alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 7, 2017

No. 04

- 17

- 00045

- CV

In re ATW INVESTMENTS, INC. , Brian Payton, Ying Payton, and American Dream

Renovations and Construction, LLC

,

From the 131st Judicial Distric t Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017

- CI

- 00545

Honorable Norma Gonzales, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

The real parties

- in

- interest have filed a motion for extension of time to file their response.

The motion is GRANTED. Any response by the real parties

- in

- interest is due on February 13,

2016.

It is so ORDERED on February 7, 2017.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_______________________________ __

Keith E. Hottle , Clerk
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

     In  connection  with the Annual  Report of AKI,  Inc.  on Form 10-K for the
period ending June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"),  we, William J. Fox and Kenneth A. Budde, the
Chief Executive  Officer and Chief  Financial  Officer,  respectively,  certify,
pursuant  to 18  U.S.C.  ss.  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.  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 operation of AKI, Inc.


/s/ William J. Fox
------------------
William J. Fox
Chief Executive Officer
August 31, 2004


/s/ Kenneth A. Budde
--------------------
Kenneth A. Budde
Chief Financial Officer
August 31, 2004


A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  6-MOS  
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      34,015,437
<SECURITIES>                                26,549,982
<RECEIVABLES>                               28,577,891
<ALLOWANCES>                                (2,084,245)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,005,447
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            90,633,237
<PP&E>                                     174,151,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,359,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,517,600,484
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       58,259,604
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                344,375,611
<COMMON>                                         2,500
<OTHER-SE>                                 (81,008,910)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,517,600,484
<SALES>                                    137,487,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           137,487,000
<CGS>                                       33,265,641
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              120,814,667
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (99,982)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         (61,476,497)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (39,869,130)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (529,919)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (40,399,049)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (40,399,049)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-10725 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. RICARDO RAMIREZ-RODRIGUEZ, Defendant-Appellant

A ppeal from the United States District Court f or the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 1:12-CR-4-1
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a crimin a l case, Ricardo Ramirez-Rodriguez raises arguments that he concedes are fo r e c l o s e d by United States v . Newson , 515 F.3d 374, 3 77-78 ( 5th Cir. 2008), which held that t h e Government m ay decline to move for an additional one-poin t r e d u c t ion under United States Sentencing G uidelines § 3E1.1(b) based o n the d e fendant’s refusal to waive his ri g h t t o a ppeal. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is U n i t e d S t a te s C o u r t o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 16, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-10725 Document: 00512209133 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/16/2013No. 12-10725

GRANTED, its alternative motion for a n e x t e n s i on of time to f ile a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

2 Case: 12-10725 Document: 00512209133 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/16/2013
10N 11730 Tijuiana Letter Feb212000




FINAL VERSION
Tijuana, B.C., a 23 de febrero de 2012
PROCADEF 1, S.A.P.I. DE C.V
Paseos de los Heroes 9188
Piso 5
Zona Urbana Rio Tijuana
Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico.
Re:     Aviso de cesion.
En relacion con el Contrato de Arrendamiento celebrado con fecha 21 de febrero del año 2000, entre BBVA Bancomer Servicios, S. A., en su caracter de Fiduciario del Fideicomiso “Submetropoli de Tijuana” y Ensatec, S.A. de C.V., respecto a la nave industrial y mejoras accesorias ubicadas en la Calle Colinas11730 del Fraccionamiento Parque industrial EI Florido, Seccion Colinas, Delegacion La Presa, Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, asi como con el Convenio que celebramos con ustedes con frecha efectiva del 14 de agosto de 2011 (el “Convenio”) venimos a avisarle y notificarle lo siguiente:


		
	I.
	Que de conformidad con la Clausula Quinta del Convenio Ensateç S.A. de C.V. con fecha efectiva del 23 de febrero de 2O12, cedio todos y cada uno de sus derechos a favor de Pall Mexico Manufacturing, S. de R.L. de C.V.


		
	II.
	Que en lo relacionado con la Clausula Octava del Convenio, Ensatec, S.A. de C.V. señala como su domicilio para oir y recibir toda clase de notiflcaciones y avisos el ubicado en; Blvd. Agua Caliente 10470, Desp #1, Centro Comercial Barranquitas, Col. Revolución, Tijuana, B.C. Mexico 22015.




Sin mas por el momentro, agradecemos sus atenciones al presente aviso y notificacion.
Atentamertte,
Pall Mexico Manufacturing, S. de R.L. de C.V.                        Ensatec, S.A. de C.V.






	
		
	[Graphic appears here]
Lic. Leobardo Tenorio Malof


	[Graphic appears here]
Ing. Hector machado Barraza
Edward MitchellAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

December 4, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00741

- CV

Deidre Elane SCHAMP

, Appellant

v.

Edward MITCHELL

, Appellee

From the 57th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013

- CI

- 20583

Honorable Solomon Casseb, III, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

This appeal is retained on the docket of the court. We order appellant’s brief due January

5, 2015.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 4th day of December, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Dion Vernon Williams v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 19

- 00783

- CR

Trial court case number: 1577604

Trial court: County Crim inal C ourt No

. 9 of Tarrant County

This case was abated and remanded to the trial court to determine whether to appoint

counsel to represent appellant. A supplemental clerk’s record has been filed containing an order

by the trial court appointing counsel. Accordingly, th e appeal is reinstated.

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature:

___

/s/ Gordon Goodman

______ Acting individually

Date: ___ August 17, 2021

____
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.2


                          WAIVER AND CONSENT AGREEMENT


         THIS WAIVER AND CONSENT AGREEMENT ("this Agreement"), effective as of
December 31, 2003, and executed on January 23, 2004, is entered into by BOYD
BROTHERS TRANSPORTATION, INC., a Delaware corporation (the "Borrower"), and
AMSOUTH BANK, an Alabama banking corporation (the "Lender").

                                    RECITALS

         A.  The Borrower and the Lender have entered into a Credit Agreement
dated as of May 1, 2001, as amended (the "Credit Agreement").

         B.  The Borrower has requested that the Lender enter into the Agreement
in order to grant certain consents and waivers with respect to the Credit
Agreement as hereinafter described.

                                   AGREEMENT


         NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing recitals and of the
mutual agreements of the parties hereto:

              1.   The parties agree that capitalized terms used in this
Agreement and not otherwise defined herein have the respective meanings
attributed thereto in the Credit Agreement.

              2.   The Lender consents to and waives the failure of the
Borrower to:

             (a)  Not make Capital Expenditures (exclusive of trucks and
trailers) during any fiscal year in an amount greater than $500,000.

              3.  This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts,
each of which shall for all purposes be deemed to be an original and all of
which shall constitute the same instrument, but only one of which need be
produced.

              4.  The Borrower hereby represents and warrants that all
representations and warranties contained in the Credit Agreement are true and
correct as of the date hereof (except representations and warranties that are
expressly limited to an earlier date); and the Borrower certifies that except
for those matters waived or consented to herein, no Event of Default nor any
event that, upon notice or lapse of time or both, would constitute an Event of
Default, has occurred and is continuing.

              5.  Nothing contained herein shall be construed as a waiver,
acknowledgement or consent to any breach or Event of Default of the Credit
Agreement and the Credit Documents not specifically mentioned herein, and the
consents granted herein are effective only in the specific instance and for the
purposes which are given.

              6.  This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Alabama.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Borrower and the Lender has caused this
Agreement to be executed by its duly authorized officer as of the day and year
first above written.


BOYD BROTHERS TRANSPORTATION, INC.                    AMSOUTH BANK


By: /s/ [SIG]                                         By: /s/ [SIG]
  ---------------------                                  ----------------------


Its: CFO                                              Its: Senior Vice President
    --------------------                                  ----------------------
STATE of North Carolina v. Cory Dion BENNETT

No. 406PA18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 27, 2019

Franklin E. Wells, Jr., Attorney at Law, Asheboro, for Bennett, Cory Dion.

Brent Kiziah, Assistant Attorney General, Ernie Lee, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 19th of November 2018 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of March 2019."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
```

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 196 (Wednesday, October 12, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 59348]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20568]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

TIME AND DATE: 11:30 a.m., Monday, October 17, 2005.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    2. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle A. Smith, Director, Office of 
Board Members; 202-452-2955.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may call 202-452-3206 beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before the meeting for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting; or you may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications, but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 7, 
2005.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 05-20568 Filed 10-7-05; 3:25 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
```
<PAGE>   1
Exhibit 99(a)

                       INSILCO HOLDING CO AND SUBSIDIARIES



                 SCHEDULE II - VALUATION AND QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
                                 (In thousands)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                         Additions
                                                                  ---------------------
                                                                     (1)         (2)
                                                                   Charged     Charged
                                                   Balance at     to costs    to other                        Balance
                                                   beginning        and       accounts       Deductions      at end of
                     Description                   of period      expenses   (describe)      (describe)        period
                     -----------                   ----------     --------   ----------      ----------      ---------
<S>                                                  <C>             <C>           <C>        <C>              <C>  
For the year ended December 31, 1996

   Allowances deducted from assets:

      Accounts receivable (for doubtful
       receivables)                                  $11,303         2,298            -       (8,623)(a)        4,978

      Inventory (primarily for obsolescence)           6,154         2,606            -       (2,644)(b)        6,116

For the year ended December 31, 1997

   Allowances deducted from assets:

      Accounts receivable (for doubtful
       receivables)                                  $ 4,978           701            -       (3,547)(c)        2,132

      Inventory (primarily for obsolescence)           6,116         2,826            -       (3,498)(b)        5,444

For the year ended December 31, 1998

   Allowances deducted from assets:

      Accounts receivable (for doubtful
       receivables)                                  $ 2,132         1,460            -         (812)(a)        2,780

      Inventory (primarily for obsolescence)           5,444         2,281            -       (3,882)(b)        3,843
</TABLE>



Notes:   (a)  Primarily accounts written off, net of recoveries.

         (b)  Primarily obsolete parts written off.

         (c)  Primarily due to the sale of the Rolodex Business and 
              accounts written off, net of recoveries.
Exhibit 21.1





Romacorp, Inc.
List of Subsidiaries





Set forth below is a list of the Registrant's subsidiaries as of March 25, 2001.





|Name of Subsidiary              |  | Jurisdiction ofOrganization
|------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|                                |  |                            
|Roma Bar Management Corporation |  | Texas                      
|Roma Fort Worth, Inc.           |  | Texas                      
|Roma Franchise Corporation      |  | Delaware                   
|Roma System, Inc.               |  | Delaware                   
|Roma Dining LP                  |  | Delaware                   
|Roma Holdings, Inc.             |  | Delaware                   
|Costillias Dominicana S.A.      |  | Dominican Republic         
|Roma Prince George's, Inc.      |  | Maryland                   
|Roma Owings Mills, Inc.         |  | Maryland                   
|Roma Sahara, Inc.               |  | Nevada
#### Robert L. BROTHERS, III, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D02-3169.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Sept. 12, 2003.

James B. Gibson, Public Defender, and Scott Ragan, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Charles J. Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Lori N. Hagan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Ap-pellee.

MONACO, J.

The appellant, Robert L. Brothers, III, was convicted at jury trial of robbery, in violation of section 812.13(2)(c), Florida *1125Statutes (2002), based largely on circumstantial evidence. The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying the motion of Mr. Brothers for a judgment of acquittal.

When the evidence against a criminally accused person is circumstantial, a motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted if the state fails to present evidence from which the jury can exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. *See State v. Law,*559 So.2d 187, 188 (Fla.1989); *Wilson v. State,*493 So.2d 1019, 1022 (Fla.1986); *Everett v. State,*831 So.2d 738 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Upon careful review of the transcript, we have concluded that the State introduced sufficient competent evidence that was inconsistent with the theory of events put forth by Mr. Brothers. The trial judge was, therefore, correct in denying the motion seeking a judgment of acquittal.

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN and THOMPSON, JJ„ concur.
================================================================================

Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Denia Enterprises Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB  for the  period ended October 31, 2006  as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the  date  hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, in  the capacities and on the dates indicated  below,  hereby
certifies  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,  as adopted  pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

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
       Company.


Date:  December 15, 2006


/s/
---------------------------------
Norm Dority, President and C.E.O.
(Principal Executive Officer)
STATE of North Carolina v. Ludlow Ray DAW, Jr., Defendant.

No. COA18-117

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 18, 2018

NO ERROR.
#### Marilyn MELANCON, et al. v. Kelly MORRISON, et al.

No. 2003-CC-2096.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 5, 2003.

In re Melancon, Marilyn et al.;—Plaintiff; Applying for Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 474,096; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2003 CW 0695.

Denied.
#### In re Patrick Joseph Quinn WOOD.

No. 2003-OB-1993.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 17, 2003.

In re Wood, Patrick Joseph Quinn;— Plaintiff; Applying for Permission to Take Bar Examination.

Granted. Petitioner is allowed to take the Louisiana State Bar Examination in July 2003. Within fifteen days of notification that he has satisfactorily passed this examination, Petitioner may file a brief with this Court, supported by appropriate documentary evidence, setting forth the facts of the alcohol-related offenses and explaining his failure to disclose the 2001 DWI arrest on his bar application.

VICTORY, J., would deny the application.

TRAYLOR, J., would deny the application.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROBERT K. HUDNALL and SHARON 

E. HUDNALL,

Appellants,

v.

SMITH AND RAMIREZ 

RESTORATION, L.L.C.,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-19-00217-CV

Appeal from the

448th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2015DCV1113)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the attempted appeal 

should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction, in accordance with the opinion of this Court. We 

therefore dismiss the appeal. This decision shall be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before Rodriguez, J., Palafox, J., and Barajas, Senior Judge

Barajas, Senior Judge (Sitting by Assignment)
# Official Journal C 485/2016

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 485 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5928 December 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 485

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5928 December 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 485/01 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8267 — Everis Initiatives/Bankia/Nettit Collaborative Payment) (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 485/01

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case M.8267 — Everis Initiatives/Bankia/Nettit Collaborative Payment) (
  1
  )

1

1

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 485/02 | Euro exchange rates | 2 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 485/02

Euro exchange rates

2

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 485/03 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8271 — Hitachi Chemical Company/FIAMM/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  ) | 3 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2016/C 485/03

Prior notification of a concentration (Case M.8271 — Hitachi Chemical Company/FIAMM/JV) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (
  1
  )

1

3

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN