alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Shirley J. FICKEN, Respondent, v. Larry L. FICKEN, Sr., Appellant.

No. ED 106279

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: November 6, 2018

Jo Ann Karll, 1412 B Gravois Rd., High Ridge, MO 63049, For Plaintiff/Respondent.

Daniel F. Harvath, 75 W. Lockwood Ste. 1, Webster Groves, MO 63119, For Defendant/Appellant.

Before Kurt S. Odenwald, P.J., Gary M. Gaertner, Jr., J., and Colleen Dolan, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

Larry Ficken ("Husband") appeals the trial court's Judgment and Decree of Dissolution of Marriage that awarded Shirley Ficken ("Wife") a larger share of the marital assets and funds after finding that Husband had committed marital misconduct. In his appeal, Husband argues that (1) the trial court erred in its division of marital property because the trial court ordered Husband to pay half of his pension benefits to Wife without any evidence of what those benefits might be and (2) the trial court failed to consider the factors set forth in § 452.330 and abused its discretion by awarding Husband an inequitable portion of the marital assets as compared to Wife. Finding that the court did not err in its division of marital assets or abuse its discretion, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 96-4045 RAYMOND LEE PRAYEAR, JR., Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-94-102) Submitted: August 22, 1996 Decided: September 12, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Howard G. Higgins, Jr., Morgantown, West Virginia, for Appellant.William D. Wilmoth, United States Attorney, Sam G. Nazzaro, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________OPINION PER CURIAM: Raymond Lee Prayear, Jr., pled guilty to conspiracy to possess crack cocaine with intent to distribute, 21 U.S.C.A.§ 846 (WestSupp. 1996). He was sentenced to a term of 151 months imprisonment. He appeals his sentence on two grounds which were not raised in the district court and are without merit. Finding no plain error, we affirm his sentence. Prayear first contends that his sentence is disproportionate to the gravity of his offense and thus violates the Eighth Amendment. Because his sentence is less than life wit hout parole, an extended proportionality review is not necessary. United States v. Thomas , 900F.2d 37, 39 (4th Cir. 1990). We have no difficulty in finding that Prayear's sentence is not disproportionate to his offense. Next, Prayear argues that the 100-to-1 statutory sentencing ratio for cocaine and crack offenses violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment because of its disparate impact on black defendants. This claim has been considered and rejected before. United States v. Fisher , 58 F.3d 96, 99 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 3270 (U.S. Oct. 10, 1995) (No. 95-5923).The sentence is accordingly affirmed. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presentedin the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
2
Exhibit 99.2
**Written Statement of the ChiefFinancial Officer****Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350**
     Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, I, theundersigned Chief Financial Officer of Whitehall Limited, Inc. (the “Company”),hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Annual Report onForm 10-KSBof the Company for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003 (the “Report”) fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company.
*/s/ Kay Carter*
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Steven Dinetz, as Chief Executive Officer of NextMedia Operating, Inc.
(the Company) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



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



Dated: November 12, 2004



|                                                    
|----------------------------------------------------
|/s/    STEVEN DINETZ                                
|Steven Dinetz Chief Executive Officer of the Company



A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN
STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO NEXTMEDIA OPERATING, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY NEXTMEDIA OPERATING, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 96-50194

Conference Calendar

__________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL BATES,

 Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-95-CR-232-2

- - - - - - - - - -

December 11, 1996

Before WIENER, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Michael Bates's unopposed, out-of-time motion to file a

reply brief is GRANTED. Bates appeals his sentence for

conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute marijuana. He

argues that the district court erred in calculating the amount of

marijuana attributable to him.

In light of Bates's failure to offer evidence to rebut the

presentence report (PSR), the district court did not clearly err
No. 96-50194

-2-

by adopting the PSR and its addendum as its drug-quantity

finding. See United States v. Puig-Infante, 19 F.3d 929, 943

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 180 (1994). 

AFFIRMED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00085-CR

Max Elliott Ray, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-11-300233, HONORABLE BRENDA KENNEDY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant pled not guilty to two counts of sexual assault. He was convicted by the

jury and sentenced to six years imprisonment. The trial court’s certification of his right to appeal,

however, states that appellant waived his right to appeal.1

In determining whether an appellant in a criminal case has the right to appeal, we

examine the trial court’s certification for defectiveness, defined as a certification that is “correct in

form but which, when compared to the record before the court, proves to be inaccurate.” Dears v.

State, 154 S.W.3d 610, 614 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). If the certification appears to be defective, we

must obtain a correct certification. Id. at 614-15; see also Tex. R. App. P. 34.5(c), 37.1.

In this case, the record does not support the trial court’s certification that appellant

waived his right to appeal. Therefore, we abate the appeal and remand it to the trial court to issue

 Appellant and his trial counsel both signed the certification form. 1
an amended and corrected certification. See Dears, 154 S.W.3d at 614-15; Tex. R. App. P. 37.1.

The trial court clerk is instructed to forward a supplemental clerk’s record containing the amended

certification to the clerk of this court no later than September 6, 2013.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Rose and Goodwin

Abated

Filed: August 8, 2013

Do Not Publish

2
**EXHIBIT
        32.1**
 
 **CERTIFICATION
        OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**
 
 **Pursuant
        to**
 **18
        U.S.C. Section 1350,**
 **As
        Adopted pursuant to**
 **Section
        906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 
 I,
        Zeynep
        Hakimoglu, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
        to
        Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of
        ClearOne Communications, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2004,
        fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
        Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Annual Report
        on
        Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
        and
        results of operations of ClearOne Communications, Inc.
 
  Date:
                  December 16, 2005
              /s/
                  Zeynep HakimogluZeynep
                  HakimogluPresident
                  and Chief Executive Officer(Principal
                  Executive Officer)






**A
        signed original of the written statement above required by Section 906 of
        the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to ClearOne Communications,
        Inc.
        and will be retained by ClearOne Communications, Inc. and furnished to the
        Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
        request.**
EXHIBIT 10.10

                       SUMMARY OF EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Jesse Lerman, President and Chief Executive Officer, is employed on an at-will
basis and is paid an annual salary of $153,140. Mr. Lerman also receives, as do
all other TelVue employees, health, dental, disability and life insurance
benefits as well as a contribution of 2.5% of his annual salary to TelVue's
401(k) Plan. Mr. Lerman, like all other TelVue employees, is eligible to receive
stock option grants under the TelVue Stock Option Plan.

John Fell, Secretary, Treasurer and Controller, is employed on an at-will basis
and is paid an annual salary of $117,000. Upon satisfaction of certain
conditions, he is eligible for a $2,000 annual bonus. Mr. Fell also receives, as
do all other TelVue employees, health, dental, disability and life insurance
benefits as well as a contribution of 2.5% of his annual salary to TelVue's
401(k) Plan. Mr. Fell, like all other TelVue employees, is eligible to receive
stock option grants under the TelVue Stock Option Plan.

Paul Andrews, Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing, is employed on an
at-will basis and is paid an annual salary of $130,000. Mr. Andrews also
receives, as do all other TelVue employees, health, dental, disability and life
insurance benefits as well as a contribution of 2.5% of his annual salary to
TelVue's 401(k) Plan. Mr. Andrews, like all other TelVue employees, is eligible
to receive stock option grants under the TelVue Stock Option Plan.

Dan Pisarski, Vice President of Engineering and Technical Support, is employed
on an at-will basis and is paid an annual salary of $147,000. Mr. Pisarski also
receives, as do all other TelVue employees, health, dental, disability and life
insurance benefits as well as a contribution of 2.5% of his annual salary to
TelVue's 401(k) Plan. Mr. Pisarski, like all other TelVue employees, is eligible
to receive stock option grants under the TelVue Stock Option Plan.

Randy Gilson, Vice President of Technical Services, is employed on an at-will
basis and is paid an annual salary of $128,213. Mr. Gilson also receives, as do
all other TelVue employees, health, dental, disability and life insurance
benefits as well as a contribution of 2.5% of his annual salary to TelVue's
401(k) Plan. Mr. Gilson, like all other TelVue employees, is eligible to receive
stock option grants under the TelVue Stock Option Plan.
Order filed, April 3, 2019.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00178-CV

____________

UNITED LOCATING SERVICES, LLC, Appellant

V.

DAMON FOBBS, RODNEY JOHNSON, & CARLOS HARRELL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 234th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2018-71384

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case was due March 11, 2019. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 35.1. On March 13, 2019, this court ordered the court reporter to file the 

record within 15 days. The record has not been filed with the court. Because the 

reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.

We order Norma Duarte, the court reporter, to file the record in this appeal 

within 15 days of the date of this order. No further extension will be entertained 

absent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are jointly 
responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 35.3(c). If Norma Duarte does not timely file the record as ordered, we may

issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the reason 

for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
CHARLESTON.

#### Brooke Electric Company *v.*Mrs. Louise Paull.

Submitted April 29, 1924.

Decided June 16, 1924.

Case CoNTuomiNG.

This case lis governed toy the principles oí law announced in the opinion this day handed down in the case of *BrooJce Electric Company*v. *Charles E. Beall,*96 W. Ya. 637, 123 S. E. 590.

Mtt.leb, Judse, absent.

Error to Circuit Court, Brooke County.

Action by the Brooke Electric Company against Mrs. Louise Paull. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant brings error.

*Reversed.*

*Ramsay & Wilhin, Brown, Jachson & Knight*and *Harold A. Rits,*for plaintiff in error.

P. *J. McGinley,*for defendant in error.

*646McGinnis, Judge:

This is a proceeding by the Brooke Electric Company, a corporation, against the defendant, Mrs. Louise Pauli, to condemn a right of way over a certain strip or parcel of land owned by the defendant, for the purpose of erecting and maintaining electric lines to be used for the purpose of conveying electric power.

The action of the lower court in refusing to allow the defendant to file her proper pleas and therefore not permitting her to offer any evidence in support of them was error and the case will be reversed, the exception to the commissioner’s report sustained and the order permitting the applicant to take the property set aside and a new trial awarded.

*Reversed.*
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification ofCFO under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

*Icertify that this periodic report containing the issuer’s financial statementsfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and thatinformation contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.*

 
|       | *By:*                                                                              | */s/  John F. Coger* |   |
|------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------|--------|
|       |                                                                               |
| ** ** | **Executive Vice President,  Chief Financial Officer**and Chief Operating  Officer |
|       |                                                                               |
|       | Date:                                                                              | May 2, 2005     |   |
|            |                                                                                    |                      |        |  |  |

 

----
# Fourth Court of Appeals
San Antonio, Texas

October 14, 2021

No. 04

- 21

- 00307

- CV

April Marie FULLER, Billy Don Huston, Cindy Huston, James Recor d, Mark Alan Record, and Robert Dales Moores, Appellants

v.

MALTSBERGER/STOREY RANCH, LLC , Maltsberger/Storey Ranch Lands, LLC, Storey

Minerals, Ltd., and Rene R. Barrientos, Ltd.,

Appellees

From the 218th Judicial District Court

, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 20

- 06

- 00106

- CVL

- C
The Honorable Russell Wilson , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellants’ third motion for extension of time to file their brief is GRANTED IN PART. It is ORDERED that appellants’ brief is due on or before November 23, 2021. No further extensions will be granted absent extenuating circumstances.

_________________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, C hief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said
court on this 14th day of October, 2021

.

___________________________________ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court
Compensatory arrangements with Executive Officers



 Exhibit 10.21 
 Compensatory Arrangements with Executive Officers 
 Compensation for executives at TECO
Energy, Inc. (the “Corporation”) consists of several components. Included among these are base salary and an annual incentive award program. 
 Base salary information for the Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and the other executive officers named in our most recently filed proxy statement who are currently employed by the Corporation (together, the “named
executive officers”) is set forth in the table below. 
 The Corporation’s annual incentive plan, last amended in February 2009, is
incorporated by reference as Exhibit 10.4 to the Corporation’s Annual Report on Form 10-K to which this document is an exhibit (the “Report”). The 2010 target award percentages for awards under the annual incentive plan for the named
executive officers are set forth in the table below. 
 Compensatory arrangements relating to other aspects of the Corporation’s executive
compensation program are included as exhibits to the Report. Mr. Hudson also receives a monthly housing and travel allowance of $5,000, in recognition of his retaining his primary residence in Miami. 
 Named Executive Officer Salary and Target Award Percentage Information for 2010 
  

									
	 Name
	  	 Title
	  	Salary	  	Target
Award %	 
	Sherrill W. Hudson	  	Chairman and CEO	  	$	851,189	  	80	% 
	John B. Ramil	  	President and Chief Operating Officer	  	$	600,000	  	75	% 
	Gordon L. Gillette	  	President of Tampa Electric Company	  	$	465,000	  	65	% 
	Sandra W. Callahan	  	Vice President-Finance and Accounting and Chief Financial Officer	  	$	350,000	  	55	%
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

Certification of CFO under Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

*Icertify that this periodic report containing the issuer’s financial statementsfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15 (d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that informationcontained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.*

 

 
|          | * * | * *         | *By:*                                                                          | */s/ John F. Coger* |
|----------|----------|------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------|
| * * | * * | * *         | * *                                                                       |
|     |     |             | Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer  and Chief Operating Officer |
|     |     |             |                                                                           |
|     |     |             |                                                                           |
|     | Date:    | May 9, 2008 |                                                                           |                |
|          |          |                  |                                                                                |                     |  |

 

----
**Exhibit 34.1**

 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

To the Board of Directors and Shareowner of

Protective Life Insurance Company:

 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying “Management’s Assertion on Compliance with Regulation AB Criteria” that Protective Life Insurance Company complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the Protective Life Secured Trust Notes (the Platform), as of December 31, 2013 and for the year then ended, excluding (i) the criteria which the Company has determined are not applicable to the servicing activities performed by them with respect to the Platform and (ii) the servicing activities that are applicable to the Platform but are excluded from the scope of management’s assertion and are not reported on herein, as indicated in Appendix A of Management’s Assertion on Compliance with SEC Regulation AB Servicing Criteria.  Appendix B to management’s assertion identifies the individual asset-backed transactions and securities defined by management as constituting the Platform.  Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances.  Our examination included testing of selected asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria.  Our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report.  Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2013 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

 
| /s/PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS   LLP |   |
|---------------------------------|--------|
| PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP      |   |
| Birmingham, Alabama             |   |
| March 25, 2014             |   |

 

----