S TRUCK CENTER OF

TEXAS, LLC AND ROBERT'S

TRUCK CENTER HOLDING

COMPANY, LLC

§

§

§

§

§

§

Ector County,

7th District.

March 29, 2019

Petitioners' petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case,

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.



I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify

that the above is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of Texas in the case

numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of said Court under

the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioners, CORA SUE SANCHEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AND

AS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ANTHONY TONY SANCHEZ, JENNIFER

PASOWICZ AND JULIE MARIE SANCHEZ, pay all costs incurred on this petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this

the 9th day of May, 2019.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
ex10-21.htm


    
      

    

    Exhibit 10.21

    
October
15, 2009

    


    


    


    The
Honorable Gabrielle K. McDonald

    2001
Holcombe Boulevard, #3201

    Houston,
Texas 77030

    


    


    Dear
Judge McDonald:

    


    Supplemental
Agreement Providing an Extension to the

    Consulting
Agreement of November 1, 1999

    


    This
Supplemental Agreement refers to the consulting agreement of November 1, 1999
(the "Consulting Agreement"), as amended, with the undersigned, FM Services
Company (the "Company"), with respect to your performance of consulting services
for the Company and its subsidiaries and affiliates.

    


    By way of
this Supplemental Agreement, the Company would like to extend your Consulting
Agreement from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010.  All other
terms and conditions of the Consulting Agreement, as amended, shall remain
unchanged.

    


    Please
confirm that the foregoing correctly sets forth your understanding with respect
to this matter by signing both originals of this Supplemental Agreement and
returning one to me.

    


    Very
truly yours,

    


    


    /s/ Richard C.
Adkerson


    Richard
C. Adkerson

    Chairman
of the Board

    FM
Services Company

    


    


    AGREED
TO AND ACCEPTED:

    


    


    BY:           /s/ Gabrielle K.
McDonald                                                      

            The
Honorable Gabrielle K. McDonald

    


    DATE:               11/30/09
#### Erik P. Johnson, Plaintiff, v Ramin Ahmadi et al., Defendants, Staten Island University Hospital et al., Appellants, et al., Respondent.

[718 NYS2d 868]

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for wrongful death, the defendants Staten Island University Hospital and Henry McPherson appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (J. Leone, J.), dated February 8, 2000, as, in effect, granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Jeffrey Kalman which was to impose a sanction on their counsel pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 *et seq.*

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the appellants are not aggrieved by the portion of the order appealed from *(see,*CPLR 5511; *Scopelliti v Town of New Castle,*92 NY2d 944; *Iovino v Doe,*277 AD2d 353; *Caiola v Allcity Ins. Co.,*277 AD2d 273; *Tuthill v Town & Country Oil Corp.,*257 AD2d 618). Bracken, Acting P. J., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 32.2








PACIFIC STATE BANCORP





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 Quarterly Report of Pacific State Bancorp (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of his knowledge, that:





(1)
The Report fully complies with the requirements and 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











Date:  November 13, 2009


/S/ Justin R. Garner


Justin R. Garner


Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5026 Received in Senate (RDS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5026

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 28, 2006

                                Received

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To designate the Investigations Building of the Food and Drug 
  Administration located at 466 Fernandez Juncos Avenue in San Juan, 
             Puerto Rico, as the ``Andres Toro Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Investigations Building of the Food and Drug Administration 
located at 466 Fernandez Juncos Avenue in San Juan, Puerto Rico, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Andres Toro Building''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building referred to in 
section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Andres Toro 
Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives September 27, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                 KAREN L. HAAS,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Dylan M. KRZYZOPOLSKI, Appellant.

WD 80658

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Filed: March 13, 2018 Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied May 1, 2018

Kyle L. Kanable, Springfield, MO for appellant.

Richard A. Starnes, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before Division Three: Gary D. Witt, Presiding Judge, Lisa White Hardwick And Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judges

**ORDER**

Per Curiam

Dylan M. Krzyzopolski appeals his convictions for second-degree assault on a law enforcement officer and armed criminal action. He contends the circuit court erred in allowing the State to file a substituted information in lieu of indictment before opening statements because the substituted information rendered his defenses irrelevant. Upon review of the briefs and the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment. Because a published opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we have provided the parties with a Memorandum explaining the reasons for our decision.

AFFIRMED. Rule 30.25(b).
EXHIBIT 32.02








CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 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 Quarterly Report of Morgan Stanley Smith Barney Charter Campbell L.P. (the “Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christian Angstadt, Chief Financial Officer of Demeter Management LLC, the general partner of the Partnership, 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:




(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 Partnership.




























By:
/s/ Christian AngstadtName:
Christian AngstadtTitle:
Chief Financial Officer ofDemeter Management LLC,General Partner of the registrantDate:
August 12, 2010
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In
connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report of Syniverse Holdings, Inc. and Syniverse Technologies, Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 (the Report), I, David W. Hitchcock,
Chief Financial Officer of the Companies, 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 my knowledge:

(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
Companies.

Date: November 9, 2007

/s/ David W. HitchcockDavid W. HitchcockChief Financial Officer


The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
CHARLESTON.

#### F. C. Welch Company *v.*Barrett Machine Company.

(No. 6212)

Submitted September 25, 1928.

Decided October 2, 1928.

*Coffman & Morris,*for plaintiff in error.

*139Hatcher, Judge:

This action was instituted before a justice of the peace. There was no appearance by the defendant and the plaintiff' recovered judgment. Defendant perfected an appeal to the circuit court and then “specially appearing” moved to' quash the return. The court sustained the motion and dismissed the ease.

The ruling of the court was erroneous. The appeal was a voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of the court. It constituted a general appearance and was a waiver of any defect in the service of process. *Snyder*v. *Lyons,*94 W. Va. 489; *Smith*v. *Thompson,*85 W. Va. 364, 366. “If, in an action, pending before a justice of the peace, a judgment is rendered as upon default against a defendant who has not been duly served with a summons, and such defendant appears within ten days from the rendition of the judgment and presents an appeal-bond to be filed and approved by the justice, which is accordingly done, he thereby, appears in the action, and submits to the jurisdiction of the court, and cannot afterwards be allowed to deny such jurisdiction.” *Haas & Co.*v. *Lees,*18 Kan. 449; *Swingly*v. *Haynes,*22 Ill. 214; *Fee*v. *Iron Co.,*13 Ohio St. 563; *Cohn*v. *Clark,*48 Okla. 500, *Hauptman Co.*v. *Unverferth,*288 Mo. 52, 35 C. J. section 480, p. 784.

The judgment of the circuit court is accordingly reversed.

*Reversed.*
Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF INTERIM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
  1)
    
    such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months
ended March 31, 2011, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the
Company for the three months ended March 31, 2011, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Plumas Bancorp.
 Date: May 5, 2011
    
    /s/ Andrew J. Ryback

Andrew J. Ryback, Interim Chief Executive Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Form 10-KSB
for the year ended December 31, 1998. Balance Sheets, Statements of Operations,
Cash Flows and Notes to Statements and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such Financial Statements, Balance Sheets, Statements of Operations,
Statements of Cash Flow for the year ended December 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          48,466
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,071,188
<ALLOWANCES>                                   217,468
<INVENTORY>                                  4,872,424
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            12,619,197
<PP&E>                                      13,121,315
<DEPRECIATION>                                 733,522
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              29,754,996
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       32,819,366
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,193,000
<COMMON>                                         4,808
<OTHER-SE>                                 (5,393,362)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                29,754,996
<SALES>                                     20,291,655
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            20,291,655
<CGS>                                       17,678,066
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               17,678,066
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,195,153
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                51,246
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           5,193,069
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (14,825,879)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (14,825,879)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (14,825,879)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.65)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.65)
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE v. SAREE OSBORNE.

(Filed 14 March, 1928.)

Appeal by defendant from *Crammer, J.,*at October Term, 1927, of I/ENOIR.

Criminal prosecution tried upon a warrant charging the defendant with violations of the prohibition law.

From an adverse verdict and judgment pronounced thereon, the defendant noted an appeal.

*Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.*

*S. H. Newberry and Sutton & Greene for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

The State moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to docket in proper time. As the exceptions are without merit, the verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.
#### Henry Wilson *v.*Charles Harris *et al.*

(No. 7478)

Submitted October 18, 1932.

Decided October 25, 1932.

*654
      *Charles Ritchie*and *Philip H. Hill,*for relator..

*John J. D. Preston,*for respondents.

Woods, Judge:

By this proceeding, Henry Wilson, now a legal voter in voting precinct No. 49-A, in the city of Charleston, and who was formerly a legal voter at precinct No. 33, where he was duly registered as such and voted in the May, 1932, primary election, seeks to compel, by mandamus, Charles Harris and Katherine Cabell, registrars in said first named precinct to register him as a voter therein. The reason for refusing to register him, given by the respondents, is that he failed and ’refused to present to them a certificate of transfer, the issuance of which is provided for in section 8, article 2, chapter 3, Code 1931. Petitioner claims that a plain.duty rested upon the registrars (respondents) to register him without such certificate of transfer. The registrars were warranted in refusing petitioner registration, but not for the reasons given.

The registration laws contemplate but 'one registration of the voter in a county at the registration held before the election. When -that is done and he afterwards moves from the precinct where registered into another precinct in the county he cannot again be registered until he presents himself to the election officers of the precinct of his residence and presents to them the certificate of transfer as provided in said section 8, article 2, chapter 3, Code. He has no right to present the certificate of transfer to the registrars of the precinct to which he has removed and be registered; and the registrars have no authority to register him upon presentation to them of such certificate of transfer.

It was argued at the bar that such construction of the statutes as here given would place the registered voter who moved from the precinct where registered upon an inequality with other registered voters because the election eommis-*655sioners would have the power to refuse to register him, and refuse to allow him to vote upon presentation of the certificate of transfer, because in their opinion he was not a resident of that precinct. It is a serious offense arbitrarily to deprive a legally qualified citizen of the franchise of the ballot, and adequate penalties are prescribed. Besides, refusal on such ground is tantamount to a challenge of the voter’s right to vote, and section 25 of article 5 of said chapter must be 'Considered. That section provides that upon challenge by a commissioner or poll clerk of a registered voter of the precinct, or one who presents to the election commissioners a proper certificate of transfer from another precinct to the one in which he seeks to vote, the person challenged shall be permitted to vote; thus conserving to the voter who has been duly registered and who has removed from the precinct of original registration his equal status with other .legally registered voters.

*Writ demed.*
EXHIBIT 32.2




                 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 Quarterly Report of Dahua Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Hua Meng, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, 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.



/s/ Hua Meng
---------------------------------
Hua Meng, Chief Financial Officer
(principal accounting officer)

August 8, 2006
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.11

                                    GUARANTY

         This GUARANTY is made as of April 30, 2002 by NOBLE CORPORATION, a
Cayman Islands exempted company limited by shares (the "Company"), for the
benefit of Danny W. Adkins (the "Executive");

                                   WITNESSETH:

         WHEREAS, Noble Drilling Corporation, a Delaware corporation and an
indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of the Company ("Noble-Delaware"), has entered
into an Amended and Restated Employment Agreement with the Executive dated as of
the date hereof (the "Employment Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to guarantee the performance by
Noble-Delaware of its obligations under the Employment Agreement, and the Board
of Directors of the Company has determined that it is reasonable and prudent for
the Company to deliver this Guaranty and necessary to promote and ensure the
best interests of the Company and its Members;

         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises, the Company hereby
irrevocably and unconditionally guarantees, as primary obligor, the due and
punctual performance by Noble-Delaware of its agreements and obligations, all
and singular, under the Employment Agreement. This Guaranty shall survive any
liquidation of Noble-Delaware or any of its subsidiaries. This Guaranty shall be
governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas.

         The obligations of the Company hereunder shall be absolute and
unconditional and shall remain in full force and effect until the termination of
the Employment Agreement or the complete performance by Noble-Delaware of its
obligations thereunder, irrespective of the validity, regularity or
enforceability of the Employment Agreement, any change or amendment thereto, the
absence of any action to enforce the same, any waiver or consent by the
Executive or Noble-Delaware with respect to any provision of the Employment
Agreement, the recovery of any judgment against Noble-Delaware or any action to
enforce the same, or any other circumstances that may otherwise constitute a
legal or equitable discharge or defense of the Company. The Company waives any
right of set-off or counterclaim it may have against the Executive arising from
any other obligations the Executive may have to Noble-Delaware or the Company.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Agreement to be
executed on its behalf by its duly authorized officer as of the date first above
set forth.

                               NOBLE CORPORATION


                               By:      /s/ James C. Day
                                        ---------------------------------------
                               Name:    James C. Day
                                        ---------------------------------------
                               Title:   Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                        ---------------------------------------



                                       1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   492
<PP&E>                                          39,708
<DEPRECIATION>                                  18,511
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  21,689
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           49,110
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (42,421)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    21,689
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,148
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (32,148)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (32,148)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (32,148)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .00
        

</TABLE>