alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<XBRL>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!--XBRL Document Created with the Workiva Platform-->
<!--Copyright 2024 Workiva-->
<!--r:e703c101-9af1-4302-bb86-98128b0be141,g:f774f075-5575-4468-a77f-509dbbe4bb0d-->
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:link="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" xmlns:aos="http://www.aosmith.com/20240318" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://www.aosmith.com/20240318">
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xlink-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-instance-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2023" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2023/dei-2023.xsd"/>
  <xs:annotation>
    <xs:appinfo>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="aos-20240318_pre.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="aos-20240318_lab.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/labelLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:roleType id="CoverPage" roleURI="http://www.aosmith.com/role/CoverPage">
        <link:definition>0000001 - Document - Cover Page</link:definition>
        <link:usedOn>link:presentationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:calculationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:definitionLink</link:usedOn>
      </link:roleType>
    </xs:appinfo>
  </xs:annotation>
</xs:schema>
</XBRL>
CERTIFICATE
                              
      The  undersigned, Controller of SMITH BARNEY NEW
JERSEY MUNICIPALS FUND INC. (the "Fund"), hereby certifies
that the Fund has received  full payment, in  accordance
with  the provisions of its Prospectus, for 1,970,815 shares
of common stock,  par  value $0.001 per share, the sales  of
which are reported in the Fund's Rule 24f-2 Notice covering
the fiscal year ended March 31, 1997 and that the facts
otherwise stated in such Notice are true.


                                   Thomas M. Reynolds
                                   Controller

Dated:         May 9, 1997
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

LUFKIN DIVISION 

MONICA Y PETERS-CLARK, 

 Plaintiff, 

v. 

ANGELINA COLLEGE, 

 Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-100-MJT 

ORDER ADOPTING 

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [DKT. 23] 

Plaintiff Monica Peters-Clark brought this suit alleging race discrimination and unlawful 

retaliation under Title VII, race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. §1981, and state law claims of race 

discrimination and unlawful retaliation under the Texas Labor Code against Defendant Angelina 

College [Dkt. 1]. The District Court referred Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) Partial Motion to Dismiss 

[Dkts. 3, 17] to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United States Magistrate Judge, for 

consideration and disposition. On August 13, 2024, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and 

Recommendation [Dkt. 23] in which she recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s §1981 claim but 

denial of Defendant’s motion [Dkt. 3] as to Plaintiff’s Title VII and state law claims. To date, the 

parties have not filed objections to the report. 

The Court received and considered the Report and Recommendation of the United States 

Magistrate Judge pursuant to such referral, along with the record, pleadings, and all available 

evidence. After careful review, the Court finds that the findings of fact and conclusions of law of 

the United States Magistrate Judge are correct. 

Case 9:23-cv-00100-MJT Document 26 Filed 09/03/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 552
2 

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 

23] is ADOPTED. Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) Partial Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. 3] is GRANTED 

in part and DENIED in part. 

____________________________

Michael J. Truncale

United States District Judge SIGNED this 3rd day of September, 2024.

Case 9:23-cv-00100-MJT Document 26 Filed 09/03/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 553
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

787 

CA 14-02268 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SCONIERS, VALENTINO, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

 

TODD D. COOK AND LAURA L. COOK, 

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS, 

V ORDER

SUSAN E. HILL, AS TRUSTEE OF THE SUSAN E. 

HILL REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, CURTISS R. HILL, 

AS TRUSTEE OF THE CURTISS R. HILL REVOCABLE 

LIVING TRUST, MARC J. HAAS, BETSEY K. HASS, 

TIMOTHY D. FOURNIER, SUSAN A. FOURNIER, 

PATRICIA R. DAVIS, RICHARD K. WHITMORE, AS 

TRUSTEE OF THE YVONNE S. WHITMORE QUALIFIED 

PERSONAL RESIDENCE TRUST (CANANDAIGUA) U/A 

DATED AUGUST 1, 2005, ROBERT URLAUB, THOMAS 

URLAUB, ALLISON DIMARCO, AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE 

LOWELL B. URLAUB AND MARY B. URLAUB TRUST U/A 

DATED DECEMBER 31, 2012, BRUCE D. PATT, TRUDIE A. 

KIRSHNER, MARGARET D. ALDRIDGE, SUSAN W. LOWELL, 

THEODORE L. LENZ, BELINDA A. LENZ, GEORGE W. 

KARPUS, KATHLEEN P. KARPUS, THEODORE G. LENZ AND 

KAREN B. LENZ, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS, 

ET AL., DEFENDANTS. 

 

HARTER SECREST & EMERY LLP, ROCHESTER (JERAULD E. BRYDGES OF COUNSEL),

FOR PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS-RESPONDENTS. 

BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC, ROCHESTER (KARL S. ESSLER OF COUNSEL),

FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. 

 

Appeal and cross appeal from an order of the Supreme Court,

Ontario County (William F. Kocher, A.J.), entered October 15, 2014. 

The order, inter alia, denied the motion of plaintiffs and the cross

motion of defendants-respondents for summary judgment. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme

Court.

Entered: June 12, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
Donnie Cleveland LANCE, Petitioner, v. Benjamin FORD, Warden.

No. 19-7488 (19A858)

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 29, 2020

Application for stay of execution of sentence of death presented to Justice Thomas and by him referred to the Court denied. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Georgia denied.
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 on Form 10-Q of Energy Holdings International, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, John Adair, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  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 to the best of our knowledge:





(i)The 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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: February 14, 2011

/s/    John AdairJohn AdairChairman, President and Chief Executive Officer





This certification accompanies this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
May 4, 1999 


VIA EDGAR

Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.  20549


RE:	Smith Barney Telecommunications Trust (the 
"Trust")
	File Nos. 002-86519 and 811-3763


Dear Sirs:

Pursuant to Rule 497(j) under the Securities Act 
of 1933, as amended, please accept this letter as 
certification that the Prospectus and the 
Statement of Additional Information for the above 
Trust do not differ from those contained in Post-
Effective Amendment No. 25 (the "Amendment") to 
the Trust's Registration Statement on Form N-1A.  
This Amendment was filed electronically on April 
29, 1999 and became effective April 30, 1999.

Any comments on this filing should be directed to 
the undersigned at (212) 816-6396. Please return 
an electronic transmittal as evidence of your 
receipt of this filing.


Very truly yours,


/s/ Robert M. Nelson
Robert M.Nelson
Assistant Secretary
ARIZONA v. CALIFORNIA

No. 150 ORIG

Supreme Court of the United States.

Decided February 24, 2020

The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied.

Justice THOMAS, with whom Justice ALITO joins, dissenting from denial of motion for leave to file complaint.

Today the Court denies Arizona leave to file a complaint against California. Although we have discretion to decline review in other kinds of cases, see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1254(1), 1257(a), we likely do not have discretion to decline review in cases within our original jurisdiction that arise between two or more States.

The Constitution establishes our original jurisdiction in mandatory terms. Article III states that, "[i]n all Cases ... in which a State shall be [a] Party, the supreme Court *shall* have original Jurisdiction." § 2, cl. 2 (emphasis added). In this circumstance, "[w]e have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given."

*685*Cohens v. Virginia,*6 Wheat. 264, 404, 5 L.Ed. 257 (1821) (Marshall, C.J., for the Court).

Our original jurisdiction in suits between two States is also "exclusive." § 1251(a). As I have previously explained, "[i]f this Court does not exercise jurisdiction over a controversy between two States, then the complaining State has no judicial forum in which to seek relief." *Nebraska* v. *Colorado* , 577 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 1034, 1035, 194 L.Ed.2d 545 (2016) (opinion dissenting from denial of motion for leave to file complaint). Denying leave to file in a case between two or more States is thus not only textually suspect, but also inequitable.

The Court has provided scant justification for reading "shall" to mean "may." It has invoked its "increasing duties with the appellate docket," *Arizona v. New Mexico* , 425 U.S. 794, 797, 96 S.Ct. 1845, 48 L.Ed.2d 376 (1976) (*per curiam* ) (internal quotation marks omitted), and its "structur[e] ... as an appellate tribunal," *Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp.* , 401 U.S. 493, 498, 91 S.Ct. 1005, 28 L.Ed.2d 256 (1971). But the Court has failed to provide any analysis of the Constitution's text to justify our discretionary approach.

Although I have applied this Court's precedents in the past, see *Wyoming v. Oklahoma* , 502 U.S. 437, 474, n., 112 S.Ct. 789, 117 L.Ed.2d 1 (1992) (dissenting opinion), I have since come to question those decisions, see *Nebraska* , *supra,* at ----, 136 S.Ct. at, 1035 (dissenting opinion). Arizona invites us to reconsider our discretionary approach, and I would do so. I respectfully dissent from the denial of leave to file a complaint.
Long LE, Ha Duong, and Emily Le v. WAKE MEDICAL CENTER, Michael Smith, Edgar Garrabrant, III, Cortney Sherev, Kendra Graham, S. Hantar, Brittany Johnson, Kathy Bryant, an Unknown Male Neonatalogist, and Unknown Female Triage Nurse.

No. 457P03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2004.

Long Le, Pro Se. Ha Duong, Pro Se.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiffs on the 22nd day of August 2003 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2004."

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiffs on the 22nd day of August 2003 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the order of the Superior Court, Wake County, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court of that County:

> 
*561
"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2004."
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

November 2, 2005 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 127863 & (78) Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices

v SC: 127863 COA: 246345 Kalkaska CC: 01-002162-FC IVAN LEE BECHTOL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 30, 2004 judgment of the Court of Appeals is cons idered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to remand for an evidentiary h earing is also considered, and it is DENIED, without prejudice to defendant’s right to seek post-appeal relief pur suant to MCR 6.500.

p1026 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

November 2, 2005

Clerk
VIA EDGAR 
 
January 17, 1997
 
Securities and Exchange Commission 
Judiciary Plaza 
450 Fifth Street NW 
Washington, DC 
 
ATTN:		Office of Filings, Information and Consumer Services 
 
RE: 		Municipal High Income Fund Inc. 
		File No. 33-20507 
 
Gentlemen: 
 
Pursuant to Rule 497(j) under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, 
please  accept this letter as certification that the prospectus and the 
statement of  additional information for the above-referenced Portfolio 
does not differ from  that contained in Post-Effective Amendment No. 9 
(the "Amendment") to the  Fund's Registration Statement on Form N-2.  
This Amendment was filed electronically on January 13, 1997 and 
became effective on January 15, 1997. 
 
Any comments on this filing should be directed to me at 212-816-5770. 
 
Please return an electronic transmittal as evidence of your receipt of 
this  filing. 
 
 
						Very truly yours, 
 
 
						/s/Michael Kocur 
						Michael Kocur 
						Vice President and 
						Assistant General Counsel
Kendra ESPINOZA, et al., Petitioners v. MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, et al.

No. 18-1195

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 9, 2019

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as *amicus curiae* and for divided argument granted.
John Patrick STOKES, et ux., Petitioners v. LSF 8 MASTER PARTICIPATION TRUST

No. 19-6300

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Joseph RAIMONDO, Petitioner, v. Denise Page HOOD, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, et al.

No. 19-383

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 27, 2020

Petition for rehearing denied.
Exhibit








Amendment to Executive Change of Control Agreement


WHEREAS, Philippe Krakowsky (the “Executive”) and The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. (“Interpublic,” Interpublic and its subsidiaries being referred to herein as the “Company”) are parties to an Executive Change of Control Agreement dated as of May 27, 2010, as amended (the “Agreement”); 


WHEREAS, Section 5.1 of the Agreement states that the Agreement will expire as of September 1, 2019; 


WHEREAS, the Executive and the Company wish to extend the Agreement for another three years and to make certain updates and clarifications; and


NOW, THEREFORE, the Agreement is hereby amended, effective immediately, as follows:


		
	1.
	Incorporation by Reference. All provisions of the Agreement are hereby incorporated herein by reference and shall remain in full force and effect except to the extent that such provisions are expressly modified by the provisions of this Amendment. Words and phrases used in this Amendment shall have the meaning set forth in the Agreement unless the context clearly indicates that a different meaning is intended.




		
	2.
	Severance Payment.  Section 2.1(b) of the Agreement is amended and restated to read in its entirety as follows:




(b)  The greater of (i) the Executive’s actual annual incentive award under the Interpublic Senior Executive Incentive Plan or any successor thereto (“SEIP Award”) for the calendar year in which the Qualifying Termination occurs or (ii) the Executive’s target SEIP Award for the calendar year in which the Change of Control occurs, as such target SEIP Award is in effect immediately prior to such Change of Control, subject to the adjustment, if any, required by the SEIP if Executive has already received a full SEIP Award for the calendar year of the Qualifying Termination.


		
	3.
	Extension. Section 5.1(a)(i) of the Agreement is amended by replacing “September 1, 2019” with “September 30, 2022”.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Interpublic, by its duly authorized officer, and Executive have caused this Amendment to the Agreement to be executed.




	
		
	The Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc.
	Executive

	 
	 

	By: /s/ Andrew Bonzani
	By: /s/ Philippe Krakowsky

	Andrew Bonzani
	Philippe Krakowsky

	EVP, General Counsel & Secretary
	 

	Date: July 24, 2019
	Date: July 24, 2019
Paul John DENHAM, Petitioner, v. CALIFORNIA.

No. 19-6646

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 21, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of California denied.
Ola D. DICKENS, Petitioner v. ILLINOIS, et al.

No. 19-5764

Supreme Court of the United States.

November 4, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit denied.
Independent Auditors' Consent



To the Shareholders and Board of Trustees of
Smith Barney Sector Series Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference, of our
report dated December 11, 2000 with respect to Smith
Barney Global Technology Fund of Smith Barney Sector
Series Inc., and to the reference to our firm under the
heading "Introduction" in the Prospectus/Proxy Statement
included in this Registration Statement on Form N-14.


KPMG LLP


New York, New York
July 18, 2001
# EUR-Lex - 22003D0091 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 22003D0091

**Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 91/2003 of 11 July 2003 amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement **

*
Official Journal L 272 , 23/10/2003 P. 0027 - 0027 *

Decision of the EEA Joint Committee

No 91/2003

of 11 July 2003

amending Annex XIII (Transport) to the EEA Agreement

THE EEA JOINT COMMITTEE,

Having regard to the Agreement on the European Economic Area, as amended by the Protocol adjusting the Agreement on the European Economic Area, hereinafter referred to as "the Agreement", and in particular Article 98 thereof,

Whereas:

(1) Annex XIII to the Agreement was amended by Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 81/2003 of 20 June 2003(1).

(2) Commission Regulation (EC) No 980/2002 of 4 June 2002 amending Regulation (EC) No 2082/2000 adopting Eurocontrol standards(2) is to be incorporated into the Agreement,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Article 1

The following shall be added in the second indent of point 66c (Council Directive 93/65/EEC) of Annex XIII to the Agreement:

", as amended by:

- 32002 R 0980: Commission Regulation (EC) No 980/2002 of 4 June 2002 (OJ L 150, 8.6.2002, p. 38)."

Article 2

The texts of Regulation (EC) No 980/2002 in the Icelandic and Norwegian languages, to be published in the EEA Supplement to the Official Journal of the European Union, shall be authentic.

Article 3

This Decision shall enter into force on 12 July 2003, provided that all the notifications in Article 103(1) of the Agreement have been made to the EEA Joint Committee(3).

Article 4

This Decision shall be published in the EEA section of, and in the EEA Supplement to, the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 11 July 2003.

For the EEA Joint Committee

The President

H. S. H. Prinz Nikolaus von Liechtenstein

(1) OJ L 257, 9.10.2003, p. 33.

(2) OJ L 150, 8.6.2002, p. 38.

(3) No constitutional requirements indicated.
Donald R. SANDERS, Petitioner v. Barack Hussein OBAMA, et al.

No. 19-6281

Supreme Court of the United States.

December 16, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of
Travelers Series Fund Inc.:

In planning and performing our audit of the financial statements 
of Travelers Series Fund Inc. (the "Funds") consisting of Smith 
Barney Large Cap Value Portolio, Alliance Growth Portfolio, Van 
Kampen American Capital Enterprise Portfolio, Smith Barney 
International Equity Portfolio, Smith Barney Pacific Basin 
Portfolio, GT Global Strategic Income Portfolio, MFS Total Return 
Portfolio, TBC Managed Income Portfolio, Smith Barney Money 
Market Portfolio, AIM Capital Appreciation Portfolio, Smith 
Barney Large Capitalization Growth Portfolio, Smith Barney High 
Income Portfolio and Putnam Diversified Income Portfolio for the 
year ended October 31, 1998, we considered its internal control, 
including control activities for safeguarding securities, in 
order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of 
expressing our opinion on the financial statements and to comply 
with the requirements of Form N-SAR, not to provide assurance on 
the internal control.

The management of the Funds is responsible for establishing and 
maintaining internal control.  In fulfilling this responsibility, 
estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the 
expected benefits and related costs of controls.  Generally, 
controls that are relevant to an audit pertain to the entity's 
objective of preparing financial statements for external purposes 
that are fairly presented in conformity with generally accepted 
accounting principles. Those controls include the safeguarding of 
assets against unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition. 

Because of inherent limitations in internal control, error or 
fraud may occur and not be detected.  Also, projection of any 
evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to 
the risk that it may become inadequate because of changes in 
conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation 
may deteriorate.

Our consideration of the internal control would not necessarily 
disclose all matters in internal control that might be material 
weaknesses under standards established by the American Institute 
of Certified Public Accountants.  A material weakness is a 
condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the 
internal control components does not reduce to a relatively low 
level the risk that misstatements caused by error or fraud in 
amounts that would be material in relation to the financial 
statements being audited may occur and not be detected within a 
timely period by employees in the normal course of performing 
their assigned functions.  However, we noted no matters involving 
internal control and its operation, including controls for 
safeguarding securities that we consider to be material 
weaknesses as defined above. 

This report is intended solely for the information and use of 
management, the Board of Directors of the Funds, and the 
Securities and Exchange Commission.

December 18, 1998
ACCEPTED 12-13-00394-CR TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

TYLER, TEXAS 11/10/2015 9:48:50 AM

Pam Estes CLERK