alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals
**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 17

- 00025

- CV

FE EXPRESS, LLC and Francisco Javier Bernal, Appellants

v.

Maria Isabel Serna CONTRERAS , as next friend and guardian of Samara Isabella Morales Serna and Samantha Isabel Morales Serna, minor children, and as Administrator of the Estate of Samuel Morales Castillo, Deceased, Appellees

From the 341st Judicial District Court, Webb County, Texas
Trial C ourt No. 2014CVT001295 D3 Honorable Rebecca Ramirez Palomo, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Irene Rios, Justice

Delivered and Filed: January 1 7 , 2018

MOTION GRANTED, VACATED AND REMANDED

The parties have filed an agreed motion to dispose of this appeal. We grant the motion. In

accordance with the motion, w e set aside the trial court’s judgment without regard to the merits

and remand the case to the trial court with instructions to vacate the trial court’s July 17, 2017

Order Setting Amount of Security for Money Judgment and to release FE Express an d its surety

from the Supersedeas Bond filed on February 3, 2017. Because the motion does not disclose an

agreement of the parties regarding the assessment of costs, we order all costs assessed against04

- 17

- 00025

- CV

- 2

- appellant s

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(d) (absent agreem ent of the parties, costs are taxed against

appellant).

PER CURIAM
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


I, Richard E. Staedtler, certify that:

(1)  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Castle Energy
     Corporation for the three months ended December 31, 2005.

(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
     registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

(4)  The registrant's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and (15d-15e) for the registrant and we
     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
          registrant, 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 registrant'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 changes in the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
          most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
          reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting.

(5)  The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board
     of directors:

     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 registrant'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 registrant's internal
          control over financial reporting.



/S/Richard E. Staedtler
-------------------------
Richard E. Staedtler
Chief Executive Officer


February 10, 2006
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-20-00388-CV

Jason Matthew SMITH and Christa Eve Smith,

Appellants

v.

Dana G. KIRK, Trustee of Kirk Ranch Trusts,

Appellees

From the County Court at Law, Kerr County, Texas

Trial Court No. 18935C

Honorable Susan Harris, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE RIOS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s memorandum opinion of this date, the portion of the trial 

court’s judgment denying appellants Jason Matthew Smith and Christa Eve Smith’s motion for 

summary judgment is AFFIRMED. The portion of the trial court’s judgment granting appellee 

Dana G. Kirk, Trustee of the Kirk Ranch Trusts’, motion for summary judgment is REVERSED. 

This case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It 

is ORDERED that costs be assessed against the party who incurred them. 

SIGNED May 25, 2022.

_____________________________

Irene Rios, Justice
**EXHIBIT 31**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Ron Hooper, certifythat: 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Sabine Royalty Trust,for which Southwest Bank acts as Trustee; 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact 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 allmaterial respects the financial condition, distributable income and changes in trust corpus of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(c)and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)), or for causing such controls and proceduresto be established and maintained, for the registrant and I have: 

a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

b) Designed such internal controlover financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under my supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements forexternal purposes; 

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report my 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 

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and 

5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,to the registrant’s auditors: 

a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’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 theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting. 

 

Date: May 8, 2015
EXHIBIT 31.2  I, Andreas Klimm, in my capacity indicated below, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Alco Energy Corp. (the Registrant); 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 Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and   procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusion 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 Registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the Registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant's internal control over financial reporting; 5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function): 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 Registrant'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 Registrant's internal control over financial reporting.  Date: November 10, 2009 /s/ Andreas Klimm Andreas Klimm, President (as Principal Financial Officer)
<PAGE>







                                                                    Exhibit 11.1



                            Castle Energy Corporation
                 Statement of Computation of Earnings Per Share
                (Dollars in thousands, except per share amounts)
                                   (Unaudited)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                            Three Months Ended December 31,
                                                           ------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       2003                                 2002
                                                           -----------------------------          ---------------------------
                                                              Basic           Diluted                Basic           Diluted
                                                           ------------     ------------          -----------       ----------
                                                                                                  (Restated)        (Restated)
<S>                                                           <C>              <C>                  <C>              <C>
   I.   Shares Outstanding, Net of Treasury
         Stock Purchased and Options Exercised During
         the Period:

           Stock, net                                         6,592,884        6,592,884            6,592,884        6,592,884
                                                           ------------     ------------          -----------       ----------
           Purchase of treasury stock (weighted)              6,592,884        6,592,884            6,592,884        6,592,884

  II.    Weighted Equivalent Shares:

           Assumed options and warrants exercised
                                                           ------------     ------------          -----------       ----------

 III.   Weighted Average Shares and Equivalent Shares         6,592,884        6,592,884            6,592,884        6,592,884
                                                           ============     ============          ===========       ==========
  IV.   Net Income (Loss)                                  ($     1,248)    ($     1,248)         ($       13)      ($      13)
                                                           ============     ============          ===========       ==========
   V.   Net Income (Loss) Per Share                        ($       .19)    ($       .19)         ($      .00)      ($     .00)
                                                           ============     ============          ===========       ==========



</TABLE>
PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION & ORDER October 2012

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 

 

Plaintiff(s), 

 v. 

 

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No: _______________

APPLICATION FOR 

ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY 

PRO HAC VICE

(CIVIL LOCAL RULE 11-3) 

I, , an active member in good standing of the bar of 

 , hereby respectfully apply for admission to practice pro hac vice in the 

Northern District of California representing: in the 

above-entitled action. My local co-counsel in this case is __________________________________, an 

attorney who is a member of the bar of this Court in good standing and who maintains an office 

within the State of California. 

MY ADDRESS OF RECORD: LOCAL CO-COUNSEL’S ADDRESS OF RECORD: 

MY TELEPHONE # OF RECORD: LOCAL CO-COUNSEL’S TELEPHONE # OF RECORD: 

 

MY EMAIL ADDRESS OF RECORD: LOCAL CO-COUNSEL’S EMAIL ADDRESS OF RECORD: 

 

I am an active member in good standing of a United States Court or of the highest court of 

another State or the District of Columbia, as indicated above; my bar number is: . 

A true and correct copy of a certificate of good standing or equivalent official document from said 

bar is attached to this application. 

I agree to familiarize myself with, and abide by, the Local Rules of this Court, especially the 

Standards of Professional Conduct for attorneys and the Alternative Dispute Resolution Local Rules. 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. 

Dated: 03/23/17

APPLICANT

ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 

 FOR ADMISSION OF ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the application of is granted, 

subject to the terms and conditions of Civil L.R. 11-3. All papers filed by the attorney must indicate 

appearance pro hac vice. Service of papers upon, and communication with, local co-counsel 

designated in the application will constitute notice to the party. 

Dated:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT/MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Reset Form

Sergio Marquez 4:17-cv-00555

Bank of America, National Association

Bryan Alan Fratkin

Bryan Alan Fratkin

Bryan Alan Fratkin

Virginia

Bank of America, National Association

Michael D. Mandel

800 East Canal Street

Richmond, Virginia 23219

1800 Century Park East

Los Angeles, CA 90067

(804) 775-4352 (310) 315-8200

bfratkin@mcguirewoods.com mmandel@mcguirewoods.com

38933

3/28/2017
* 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.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FIFTH CIRCUIT

_________________

No. 00-40987

(Summary Calendar)

_________________

UNITED STATE OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

LOUIS TYRONE GREEN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:00-CR-5-2

November 6, 2001

Before JONES, SMITH and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Louis Tyrone Green appeals his guilty-plea conviction for conspiracy to distribute cocaine

base. He asserts that the Government breached the plea agreement because it did not recommend
-2-

at sentencing that his federal sentence run concurrent to any pending state sentences arising out of

the same facts giving rise to the federal prosecution. 

While we review the question of whether the Government breached the plea agreement de

novo, because Green did not object to the Government’s failure at sentencing, review is for plain

error. See U.S. v. Reeves, 255 F.3d 208, 210 (5th Cir. 2001). In order to establish plain error under

FED. R. CRIM. P. 52(b), a party must demonstrate (1) there was an error; (2) the error was clear and

obvious; and (3) the error affected the substantialrights of the appellant. U.S. v. Cerverizzo, 74 F.3d

629, 631 (5th Cir. 1996). Assuming, arguendo, that the Government’s failure to recommend

concurrent sentences was a clear and obvious error, Green still can not establish that this error

substantially affected hisrights. First, at the time of sentencing, Green had no state sentence pending.

Second, after Green pleaded guilty and was sentenced in state court, the district court amended its

judgment to order that Green’sfederal term ofimprisonment run concurrent to hisstate term. Asthe

Government’sfailure did not affect the outcome of the proceeding, Green hasfailed to establish plain

error. See U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993) (stating that in most cases, in order to affect

substantial rights an error must affect the outcome of the proceeding). 

Therefore, Green’s guilty-plea conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
Chris A. PANNELL, petitioner, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections.

No. 12-9696.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 10, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
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

ALBERT DYTCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

MAGANA, et. al.,

Defendant.

Case No. 17-cv-00438-SI 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S 

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. No. 64

Plaintiff Albert Dytch’s motion for summary judgment is scheduled for a hearing on 

November 16, 2018. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines that this matter is 

suitable for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the hearing. 

Plaintiff moves for summary judgment under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA,” 

42 U.S.C. § 1201, et seq.) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act (“Unruh Act,” Cal. Civ. Code 

§ 51, et seq.). Plaintiff contends that defendant Maxaco, LLC, the landlord of Flaco’s, a restaurant 

in Berkeley, has failed to remove specific barriers to plaintiff’s full and equal access from its 

public accommodation. Plaintiff asserts that the evidence in the record shows: (1) he is disabled; 

(2) defendant’s property—including the restroom and parking lot—is a restaurant and thus a place 

of public accommodation; (3) he visited the restaurant twice; (4) while at the restaurant he 

encountered accessibility barriers in the restroom and parking lot in violation of the ADA and 

Unruh Act; (5) the cost of remedying the violations is $31,000; and (6) defendant can financially 

afford the cost of removing the barriers.

Defendant opposes summary judgment and contends it has submitted evidence raising 

material questions of fact on the ADA and Unruh Act claims. The defendant has raised issues of 
2

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

material fact as to whether defendant can afford the cost of remediation, as to when the building 

was constructed, and the threshold matter of whether the restroom and parking lot are public 

accommodations within the meaning of the ADA. Although plaintiff raises some well-founded 

objections to defendant’s declaration, most go to the weight, rather than the sufficiency, of the 

evidence challenged. Therefore, summary adjudication is not appropriate.

The Court notes, however, that if/when this matter goes to trial, both sides will be required 

to present evidence, not conjecture, and will be required to lay proper foundations for any 

evidence presented.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 14, 2018

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge