alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 December 21, 2005 Before Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE P. WOOD, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge No. 02-3084 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. DAVID J. YEAZEL, Defendant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. No. 02 CR 9 John C. Shabaz, Judge

. O R D E R This court ordered a limited remand in this matter so the district court could state whether the sentence remains appropriate now that United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), has limited the Guidelines to advisory status. See United States v. Paladino , 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005). The district judge has now replied that he would today impose the same sentence, knowing of the Guidelines’ advisory status. Yeazel filed a response in this court, arguing that his sentence of 146 months is unreasonable. Yeazel’s sentence was at the high end of the Guidelines range of 121-151 months. A sentence that falls within a properly calculated Guidelines range is entitled to a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness; a defendant can rebut the presumption “only by demonstrating that his or her sentence is unreasonable when measured against the factors set forth in [18 U.S.C.] Section 3553(a).” See United States v. Mykytiuk , 415 F.3d 606, 608 (7th Cir. 2005). UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53No. 02-3084 Page 2 Yeazel has not rebutted the presumption. The district judge provided an adequate explanation for the 146-month sentence, noting appropriate factors under § 3553(a). He considered Yeazel’s argument that his personal characteristics— specifically his education, family suppo rt, and bouts of depression—warranted a more lenient sentence. The court found these factors to be outweighed by the scope and seriousness of Yeazel’s fraud. Yeazel also reargues the propriety of applying the enhancement for violation of an administrative order under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(8)(c). We previously held this issue was waived and will not readdress it here. We see no reason why Yeazel’s sentence would be deemed “unreasonable” in post- Bookerpractice. The judgment of the district court is A FFIRMED

.
#### STATE OF CONNECTICUT *v.*STANLEY FOOTE

The cross petition by the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 85 Conn. App. 356 (AC 23712), is denied.

*938
      *Christine Collyer,*special deputy assistant state’s attorney, in support of the cross petition.

Decided May 17, 2005

NORCOTT, J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this cross petition.
#### Christopher OSE-AFIANA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COVENANT SECURITY SERVICES, LTD., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 13-1205.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 23, 2013.

Decided: May 28, 2013.

Christopher Ose-Afiana, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Ose-Afiana appeals the district court’s order dismissing his Title VII retaliation action without prejudice. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Ose-Afiana v. Covenant Sec. Servs. Ltd.,*No. 8:12-cv-01840-AW (D.Md. Jan. 22, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 25 Filed 09/20/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04521-AKH Document 25 Filed 09/20/2007 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


      As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
      by reference of our report dated March 19, 1999, with respect to the
      consolidated financial statements and schedules of The Seibels Bruce
      Group, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
      December 31, 1998 into the Company's previously filed Registration
      Statements (File S-8 Nos. 333-14135, 333-15457, 2-70057, 2-83595,
      33-34973, 33-43618, 33-43601, and 2-48782).





      ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP



      Columbia, South Carolina
      March 19, 1999







                                       72
Clear All

        19 April 2022    

                    Sailors celebrate Navy Week New Orleans 2022                 
                NEW ORLEANS - Several military vessels arrived to the Julia Street Cruise Terminal to kick off Navy Week New Orleans New Orleans April 18.            

#####  

##### Navy.mil  |  Navy.com  |  Navy FOIA  |  DoD Accessibility/Section 508  |  No Fear Act  |  Open Government  |  Plain Writing Act USA.gov  |  Veterans Crisis Line  |  VA Vet Center  |  FVAP  |   DoD Safe Helpline  |  Navy SAPR  |  NCIS Tips  |  Privacy Policy  |  Site Map  |  Contact US

###### Commander, U.S. Fleet Forces Command   |   1562 Mitscher Ave., Suite 250   |   Norfolk, Virginia 23551-2487

###### Official U.S. Navy Website
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 23-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 23-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 23-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05394-AKH Document 23-2 Filed 11/09/2007 Page 4 of 4
#### In the Matter of Valery V. Torres et al., Respondents, v Gertrude Strohm et al., Respondents, and Pedro Espada, Appellant. In the Matter of Pedro Espada, Appellant, v Board of Elections of the City of New York et al., Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lewis R. Friedman, J.), entered on August 18, 1989, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. No opinion. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
NO. 07-09-0278-CV 

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

AT AMARILLO 

PANEL C 

MARCH 22, 2010 

______________________________ 

EX PARTE JAMES G. MILLER 

_________________________________ 

FROM THE 237TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY; 

NO. 2009547,036; HONORABLE SAM MEDINA, JUDGE 

_______________________________ 

Before QUINN, HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. 

DISSENTING OPINION 

I join the majority in finding that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear this matter; 

however, I write separately to dissent from the majority's finding that the trial court did 

not erroneously dismiss this case. A statutory expunction proceeding is civil rather than 

criminal in nature. Collin County Criminal District Attorney's Office v. Dobson, 167 

S.W.3d 625 (Tex.App.--Dallas 2005, no pet.). On July 15, 2009, the trial court 

scheduled this matter for a hearing. Twelve days later, on July 27th, 2009, the trial 

court summarily entered an order of dismissal. A trial court erroneously dismisses a 
 2

civil proceeding when it dismisses a proceeding without appropriate due process. 

Because Appellant was not afforded the opportunity of a hearing or the procedural 

benefits of a summary judgment proceeding, I would reverse the order of the trial court 

and remand for further proceedings. 

 Patrick A. Pirtle 

 Justice
* 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

FILED

June 3, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-30890

Summary Calendar

 

ROBERTO BAEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; DEAN A. HOLT,

Agent of IRS; JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL;

MAXWELL WOOD, United States Attorney,

Defendants-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 03-CV-1307

--------------------

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Roberto Baez, detainee # 90703, appeals the district court’s

denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, challenging his indefinite

detention pending removal to his native country of Cuba. Baez

contends that the district court erred in rejecting his claim that

his indefinite detention violates his constitutional rights. There

are no constitutional time limits on the detention of excluded
2

aliens who have been denied entry into the United States. Rios v.

INS, 324 F.3d 296, 296 (5th Cir. 2003); Gisbert v. U.S. Atty. Gen.,

988 F.2d 1437, 1439-41 (5th Cir.), amended by Gisbert v. U.S. Atty.

Gen., 997 F.2d 1122 (5th Cir. 1993).

Baez next asserts that he was improperly denied immigration

parole by the Mariel Cuban Review Panel (the “Panel”) based on

inaccurate information concerning the quantity of cocaine involved

in his drug-trafficking offense. The record indicates that parole

was denied because Baez demonstrated a propensity to engage in

recidivist criminal behavior, had been cited for failing to follow

directions while detained, and had not shown that he would remain

nonviolent and would not pose a threat to the community if

released. Baez has not shown that he was improperly denied parole.

See Gisbert, 988 F.2d at 1448.

Baez also advances that the Panel violated his due process

rights. Excluded aliens do not have the same due process rights as

criminal parolees, and denial or revocation of immigration parole

does not rise to the level of a constitutional infringement. Id.

at 1443.

Baez finally insists that he was denied adequate medical care

to repair a hernia and was denied adequate pain medication. Baez’s

claim is not cognizable is a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition; rather, it

is properly brought in a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. See Martinez v. Texas Ct. of Crim. Appeals, 292 F.3d 417,

420 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1091 (2002).
3

In addition to his substantive complaints, Baez has filed a

motion for release pending appeal. We deny that motion.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.
Case 7:07-cv-05795-KMK-MDF     Document 42      Filed 07/10/2008     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 15-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 15-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 15-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 15-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-05353-AKH Document 15-2 Filed 08/23/2007 Page 5 of 5
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 

IN RE WORLD TRADE CENTER LOWER 

MANHATTAN DISASTER SITE LITIGATION 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

21 MC 102 (AKH) 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

XXXXX, 

 Plaintiff(s), 

 -againstXXXXX, 

 Defendants. 

--------------------------------------------------------------X 

 XX Civ. XXXX (AKH) 

INITIATING COMPLAINT

Pursuant to Case Management Order No. __ (“CMO __”) dated June __, 2007 by Hon. 

Alvin K. Hellerstein, U.S.D.J., in In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site 

Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH), Plaintiff(s) hereby submit this Initiating Complaint against the 

above named Defendants and state: 

1. Plaintiff ____________ (XXXX) [Å last 4 digits of social security number] 

currently resides at ______________. 

2. Plaintiff(s) have a claim for injury against the Defendants named above that 

would be encompassed within the scope of the In Re World Trade Center Lower Manhattan 

Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

3. Plaintiffs will file a fully complete Check-Off Complaint under this docket 

number within 30 days of the filing of this Initiating Complaint. 

Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 1 of 2
NOTICE TO CLERK OF COURT: Please accept this Initiating Complaint as an initial pleading 

pursuant to CMO __, dated ____________, of Hon. Alvin K. Hellerstein in In Re World Trade 

Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 102 (AKH). 

Dated: _____ __, 200X 

{law firm name} 

Attorney(s) for 

Plaintiff(s)_______________________ 

By: ________ 

 {name} 

{law firm address} 

Telephone: _______________ 

Case 1:07-cv-05358-AKH Document 2-4 Filed 06/29/2007 Page 2 of 2
142 So. 535

#### CITY BANK & TRUST CO. v. GARDNER.

7 Div. 139.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 9, 1932.

*137Young & Longshore, of Anniston, for appellant.

Knox, Acker, Sterne & Liles, of Anniston, for appellee.

BROWN, J.

 It is well settled by the decisions of this court, which are in accord with the weight of authority, that an oral express trust in personalty may be created; that such trust does not offend the statutes of *138fraud, and may be established and enforced in equity. Moore, Adm’r, v. Campbell, Ex’r, 113 Ala. 587, 21 So. 353; Id.,102 Ala. 445, 14 So. 780; Bishop’s Heirs v. Administrator & Heirs of Bishop, 13 Ala. 475; Barrell v. Hanrick, Adm’r, et al., 42 Ala. 60; Hill v. Hill et al., 216 Ala. 435, 113 So. 306; 26 R. C. L. 1194, § 30; Barnes v. Barnes, 282 Ill. 593, 118 N. E. 1004, 4 A. L. R. 4; Straw v. Mower, 99 Vt. 56, 130 A. 687.

Money secured by mortgage on real property is within this rule. 3 Pom. Eq. Juris., 2232, § 1008; Tapia v. Demartini, 77 Cal. 383, 19 P. 641, 11 Am. St. Rep. 288; 26 R. C. L. 1194, § 30.

The averments of the bill as last •amended bring this case within this principle. The demurrer to the bill as last amended was, therefore, overruled without error.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, C. J., and THOMAS and KNIGHT, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit
        32**
   
   **CERTIFICATIONS**
  By
        signing below, each of the undersigned officers hereby certifies pursuant
        to 18
        U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
        2002, that, to his or her knowledge, (i) this report 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 this report fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Union
        Community Bancorp.
  Signed
        this 15 th day of
        August 2005.
  
 /s/
                  J. Lee Walden
              
              /s/
                  Alan L. GrimbleJ.
                  Lee Walden
              
              Alan
                  L. GrimbleChief
                  Financial Officer
              
              Chief
                  Executive Officer
 
 A
        signed
        original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document
        authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears
        in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required
        by Section 906, has been provided to Union Community Bancorp and will be
        retained by Union Community Bancorp and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
        Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 4-2 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 4-2 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 1:07-cv-01529-AKH Document 4-2 Filed 08/07/2007 Page 3 of 3
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1726 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1726

To amend title 11 of the United States Code to include firearms in the 
    types of property allowable under the alternative provision for 
                  exempting property from the estate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 13, 2019

 Mr. Collins of New York (for himself, Mr. DesJarlais, Mr. Latta, and 
  Mr. Young) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 11 of the United States Code to include firearms in the 
    types of property allowable under the alternative provision for 
                  exempting property from the estate.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Protecting Gun Owners in Bankruptcy 
Act of 2019''.

SEC. 2. EXEMPTIONS.

    Section 522 of title 11, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (d) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(13) The debtor's aggregate interest, not to exceed 
        $3,000 in value, in a single firearm or firearms.''; and
            (2) in subsection (f)(4)(A)--
                    (A) in clause (xiv) by striking ``and'' at the end;
                    (B) in clause (xv) by striking the period at the 
                end and inserting ``; and''; and
                    (C) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(xvi) The debtor's aggregate interest, not to exceed 
        $3,000 in value, in a single firearm or firearms.''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Effective Date.--Except as provided in subsection (b), this Act 
and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the date of 
the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Application of Amendments.--The amendments made by this Act 
shall apply only with respect to cases commenced under title 11 of the 
United States Code on or after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

MARTAVIOUS ANTWAYN CARN,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D22-2940

[July 20, 2023]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for 

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; Cymonie Rowe, Judge; 

L.T. Case No. 50-2015-CF-002879-AXXX-MB.

Martavious Carn, Cross City, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

WARNER, CIKLIN and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Moses Robinson, Respondent, v Housing Council of the Niagara Frontier, Inc., et al., Appellants.

Order insofar as appealed from unanimously reversed on the law without costs and defendants’ motion granted *(see, Barnes v Housing Council,*152 AD2d 920). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Fallon, J. — dismiss causes of action.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
#### WEN SHENG HUANG, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 12-2365.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: May 17, 2013.

Decided: May 30, 2013.

Thomas V. Massucci, Law Office of Thomas V. Massucci, New York, New *276York, for Petitioner. Stuart F. Delery, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Paul Fiorino, Senior Litigation Counsel, Theo Nickerson, Office of Immigration Litigation, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

Before MOTZ, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM.

Wen Sheng Huang, a native and citizen of the People’s Republic of China, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) dismissing his appeal from the immigration judge’s denial of his requests for asylum and withholding of deportation. We have thoroughly reviewed the record, including the various documentary exhibits relevant to family planning policies in China, the transcript of Huang’s merits hearing, and Huang’s supporting affidavit and evidence. We conclude that the record evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the Board’s factual findings, *see*8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2006), and that substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision. *See INS v. Elias-Zacarias,*502 U.S. 478, 481, 112 S.Ct. 812, 117 L.Ed.2d 38 (1992).

Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. *See In re: Wen Sheng Huang*(B.I.A. Oct. 11, 2012). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*PETITION DENIED.*
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT
REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM











We hereby
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (333-153910) and on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-94525, 333-51702, 333-88554, and
333-117494) of Connecticut Water Service, Inc. of our report dated March 13,
2009 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in
this Form 10-K.








/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers,
LLP





Stamford,
Connecticut


March 13,
2009
LONDON

MOSCOW

NEW YORK

PALO ALTO

RIO DE JANEIRO

RIYADH

WASHINGTON AUSTIN

BEIJING

BRUSSELS

DALLAS

DUBAI

HONG KONG

HOUSTON ONE SHELL PLAZA

910 LOUISIANA

HOUSTON, TEXAS

77002

- 4995

TEL +1 713.229.1234

FAX +1 713.229.1522 BakerBotts.com

Macey Reasoner Stokes

TEL +1 713.229.1369

FAX +1 713.229.7869 macey.stokes@bakerbotts.com November 10, 2015

V IA E LECTRONIC M AIL

080424.0145

Hon. Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of the Court Fourth Court of Appeals

Cadena

- Reeves Justice Center 300 Dolorosa, Suite 3200 San Antonio, Texas 78205

- 3037

Re: Helen A. Mzyk, Karnes S4 Minerals, L.P., and Karnes S 4 Management, L.L.C. vs. Murphy Exploration & Production Company

– USA , No. 04

- 15

- 00677

- CV in the Court of Appeals for the

Fourth Judicial District of Texas at San Antonio

Dear Mr. Hottle:

Pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 6.1(c) and 6.2, Appell ee Murphy Exploration & Production Company

–

USA designates Macey Reasoner Stokes as its lead counsel on appeal. Her contact information is as

follows:

Macey Reasoner Stokes

State Bar No. 00788253

Baker Botts L.L.P.

910 Louisiana Street

One Shell Plaza

Hou ston, Texas 77002

713.229.1369 713.229.7869 (Facsimile) macey.stokes@bakerbotts.com

Active 21637882.1 ACCEPTED

04-15-00677-CV

FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

11/10/2015 10:35:20 AM

KEITH HOTTLE

CLERKHon. Keith E. Hottle 2 November 10, 2015

The following attorneys remain additional counsel for Appellee on appeal and should continue to receive notices from the Court:

Jason Allen Newman

State Bar No. 24048689

M eghan McElvy

State Bar No. 24065127 Justin Lipe

State Bar No. 24083401

Baker Botts L.L.P.

910 Louisiana Street

One Shell Plaza
Houston, Texas 77002

713.229.1234 713.229.1522 (fax) jason.newman@bakerbotts.co m meghan.mcelvy@bakerbotts.com justin.lipe@bakerbotts.com

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very truly ours,

Macey Reasoner Stokes

Active 21637882.1Hon. Keith E. Hottle 3 November 10, 2015

cc: via electronic mail :

Timothy Patton, P.C.

14546 Brook Hollow Blvd. #279 San Antonio, Texas 78232 tpatton@tp

- pc.com

David P. Strolle, Jr. Granstaff, Gaedke & Edgmon, P.C. 5535 Fredericksburg Road, Suite 110 San Antonio, Texas 78229 dstrolle@caglaw.net

Counsel for Appellants Helen A. Mzyk, Karne s S4 Minerals, L.P., and Karnes S4 Management, L.L.C.

Active 21637882.1