alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.6

                       Incentive Compensation Arrangement
                       ----------------------------------

                                Paul W. Springman

This letter outlines your incentive compensation arrangements for 2003.
Incentive compensation, expressed as a percentage of base salary, will be based
on growth in book value per share of Markel Common Stock. For 2003 the relevant
measure will be growth in book value per share for 2003. We anticipate in the
future that this measure will be a weighted average for the period beginning
January 1, 2003 to the measurement date until we reach a five year weighted
average. To provide for a transition the minimum bonus for 2003 will be
$200,000.

Growth in Book Value Per Share    Bonus as % of Base Salary
Under 11%                         0%
11%                               25%
12%                               30%
13%                               40%
14%                               50%
15%                               60%
16%                               75%
17%                               90%
18%                               100%
19%                               110%
20%                               125%
21%                               145%
22%                               170%
23%                               200%
24%                               250%
Over 24%                          Discretionary

For purposes of this arrangement, book value calculations are adjusted to
exclude the benefit of issuing equity securities at prices above the preceding
year end book value per share.

Should your employment terminate during the year no pro rata payments will be
made. To be eligible for incentive compensation, you must be an employee in good
standing when incentive compensation payments are made. If you have been on
probation or in a performance improvement program, you will not be paid
incentive compensation for the time you were on probation or in the program.
Remember, all incentive compensation plans are discretionary and subject to
change or modification at any time.


Paul W. Springman              7/28/03    /s/  Paul W. Springman        7/28/03
--------------------------------------    -------------------------------------
Employee Name (Please Print)   Date       Employee Signature            Date


/s/  Pamela J. Perrott         7/28/03
--------------------------------------
Human Resources Signature      Date
(Invalid if not signed by HR)
Jazmyn Tanae Irene ONEAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D18-3665

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 29, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

AFFIRMED.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S CONSENT

To the Board of Directors
Frontline Communications Corporation

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus
constituting part of the Registration Statement of Frontline Communications
Corporation on Forms S-3 (#333-89811 and 333-35058) and Form S-8 (#333-86792) of
our report dated February 20, 2003, on the consolidated financial statements of
Frontline Communications Corporation as of December 31, 2002 and for each of the
two years in the period then ended appearing in the annual report on Form 10-KSB
of Frontline Communications Corporation for the year ended December 31, 2002. We
also consent to the reference of our firm under the caption "Experts" contained
in such Registration Statement.


/s/ Goldstein Golub Kessler LLP
-------------------------------
GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP
New York, New York

April 14, 2003
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SAMSUNG'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SEAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART SAMSUNG'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 1210

Applying the compelling reasons standard, the Court rules on Samsung’s motion to seal as 

follows. By Friday, January 11, 2019, at 8:00 a.m., Samsung shall refile redacted public versions 

of the below exhibits consistent with the Court’s sealing rulings. 

Document Portion of Page/Line No. Ruling

Lee Deposition 144:16-18 GRANTED.

Lee Deposition 144:25-145:6 GRANTED.

Lee Deposition 145:11-18 GRANTED.

Lee Deposition 145:21-23 GRANTED.

Lee Deposition 195:23-24 GRANTED.

JX0024 § 2 at JX0024-002 GRANTED.

JX0024 § 3 at JX0024-003 GRANTED.

JX0024 § 6 at JX0024-005 GRANTED as to the royalty rate 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1225 Filed 01/10/19 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART SAMSUNG'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SEAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Document Portion of Page/Line No. Ruling

and royalty cap, otherwise 

DENIED.

JX0024 § 7 at JX0024-006 DENIED.

JX0024 § 8.2.2 at JX0024-007 DENIED.

CX2643/CX2643A CX2643-004 and CX2643A-004 GRANTED.

CX2564/CX2564A CX2564-001 and CX2564A-001 GRANTED.

CX2564/CX2564A CX2564-002 and CX2564A-002 GRANTED.

CX2641/CX2641A CX2641-002 and CX2641A-002 GRANTED.

CX2641/CX2641A CX2641-004 and CX2641A-004 GRANTED.

CX2568/CX2568A CX2568-001 and CX2568A-001 GRANTED.

CX2568/CX2568A CX2568-002 and CX2568A-002 GRANTED.

CX2642/CX2642A CX2642-002 and CX2642A-002 GRANTED.

CX2642/CX2642A CX2642-003 and CX2642A-003 GRANTED.

QX9219 Q2014FTC01845280 GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 10, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1225 Filed 01/10/19 Page 2 of 2
# L_2017295EN.01007401.xml

| 14.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 295/74 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 295/74

---

COMMISSION DECISION (EU) 2017/2076

of 7 November 2017

amending Decision 2009/607/EC as regards the period of validity of the ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel to hard coverings

(notified under document C(2017) 7247)

(Text with EEA relevance)

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 66/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the EU Ecolabel (1), and in particular Article 8(2) and (3)(c) thereof, After consulting the European Union Ecolabelling Board,

Whereas:

| (1) | The validity of the current ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for hard coverings, and of the related assessment and verification requirements, set out in Commission Decision 2009/607/EC (2) expires on 30 November 2017. An assessment has been carried out confirming the relevance and appropriateness of the current ecological criteria, as well as of the related assessment and verification requirements, established by Decision 2009/607/EC. It is therefore appropriate to prolong the period of validity of those criteria and assessment and verification requirements. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The validity of the current ecological criteria for the award of the EU Ecolabel for hard coverings, and of the related assessment and verification requirements, set out in Commission Decision 2009/607/EC (2) expires on 30 November 2017. An assessment has been carried out confirming the relevance and appropriateness of the current ecological criteria, as well as of the related assessment and verification requirements, established by Decision 2009/607/EC. It is therefore appropriate to prolong the period of validity of those criteria and assessment and verification requirements.

| (2) | Decision 2009/607/EC should therefore be amended accordingly. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Decision 2009/607/EC should therefore be amended accordingly.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 66/2010,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Article 3 of Decision 2009/607/EC is replaced by the following:

‘Article 3

The ecological criteria for the product group “hard coverings” and the related assessment and verification requirements shall be valid until 30 June 2021.’

Article 2

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 7 November 2017.

For the Commission

Karmenu VELLA

Member of the Commission

---

(1)  
  OJ L 27, 30.1.2010, p. 1.

1

(2)  Commission Decision 2009/607/EC of 9 July 2009 establishing the ecological criteria for the award of the Community eco-label to hard coverings (OJ L 208, 12.8.2009, p. 21).

2

---
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 39 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Department of Health and Human Services relating 

to ‘‘Vaccine and Mask Requirements To Mitigate the 

Spread of COVID–19 in Head Start Programs’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the De4 partment of Health and Human Services relating to ‘‘Vac5 cine and Mask Requirements To Mitigate the Spread of 

6 COVID–19 in Head Start Programs’’ (86 Fed. Reg. 

7 68052 (November 30, 2021)), and such rule shall have 

8 no force or effect. 

Passed the Senate May 3, 2022. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 39 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapCOVID–19 in Head Start Programs’’. Requirements To Mitigate the Spread of Human Services relating to ‘‘Vaccine and Mask submitted by the Department of Health and ter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule
1

Case No. 17-cv-00220-LHK

ORDER GRANTING MEDIATEK’S MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF TRIAL EXHIBITS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Case No.17-cv-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING MEDIATEK’S 

MOTION TO SEAL PORTIONS OF 

TRIAL EXHIBITS

Re: Dkt. No. 1124

Before the Court is third-party MediaTek Inc.’s (“MediaTek”) motion to seal certain 

portions of three trial exhibits. ECF No. 1124. Applying the compelling reasons standard, 

Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178-79 (9th Cir. 2006), the Court 

GRANTS MediaTek’s motion to seal the selected portions of exhibits CX3542, CX3545, and 

CX3551.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1140 Filed 01/06/19 Page 1 of 1
CX8190 

REDACTED VERSION 

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1276 Filed 01/13/19 Page 1 of 16
 

CX8190-001

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1276 Filed 01/13/19 Page 2 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1276 Filed 01/13/19 Page 3 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1276 Filed 01/13/19 Page 4 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1276 Filed 01/13/19 Page 5 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1276 Filed 01/13/19 Page 6 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1276 Filed 01/13/19 Page 7 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1276 Filed 01/13/19 Page 8 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1276 Filed 01/13/19 Page 9 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1276 Filed 01/13/19 Page 10 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1276 Filed 01/13/19 Page 11 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1276 Filed 01/13/19 Page 12 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1276 Filed 01/13/19 Page 13 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1276 Filed 01/13/19 Page 14 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1276 Filed 01/13/19 Page 15 of 16
Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1276 Filed 01/13/19 Page 16 of 16
# C_2017273DE.01000501.xml

| 18.8.2017 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | C 273/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.8.2017

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

C 273/5

---

Berichtigung der Empfehlung des Rates vom 22. Mai 2017 über den Europäischen Qualifikationsrahmen für lebenslanges Lernen und zur Aufhebung der Empfehlung des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 23. April 2008 zur Einrichtung des Europäischen Qualifikationsrahmens für lebenslanges Lernen

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 189 vom 15. Juni 2017
  )

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union C 189 vom 15. Juni 2017

(2017/C 273/05)

Seite 18, Nummer 4

Anstatt:

Anstatt:

| „4. | gegebenenfalls Verbindungen zwischen Leistungspunktesystemen und nationalen Qualifikationsrahmen oder -systemen unter Berücksichtigung der gemeinsamen Grundsätze für Leistungspunktesysteme gemäß Anhang V unbeschadet nationaler Entscheidungen zu fördern, um (i) Leistungspunktesysteme zu verwenden und (ii) sie mit den nationalen Qualifikationsrahmen oder -systemen zu verknüpfen. Diese gemeinsamen Grundsätze führen zu keiner automatischen Anerkennung von Qualifikationen;“ |
| --- | --- |

„4.

gegebenenfalls Verbindungen zwischen Leistungspunktesystemen und nationalen Qualifikationsrahmen oder -systemen unter Berücksichtigung der gemeinsamen Grundsätze für Leistungspunktesysteme gemäß Anhang V unbeschadet nationaler Entscheidungen zu fördern, um (i) Leistungspunktesysteme zu verwenden und (ii) sie mit den nationalen Qualifikationsrahmen oder -systemen zu verknüpfen. Diese gemeinsamen Grundsätze führen zu keiner automatischen Anerkennung von Qualifikationen;“

muss es heißen:

muss es heißen:

| „4. | gegebenenfalls Verbindungen zwischen Leistungspunktesystemen und nationalen Qualifikationsrahmen oder -systemen unter Berücksichtigung der gemeinsamen Grundsätze für Leistungspunktesysteme gemäß Anhang V zu fördern, unbeschadet nationaler Entscheidungen i) Leistungspunktesysteme zu verwenden und ii) sie mit den nationalen Qualifikationsrahmen oder -systemen zu verknüpfen. Diese gemeinsamen Grundsätze führen zu keiner automatischen Anerkennung von Qualifikationen;“ |
| --- | --- |

„4.

gegebenenfalls Verbindungen zwischen Leistungspunktesystemen und nationalen Qualifikationsrahmen oder -systemen unter Berücksichtigung der gemeinsamen Grundsätze für Leistungspunktesysteme gemäß Anhang V zu fördern, unbeschadet nationaler Entscheidungen i) Leistungspunktesysteme zu verwenden und ii) sie mit den nationalen Qualifikationsrahmen oder -systemen zu verknüpfen. Diese gemeinsamen Grundsätze führen zu keiner automatischen Anerkennung von Qualifikationen;“

---
Stephen BREWSTER, DOC# 136721, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Case No. 2D18-1435

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Opinion filed April 10, 2019.

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
Quartez Lamar WALKER v. STATE

CR-16-1344

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

March 9, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23

            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement No.
333-136821 on Form S-8 pertaining to the Syntel, Inc. Amended and Restated Stock
Option and Incentive Plan Syntel Inc. Amended and Restated Employee Stock
Purchase Plan and Registration Statement No. 333-139943 on Form S-3 and No.
139227 on Form S-3A pertaining to Syntel, Inc. of our report dated March 8, 2007
on the consolidated financial statements of Syntel, Inc. and our report dated
the same date on Syntel, Inc. management's assessment of the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting and on the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting of Syntel, Inc. which reports are included in
Form 10-K for Syntel, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2006.


                                        Crowe Chizek and Company LLC

Fort Wayne, Indiana
March 14, 2007
EXHIBIT 32.1





Certification
of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,


As
Adopted Pursuant to


Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Reef Global Energy IV, L.P. (the
“Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2010 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Michael J. Mauceli, principal executive officer of the Partnership, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 results of operations of the
      Partnership.





Date:  May
      12, 2010
                By:
                /s/ Michael
      J. MauceliMichael
      J. Mauceli
                    Manager
      and Member of Reef Oil & Gas Partners,
                    GP,
      LLC, the manager of Reef Oil & Gas Partners,
                    L.P.,
      the Managing General Partner of the Partnership
                    (Principal
      Executive Officer)







This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of § 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement has been provided to the Partnership and will
be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
1

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART HUAWEI'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART HUAWEI'S 

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO 

SEAL

Re: Dkt. No. 1195

Applying the compelling reasons standard, the Court rules on Huawei’s motion to seal as 

follows. By Friday, January 11, 2019, at 5:00 p.m., Huawei shall refile redacted public versions of 

the below exhibits consistent with the Court’s sealing rulings. 

Document Portion of Page Ruling

JX-022 FTC-Huawei-0000706 GRANTED.

JX-022 FTC-Huawei-0000711 GRANTED.

JX-022 FTC-Huawei-0000713-14 GRANTED.

JX-022 FTC-Huawei-0000715 § 5.4 DENIED.

JX-022 FTC-Huawei-0000715 § 5.5 GRANTED.

JX-022 FTC-Huawei-0000719 GRANTED.

JX-022 FTC-Huawei-0000536 GRANTED.

JX-027 FTC-Huawei-0000698 GRANTED.

JX-027 FTC-Huawei-0000701 GRANTED.

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1207 Filed 01/09/19 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 17-CV-00220-LHK 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART HUAWEI'S ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO SEAL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Document Portion of Page Ruling

JX-097 FTC-Huawei-0000651-55 DENIED.

JX-097 FTC-Huawei-0000657 GRANTED.

JX-098 FTC-Huawei-0000573-77 DENIED.

JX-098 FTC-Huawei-0000580 through the end of § 3.2.4 on 

FTC-Huawei-0000581

DENIED.

JX-098 § 3.4.1 on FTC-Huawei-0000581 through 

FTC-Huawei-0000587

GRANTED.

JX-098 FTC-Huawei-0000590-93 GRANTED.

JX-098 FTC-Huawei-0000594-97 DENIED.

JX-098 FTC-Huawei-0000602-03 GRANTED.

JX-098 FTC-Huawei-0000610 DENIED.

JX-098 FTC-Huawei-0000611 GRANTED.

JX-098 FTC-Huawei-0000612-13 DENIED.

JX-098 FTC-Huawei-0000617 GRANTED.

JX-098 FTC-Huawei-0000618-19 DENIED.

JX-098 FTC-Huawei-0000625-27 GRANTED.

JX-098 FTC-Huawei-0000642-47 GRANTED.

JX-098 FTC-Huawei-0000648-49 GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2019

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:17-cv-00220-LHK Document 1207 Filed 01/09/19 Page 2 of 2
Douglas E. CATT, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D18-231

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 1, 2019 Rehearing Denied June 24, 2019

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7822

DWIGHT WILLIAMS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

VICTOR ABERNATHY,

Defendant - Appellee,

and

GARY DIXON; JAMES B. HUNT,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District

Judge. (CA-94-458)

Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996

Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwight Williams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's orders denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Williams v. Abernathy, No. CA-94-458 (E.D.N.C. Jan. 20 and

Oct. 12, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

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

JUDGMENT RENDERED MA RCH 20 , 2014

NO. 03

- 13

- 00017

- CV

Texas Department of Public Safety, Appellant

v.

G. B. E., Appellee

APPEAL FROM 368TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PURY EAR, PEMBERTON, ROSE, GOO DWIN AND FIELD

REVERSED AND RENDERED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD

This is an appeal from the order signed by the tr i a l court on October 29, 2012 . Having reviewed

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in the

court’s order . Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s order and renders judgment that

G.B.E.’s petition for expunction is denied, and order s that all documents that have been turned

over to the district court, or to G.B.E. or his counsel, be returned to the submitting agencies. The

appellee shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.