alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Di smissed and Opinion Filed October 2, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 14

- 01020

- CR
JOSE RAMIRO DELAROSA , Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14

- 52888

- T


### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright and Justices Francis and Myers Opinion by Justice Myers Jose Ramiro Delarosa was convicted of un authorized use of a motor vehicle and

sentenced to 18 months ’ confinement in a state jail. Sentence was imposed in open court on July 9, 2014. Appellant filed a motion for new trial on August 6, 2014, which the trial court granted.

The Court has before i t appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal stating the trial court granted his motion for new trial. The State, in response, asks that we abate the appeal for findings regarding whether the trial court intended to grant a new trial. We deny the State’s m otion to abate. An order granting a motion for new trial restores a case to i ts position before the former trial and there is no longer a judgment in place. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 21.9(b); Waller v. State , 931
S.W.2d 640, 643

– 44 (Tex. App.

–– Dallas 1996, no p et.). Absent a judgment of conviction or other appealable order, this Court has no jurisdiction over an appeal. See Wright v. State , 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.

–– Dallas 1998, no pet.).– 2

– Accordingly, we grant appellant’s motion and dismiss the appeal fo r want of jurisdiction.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47 141020F.U05 /Lana Myers/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT

JOSE RAMIRO DELAROSA, Appellant

No. 05

- 14

- 01020

- CR V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F14

- 52888

- T. Opinion delivered by Justice Myers, Chief Justice Wright and Justice Francis participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Judgment entered this 2nd day of October, 2014.
**Exhibit 10.2**

Xerium Technologies, Inc. 

Description of Compensation for Non-Management Directors 

Effective March 2009 

Cash Compensation 

Non-management directors receive an annual cash retainer of $30,000. The chairman of the Audit Committee also receives additional cash compensation at an annual rateof $10,000 per year, and the chairman of the Compensation Committee and the chairman of the Nominating and Governance Committee each receive additional cash compensation at an annual rate of $5,000 per year. These amounts are payable quarterly inarrears promptly following the end of the quarter. Directors are also reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses for attending board and committee meetings. 

Equity Compensation 

Non-management directors also receive equity-based compensation in the form of a grant of restricted stock unitsfollowing the annual meeting to stockholders in recognition of their services for the ensuing year. The number of restricted stock units granted to each non-management director is calculated by dividing $40,000 by the average closing price per shareof the Company’s common stock over the 20 trading days prior the annual meeting of stockholders. The restricted stock units shall be granted promptly after the 20-trading day period runs. 

Dividends, if any, in respect of these restricted stock units are paid at the same rate as dividends on the Company’s common stock but are paid only in the form ofadditional restricted stock units. The restricted stock units are fully vested at grant. Upon the termination of the director’s service on the Company’s board, such director is entitled to receive the number of shares of common stock thatequals the number of restricted stock units the director has earned.
STATE of North Carolina v. Timothy Ray CASEY

No. 133A09-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 27, 2019

Anne M. Middleton, Special Deputy Attorney General, Garland N. Yates, District Attorney, for State of NC.

Lauren E. Miller, Attorney at Law, for Casey, Timothy Ray.

***ORDER***

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 5th of February 2019 by State of NC for Temporary Stay:

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

Upon consideration of the petition filed by State of NC on the 5th of February 2019 for Writ of Supersedeas of the judgment of the 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 27th of March 2019."

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by State of NC on the 18th of February 2019 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th of March 2019."
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         708,031
<SECURITIES>                                 2,956,287
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,174,689
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,981,803
<PP&E>                                       1,467,947
<DEPRECIATION>                               (263,369)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,910,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,442,394
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           463
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,301,059
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,910,298
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,488,045
<CGS>                                          385,575
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  385,575
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,736,560
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             100,594
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,634,090)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,634,090)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (3,672,656)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (10,206,153)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (2.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.75)



</TABLE>
#### Vincent Demond WESLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D02-1816.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 11, 2003.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and David P. Gauldin, Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Charlie Crist, Attorney General, and Anne C. Toolan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

BARFIELD, J.

The state concedes that the contempt proceedings below did not comply with the due process provisions incorporated in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, and that this constituted fundamental error. The appellant’s argument that the adjudication of contempt was not supported by the record evidence was not preserved for appellate *review.*The judgment and sentence are REVERSED and the case is REMANDED to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with rule 3.840, *see Paletti v.*State, 727 So.2d 291 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999); *Hunt v. State,*659 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).

BOOTH and ALLEN, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit
31.1**
  **CERTIFICATION**
  I, James
Chu, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
  
 1. 
I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of ViewSonic Corporation;
  
 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
period 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-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 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 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; and
 
 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 (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 (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:
    March
      29,
      2005/s/
      JAMES CHUJames
      ChuChairman
      of the Board of Directors and Chief Executive Officer
      (Principal
      Executive Officer)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FOR 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001068052
<NAME> EPIC RESORTS LLC
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      24,681,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               12,762,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   991,000
<INVENTORY>                                 93,042,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                      16,212,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,303,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             146,773,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,977,000
<BONDS>                                    128,053,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                  11,986,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               146,773,000
<SALES>                                     36,344,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            60,274,000
<CGS>                                        8,075,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               30,288,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             8,298,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,116,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          12,107,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              8,465,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          8,465,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              5,364,000
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,911,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  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: November 5, 2010
    /s/ Edward K. Aldag, Jr.Edward K. Aldag, Jr.Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer /s/ R. Steven HamnerR. Steven HamnerExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7929

CALVIN COOLIDGE HAIRSTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CARITON J. EVANS, Investigator; GRAND JURORS

OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA95-1191-R)

Submitted: January 18, 1996 Decided: February 8, 1996

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and CHAPMAN, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calvin Coolidge Hairston, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

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

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

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

court. Hairston v. Evans, No. CA-95-1191-R (W.D. Va. Nov. 7, 1995).

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
The ADOPTION OF K.P.J. and K.L.J., minor children

No. 284P18

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

December 7, 2018

Michael S. Harrell, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Coffman, Jean.

Bobby D. Mills, Attorney at Law, Raleigh, for Liederbach, Steven, et al.

LeeAnne Quattrucci, Attorney at Law, for GAL.

Diane Garreau

Harold Frazier

Valerie Curley

*SPECIAL ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by intervenor on 31 August 2018 in this matter for writ of certiorari to review the order of the North Carolina Court of Appeals dismissing intervenor's appeal, the following order *704was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

Allowed for the limited purpose of vacating the order of the Court of Appeals entered 27 July 2018 and remanding to the Court of Appeals with instructions that: (1) intervenor's appeal be treated in all respects as timely filed and procedurally proper; and (2) that the Court of Appeals reach the following issues presented by intervenor on appeal:

> I. Was there error in the trial court's assertion of jurisdiction over an adoption of Indian children covered by the federal Indian Child Welfare Act when the tribal court initially exercising jurisdiction over the children continued to assert jurisdiction?

> II. Did the trial court err in failing to give full faith and credit to the tribal court's earlier determination that the appellant was an Indian custodian of the children entitled to their return?

The parties are ordered to settle the record on appeal within thirty-five days.

By order of the Court in Conference, this the 7th day of December, 2018.
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 Annual Report of theglobe.com, inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael S. Egan, Chief
Executive 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 my knowledge and belief:




(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:March
27, 2009




/s/
      Michael S. EganMichael
      S. Egan
                  Chief
      Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 199 (Monday, October 17, 2005)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 60401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20855]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 199 / Monday, October 17, 2005 / 
Presidential Documents

[[Page 60401]]


                Presidential Determination No. 2005-40 of September 28, 
                2005

                
Transfers of Defense Articles or Services and 
                Brokering Activities for Libya Relating to Disposition 
                of Libyan-owned C-130H Aircraft

                Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the 
                Constitution and laws of the United States, including 
                sections 40(g) and 40A of the Arms Export Control Act 
                (AECA), I hereby:

<bullet>

 determine that the transaction, encompassing sales or licensing for export 
of defense articles or defense services and brokering activities necessary 
to assist in the disposition, including any required refurbishment, of 
Libyan-owned C-130H aircraft, is essential to the national security 
interests of the United States and important to the national interests of 
the United States;

<bullet>

 waive the prohibitions in sections 40 and 40A of the AECA related to such 
transaction; and

<bullet>

 assign to you the functions under AECA section 40(g)(2) to consult with 
and submit reports to the Congress for proposed specific exports or 
transfers, 15 days prior to permitting them to proceed, that are necessary 
for and within the scope of this waiver determination and the transaction 
referred to herein.

                You are authorized and directed to report this 
                certification to the Congress and to arrange for its 
                publication in the Federal Register.

                    (Presidential Sig.)B

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, September 28, 2005.

[FR Doc. 05-20855
Filed 10-14-05; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
1105.

#### Kelly *v.*Malone.

Russell, J.

1. A motion to strike a paragraph, of the defendant’s answer is an oral demurrer thereto. Exception to the judgment rendered! upon such a motion must be preserved by exceptions pendente lite, unless the bill of exceptions is certified within thirty days from the day *619of the judgment of which complaint is made. A ruling upon a motion ta strike either a part or the whole of a defendant’s answer can not be reviewed by a motion for new trial.

Complaint, from city court of Montieello — Judge Thurman. March 11, 1908.

Submitted May 8, 1908.

Decided February 9, 1909.

*A. T. Clement,*for plaintiff in error.

*Greene F. Johnson,*contra.

2. It is not error to exclude evidence which is not pertinent to the pleadings,

(a) Where both parties to a cause rely upon an express contract, and are in conflict only as its terms, and this is the only issue raised by the pleadings, it is pot error to exclude 'testimony as to the value of services which were the subject-matter of the contract; nor is it error to refuse to allow proof that others had offered to perform such services for a different amount. *Jacobus*v. *Wood,*84 *Ga.*639 (2, 4), (10 S. E. 1099).

3. The verdict was authorized by the evidence, and there was no error in refusing a new trial. *Judgment affirmed.*