alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 12-14-00313-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE:

JAMAL TERRELL BOWENS, 

RELATOR

§

§

§

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Relator seeks a writ of mandamus compelling the trial court to rule on his motion for a 

free copy of the record and his motion to convene a court of inquiry and require the trial judge to 

recuse himself from presiding over that proceeding.

1

 

“Those seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must follow the applicable 

procedural rules. Chief among these is the critical obligation to provide the reviewing court with 

a complete and adequate record.” In re Le, 335 S.W.3d 808, 813 (Tex. App.–Houston [14th 

Dist.] 2011, orig. proceeding). Here, we have notified Relator of various defects in his 

mandamus petition, including his failure to file either an appendix or a record. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.3(k), 52.7(a). Without an appendix or a record, we are unable to determine that Relator is 

entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

Opinion delivered November 5, 2014.

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

(PUBLISH)

 

1 The respondent is the Honorable Dwight L. Phifer, Judge of the 2nd Judicial District Court, Cherokee 

County.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 5, 2014

NO. 12-14-00313-CV

JAMAL TERRELL BOWENS,

Relator

V.

HON. DWIGHT L. PHIFER,

Respondent

Appeal from the 2nd District Court 

of Cherokee County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. J-03-088)

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed 

by JAMAL TERRELL BOWENS, who is the relator in Cause No.J-03-088, pending on the 

docket of the 2nd Judicial District Court of Cherokee County, Texas. Said petition for writ of 

mandamus having been filed herein on October 30, 2014, and the same having been duly 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that a writ of mandamus should not issue, it is 

therefore CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of 

mandamus be, and the same is, hereby DENIED.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
Order entered May 22, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00548-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF S.V., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-04-11968-V

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s May 17, 2019 motion to accelerate this appeal. We 

DENY the motion.

/s/ ERIN A. NOWELL 

JUSTICE
Case 19-01298-MAM Doc 472-43 Filed 10/22/20 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.2






CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


REQUIRED BY RULE 13A - 14(A) OR RULE 15D - 14(A)






I, Bob Bates, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:




1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Inova Technology Inc.




2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;




3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:




(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;




(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and




(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and




5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and




(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.




Date: April 19, 2011
/s/ Bob BatesChief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.2 Certification Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code  I, Michael J. Marx, the Chief Financial Officer of Nano Mask, Inc. (Nano Mask), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:  (i) the accompanying Form 10-K of Nano Mask for the year ended December 30, 2008 (the Form 10-K) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Nano Mask.   /s/ Michael J. Marx Michael J. Marx Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)  August 1, 2011
Form ATYHRG

United States Bankruptcy Court

 Southern District of Florida

www.flsb.uscourts.gov

Case Number: 19−22760−RAM

Chapter: 13

In re:

Lazaro Valle Molina

10380 SW 212 St #201

Miami FL 33189

SSN: XXX−XX−5690

NOTICE OF HEARING

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a hearing will be held on 12/10/2019 at 09:00AM at the following location:

C. Clyde Atkins U.S. Courthouse, 301 N Miami Ave Courtroom 4 (RAM), Miami, FL 33128

to consider the following:

[23] Objection to Claim of American Honda Finance Corporation [# 6], Filed by Debtor Lazaro Valle

Molina (Cordero, Patrick)

THIS MATTER HAS BEEN SET ON THE COURT'S MOTION CALENDAR FOR A NON−EVIDENTIARY

HEARING. THE ALLOTTED TIME FOR THIS MATTER IS TEN MINUTES.

THE MOVANT (OR MOVANT'S COUNSEL if represented by an attorney) SHALL SERVE A COPY OF

THIS NOTICE OF HEARING and, unless previously served, the above−described pleading on all required

parties within the time frames required by the Bankruptcy Rules, Local Rules, or orders of the Court, and shall

file a certificate of service as required under Local Rules 2002−1(F) and 9073−1(B). Any party who fails

to properly serve any pleadings or other paper may be denied the opportunity to be heard thereon.

PLEASE NOTE: Photo identification is required to gain entrance to all federal courthouse facilities. Electronic

devices, including but not limited to cameras, cellular phones (including those with cameras), iPads, tablets,

pagers, personal data assistants (PDA), laptop computers, radios, tape−recorders, etc., are not permitted in

the courtroom, chambers or other environs of this court. These restrictions (except for cameras not

integrated into a cell phone device) do not apply to attorneys with a valid Florida Bar identification card,

attorneys who have been authorized to appear by pro hac vice order and witnesses subpoenaed to appear in

a specific case. No one is permitted to bring a camera or other prohibited electronic device into a

federal courthouse facility except with a written order signed by a judge and verified by the United

States Marshal's Service. See Local Rule 5072−2.

Dated: 11/21/2019

By: Patrick L Cordero

Case 19-22760-RAM Doc 24 Filed 11/21/19 Page 1 of 1
CERTIFICATION

     I, Allen Jones, certify that:

  1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of USA
     Telcom Internationale;

  2.Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain
     any untrue statement of a material fact, or omit to state a
     material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
     of the circumstances under which such statements were made,
     not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
     quarterly report; and

  3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other
     financial information included in this quarterly report,
     fairly present in all material respects the financial
     position, results of operations, and cash flows of the issuer
     as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly
     report.

  4.The registrant's other certifying officers and I are
     responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure
     controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-
     14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure
       that material information relating to the registrant, including its
       consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
       those entities, particularly during the period in which this
       quarterly report is being prepared;
     b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
       controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the
       filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c)   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
       effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
       our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

  5.The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
     disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the
     registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's
     board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
     functions):

     a)   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
       internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's
       ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and
       have identified for the registrant's auditors any material
       weaknesses in internal controls; and
     b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management
       or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
       internal controls; and

  6.The registrant's other certifying officers and I have
     indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors
     that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent
     to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any
     corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and
     material weaknesses.


Date:  August 20, 2003

/s/ Allen Jones
---------------------
     President
     Chief Executive Officer
     Chief Financial Officer
**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 Quarterly Report of The Blackhawk Fund, a Nevada corporation
      (the Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
      I, Steve Bonenberger, President, Chief Executive Officer and Director 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.









Dated:
      May 9, 2007




/s/
      Steve
      Bonenberger





Steve
      Bonenberger, President, Chief Executive Officer and
      Director
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**I, D. Michael Kramer, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Ohio Legacy Corp; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is madeknown to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recentfiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small businessissuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: August 14, 2006     By: /s/ D. Michael Kramer D. Michael Kramer    President, Chief Executive Officer,Director and acting Chief Financial Officer
## Breadcrumb

-  Publications 
-  Reports 

#           MAGDEP - a computer program for finding depth to basement from total field magnetic profiles      

      January 1, 1974    

View Document

No abstract available.

## Citation Information
ex10r1a.htm


FIRST AMENDMENT


to the


NUCLEAR KEY CONTRIBUTOR


RETENTION PLAN







(As Amended and Restated as of January 1, 2008)







This amendment is made to the Nuclear Key Contributor Retention Plan, as amended and restated effective January 1, 2008 by a document dated December 31, 2008 (the “Plan”).







1.      Article VIII (Death) of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:







“ARTICLE VIII







Death







8.1           In the event a Participant dies prior to the complete payment of the Participant’s vested Fund Units, the amount owing to the Participant shall be divided among and paid to the beneficiary or beneficiaries designated by the Participant pursuant to the terms of the American Electric Power System Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan, as amended from time to time (the “SRSP”).”







2.      In all other respects, the terms of the Plan are ratified and confirmed




    American Electric Power Service Corporation has caused this First Amendment to the Nuclear Key Contributor Retention Plan to be signed as of this 11 day of November, 2011.















	  	
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER SERVICE CORPORATION


	  	  
	  	  
	  	
By /s/ Andrew R. Carlin








	
  

	
Andrew R. Carlin, Director-Compensation and Executive Benefits
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001096594
<NAME>                        Natural Solutions Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Currency

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Jul-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Aug-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Apr-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         126,252
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  119,988
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    671,209
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               939,367
<PP&E>                                         93,561
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,632,531
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          1,301,192
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       20,297
<OTHER-SE>                                     (675,661)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,632,531
<SALES>                                        256,037
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               (62,381)
<CGS>                                          318,418
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  318,418
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               507,359
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (307,748)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (590,255)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas

October 11, 2016

No. 04

- 16

- 00207

- CV

Anto nio JIMENEZ and Mary Louise Jimenez

,

Appellants

v.

Carlos GONGORA

, Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2015

- CI

- 02692 Honorable Stephani A. Walsh, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief in this appeal was due October 3, 2016. Neither the brief nor a motion for extension of time has been filed. We order appellants Antonio Jimenez and Mary Louise Jimenez to file, by October 21, 2016 , their appellant’s brief and a written response reasonably explaining their failure to timely file the brief. If appellants fail to file a brief and the writ ten response by the date ordered, we will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 38.8(a)

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 11th day of October, 2016

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10966

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

HILARIO GONZALEZ-BALDERAS, SR, also known as Hilario Perez, also

known as Mr Perez

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:90-CR-34-6

Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Hilario Gonzalez-Balderas, Sr., (Gonzalez), federal prisoner # 55110-079,

appeals the district court’s denial of his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c) motion to reduce his

sentence based on retroactive application of Amendments 591 and 599 to the

Sentencing Guidelines. He also argues that Amendment 505 should be applied

in his case. However, Gonzalez did not raise this issue in the district court, and

it will not be considered on appeal. See United States v. Smith, 915 F.2d 959,

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 23, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-10966

2

964 (5th Cir. 1990). Moreover, this court has previously addressed this

argument in United States v. Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d 981, 982 (5th Cir.

1997). 

Gonzalez contends that Amendment 599 should be applied in his case. He

argues that the firearm enhancement he received resulted in double counting

under the provisions of Amendment 599. Because Gonzalez was convicted of

offenses arising under 21 U.S.C. § 848 and 18 U.S.C. § 371, Amendment 599 is

inapplicable to his case. See United States v. Dixon, 273 F.3d 636, 643-44 (5th

Cir. 2001). His argument is without merit. 

Gonzalez argues that Amendment 591 is retroactively applicable to his

case. He asserts that his sentence was improperly calculated under U.S.S.G.

§ 2D1.1 rather than § 2D1.5. However, Gonzalez’s sentence was calculated by

using § 2D1.5 to determine the base offense level, which referenced the drug

quantity table of § 2D1.1. See Gonzalez-Balderas, 105 F.3d at 983. Additionally,

Amendment 591 is irrelevant to the determination of base offense levels within

the applicable offense guidelines section or to any consideration of relevant

conduct. U.S.S.G. App. C, Amendment 591 (Nov. 2000). 

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.