alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## In **T he**  **Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo** 

No. 07
- 24 - 00268 - CR IN RE MATTHEW LEE FLOWERS, RELATOR ORIGINAL PROCEEDING 

### September 17 , 202 4 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and DOSS and YARBROUGH, JJ. Pending before the Court is the pro se petition for writ of mandamus filed by relator Matthew Lee Flowers

. Through it, he seeks a writ of mandamus directing the Honorable Steven Emmert , presiding judge of the 31st District Court, to rule on relator’s “Petition for Expunction of [A]rrest.” W e deny his petition for the following reasons

. First , the person filing the petition must certify that he reviewed the document and concluded that every factual allegation therein is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(j). Relator omitted such certification from his petition. Second , in In re Chavez , we held that a trial court cannot be found to have abused its discretion for purposes of mandamus until the complainant establishes that it 1) had a2 legal duty to perform a non
- discretionary act, 2) was asked to perform the act, and 3) failed or refused to do so. In re Chavez , 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2001, orig. proceeding). The need to consider and rule upon a motion is not a discretionary act. Id. Rather, when the motion is properly filed and the court is aware of it, the act of considering and resolving it is ministerial. Id. However, the trial court has a reasonable time within which to perform. Id. Whether such a period lapsed without action depends upon the circumstances of each
case. Id. Moreover, no bright line demarcates the boundaries of a reasonable period. Id. Its borders depend upon a myriad of criteria, not the least of which is the trial court ’ s actual knowledge of the motion or petition , its overt refusal to act on same, the state of the court ’ s docket, and the existence of other judicial and administrative m atters which must be addressed first. Id. at 228

– 29. So too must the trial court ’ s inherent power to control its docket be factored into the mix. Id. at 229. Relator presented no supporting record illustrating that the trial court knew of his petition and failed to act upon it in a reasonable time. This failure likewise precludes us from issuing a writ of mandamus. To reiterate, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. The Clerk of this Court is directed to serve the Honorable Steven Emmert with a copy of this order and the petition for writ of mandamus in a manner affording Judge Emmert actual notice of same.

Brian Quinn Chief Justice Do not publish.
**AMENDMENTTO STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT(S)**

     **WHEREAS**,**SEAGULL ENERGY CORPORATION** (the “Company”) has previouslyadopted the **SEAGULL ENERGY CORPORATION 1981 STOCK OPTION PLAN**, the**SEAGULL ENERGY CORPORATION 1981 STOCK OPTION PLAN (RESTATED),**the**SEAGULL ENERGY CORPORATION 1983 STOCK OPTION PLAN**, the **SEAGULL ENERGYCORPORATION 1983 STOCK OPTION PLAN (RESTATED),**the **SEAGULL ENERGYCORPORATION 1986 STOCK OPTION PLAN**, the **SEAGULL ENERGY CORPORATION 1986STOCK OPTION PLAN (RESTATED)**, the **SEAGULL ENERGY CORPORATION 1990 STOCKOPTION PLAN,** the **SEAGULL ENERGY CORPORATION 1993 STOCK OPTION PLAN**and the **SEAGULL ENERGY CORPORATION 1995 OMNIBUS STOCK PLAN** (collectively,the “Option Plans”); and

     **WHEREAS,**certain nonstatutory stock options and incentive stock options (collectively,“Options”) have heretofore been granted to the optionee, a full-timeactive employee of the Company (the “Employee”), that are currentlyoutstanding under the Option Plans, each of such Options being listed on theschedule attached hereto and evidenced by a Nonstatutory Stock Option Agreementor an Incentive Stock Option Agreement (collectively, the“Agreements”); and

     **WHEREAS,**the Employee’s employment with the Company has been terminated inconnection with the consummation of the merger contemplated by the Agreement andPlan of Merger by and among Seagull Energy Corporation, GNR Merger Corporationand Global Natural Resources Inc. dated as of July 22, 1996, and the Companydesires to amend the Agreements in certain respects;

     **NOW,THEREFORE,** the Agreements shall be amended as follows, effective as of_______________ (Employee’s employment termination date):

     1.The vesting schedule contained in the Agreements shall be waived and all Optionsoutstanding under such Agreements shall be exercisable in full.

     2.Notwithstanding any provision in the Agreements to the contrary, all Optionsshall continue to be exercisable by the Employee, his estate or the person whoacquires such Options by will or the laws of descent and distribution, at anytime on or before the first anniversary of Employee’s employmenttermination date.

     3.As amended hereby, the Agreements are specifically ratified and reaffirmed.

     **INWITNESS WHEREOF**, the Company has caused this amendment to be duly executedby one of its officers thereunto duly authorized, and the Employee has executedthis amendment, effective as of ________________ (Employee’s employmenttermination date).

**SEAGULLENERGY CORPORATION**
EXHIBIT 23

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Forms S-3 (No. 333-153501, 333-162397 and 333-163108), and Form S-8 (No. 139196) pertaining to the Opexa Therapeutics, Inc. June 2004 Compensatory Stock Option
Plan, of our report dated March 4, 2010 with respect to the audited financial statements of Opexa Therapeutics, Inc. for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008.



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/    MaloneBailey, LLP
|MaloneBailey, LLP       
|www.malone-bailey.com   
|Houston, Texas          
|                        
|March 4, 2010
EX-10.6





 Exhibit 10.6 

AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

THIS AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into and effective as of this 18th day of December, 2019 (the “Amendment Effective Date”), by and between The Bank of Princeton (“TBOP”) and Edward Dietzler (the “Employee”)
(each a “Party,” and together, the “Parties”). 
 WHEREAS, the Employee is employed by TBOP
pursuant to the terms set form in an employment agreement dated December 6, 2018 (the “Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS,
in accordance with Section 4(b) of the Agreement, the Employee participates in incentive compensation programs sponsored by TBOP which provide for benefits in the form of TBOP common stock and cash; and 

WHEREAS, the Parties wish to amend the terms of the Agreement as specified herein. 

NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as
follows: 
 1. Amendment. The first sentence of Section 9(b)(i) of the Agreement is deleted in its entirety
andreplaced with the following new sentence: 
 “(i) The EMPLOYEE shall receive a lump sum cash payment equal to two (2) times: (A)
the EMPLOYEE’S Annual Salary then in effect, plus (B) the average of the three (3) highest annual cash or stock bonuses paid to the EMPLOYEE under a short-term incentive program maintained by TBOP during the Term.” 

2. Severability. Any term or provision of this Amendment that is invalid or unenforceable in any situation in any
jurisdiction shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining terms and provisions hereof or the validity or enforceability of the offending term or provision in any other situation or in any other jurisdiction. 

3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in multiple counterparts and by facsimile or electronic means, each of
which shall be deemed to be an original copy, and all of which together shall constitute one agreement binding on all Parties hereto, notwithstanding that all the Parties shall not have signed the same counterpart. 

4. Full Force and Effect. To the extent the terms and conditions of the Agreement are not expressly modified, altered, or
amended by this Amendment, the Parties agree that the terms and conditions will remain in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,
the Parties have executed this Amendment to the Agreement as of the Amendment Effective Date. 
  

					
	 TBOP:
	 		 	EMPLOYEE:
	 The Bank of Princeton
	 		 	Edward J. Dietzler
			
	 By: /s/ Richard Gillespie
	 		 	By: /s/ Edward J. Dietzler
	 Name: Richard Gillespie
	 		 	Name: Edward J. Dietzler


  
 109
Case 1:06-cr-00027-LAK Document 46 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:06-cr-00027-LAK Document 46 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:06-cr-00027-LAK Document 46 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:06-cr-00027-LAK Document 46 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:06-cr-00027-LAK Document 46 Filed 04/23/2007 Page 5 of 5
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board’s Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire a bank or bank holding company.  The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated.  The notices also will be available for inspection at the office of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors.  Comments must be received not later than February 22, 2005.

**A.  Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago**                     (Patrick Wilder, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                

*1.  Michael J. Rivers*, Winona, Minnesota; to acquire voting shares of Central Wisconsin Financial Services, Inc., Wausau, Wisconsin, and thereby indirectly acquire voting shares of Bank of Wausau, Wausau, Wisconsin.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 1, 2005.

Robert deV. Frierson,

Deputy Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 05-2263 Filed 2-4-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6210-01-S
#### STATE v. ROSS

No. 124 PC.

Case below: 31 N.C. App. 394.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 31 January 1977. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 31 January 1977.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5651 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 659
111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5651

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           September 16, 2010

 Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

                           November 30, 2010

               Reported by Mrs. Boxer, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 515 9th Street in Rapid City, South Dakota, as the ``Andrew W. Bogue 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. ANDREW W. BOGUE FEDERAL BUILDING AND UNITED STATES 
              COURTHOUSE.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building and United States courthouse 
located at 515 9th Street in Rapid City, South Dakota, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Andrew W. Bogue Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building and 
United States courthouse referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the ``Andrew W. Bogue Federal Building and United 
States Courthouse''.
                                                       Calendar No. 659

111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5651

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
at 515 9th Street in Rapid City, South Dakota, as the ``Andrew W. Bogue 
            Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           November 30, 2010

                       Reported without amendment
```
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of our report dated March 20, 2001
and in previously filed Registration Statement Nos. 2-92383, 2-94286, 33 52059,
33-52061, 33-52353, 33-52687, 33-58756, 33-58758, 33-58760, 33-66394, 333-3871,
333-02743, 333-03871, 333-13817, 333-25141, 333-51433, 333-80007, 333-91687 and
333-91689.


Arthur Andersen LLP

New York, New York
March 30, 2001
# L_2007291EN.01002801.xml

| 9.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 291/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 291/28

---

INFORMATION ON THE DATE OF ENTRY INTO FORCE OF COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1891/2006 AND OF COMMISSION REGULATIONS (EC) No 876/2007 AND (EC) No 877/2007

The Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement concerning the international registration of industrial designs, adopted at Geneva on 2 July 1999, will enter into force with respect to the European Community on 1 January 2008. Consequently, the following Regulations will also enter into force on 1 January 2008:

| — | Council Regulation (EC) No 1891/2006 of 18 December 2006 amending Regulations (EC) No 6/2002 and (EC) No 40/94 to give effect to the accession of the European Community to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement concerning the international registration of industrial designs (1), |
| --- | --- |

—

Council Regulation (EC) No 1891/2006 of 18 December 2006 amending Regulations (EC) No 6/2002 and (EC) No 40/94 to give effect to the accession of the European Community to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement concerning the international registration of industrial designs (1),

1

| — | Commission Regulation (EC) No 876/2007 of 24 July 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs following the accession of the European Community to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement concerning the international registration of industrial designs (2), |
| --- | --- |

—

Commission Regulation (EC) No 876/2007 of 24 July 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 2245/2002 implementing Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 on Community designs following the accession of the European Community to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement concerning the international registration of industrial designs (2),

2

| — | Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2007 of 24 July 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 2246/2002 concerning the fees payable to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) following the accession of the European Community to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement concerning the international registration of industrial designs (3). |
| --- | --- |

—

Commission Regulation (EC) No 877/2007 of 24 July 2007 amending Regulation (EC) No 2246/2002 concerning the fees payable to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) following the accession of the European Community to the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement concerning the international registration of industrial designs (3).

3

---

(1)  
  OJ L 386, 29.12.2006, p. 14.

1

(2)  
  OJ L 193, 25.7.2007, p. 13.

2

(3)  
  OJ L 193, 25.7.2007, p. 16.

3

---
Subagency National 

Office

Regional 

Office

Total

ALJ 59 102 161

ARB 14 0 14

BLS 1480 967 2447

BRB 61 0 61

EBSA 232 745 977

ECAB 33 0 33

ETA 572 582 1154

ILAB 113 5 118

MSHA 204 2029 2233

OASAM 475 308 783

OASP 34 0 34

OCFO 91 1 92

OCIA 21 6 27

ODEP 52 0 52

OFCCP 81 484 565

OIG 125 227 352

OLMS 48 152 200

OPA 43 13 56

OSEC 66 0 66

OSHA 361 1720 2081

OWCP 251 1290 1541

SOL 360 363 723

VETS 46 199 245

WB 34 19 53

WH 159 1657 1816

Total 5015 10869 15884

Ethnicity F M Total

American 

Indian

39 42 81

Asian 536 463 999

Black 2436 1133 3569

Hawaiian/PI 11 14 25

Hispanic 769 758 1527

Two or 

more 

Races

75 63 138

White 3796 5749 9545

Total 7662 8222 15884

AGENCY

RACE & GENDER

BARGAINING UNIT

SUPERVISORY**

Local 12 3121

NCFLL 7948

Non-BU 4706

NULI 109

Non 

Supervisor

13077

Supervisor 2807

WORK SCHEDULE

F-Full Time 15373

G-Full Time 

Seasonal

2

I-Intermittent 36

P-Part Time 470

R-Phased 

Employ/Retir

e

3

REGIONS

 1 Boston 609

 2 New York 845

 3 

Philadelphia

1838

 4 Atlanta 2113

 5 Chicago 1702

 6 Dallas 1193

 7 Kansas 

City

464

 8 Denver 622

 9 San 

Francisco

1099

10 Seattle 384

Natl Ofc 5015

Total 15884

GRADE 

DISTRIBUTION

DISABLED 

STATUS

APPOINTMENT 

TENURE

RETIREMENT 

ELIGIBILITY

00 238

01 6

02 10

03 44

04 75

05 251

06 435

07 1103

08 181

09 769

10 23

11 1049

12 5530

13 3271

14 1898

15 1001

Total 15884

No Disability 14076

Nontargeted1586

Targeted 222

Indefinite 219

Permanent 15598

Temporary 67

Early Out 2307

Eligible 2754

Not Eligible 10823

METRO D.C. AREA 

EMPLOYEES BY 

BUILDING

800 N CAPITOL 

ST NW

31

BALLSTONCTRT

WRTHREE

5

Employment 

Services Building

2

FRANCES 

PERKINS BLDG

3171

MSHA 

ARLINGTONCRYSTAL 

GATEWAY

203

OFCCP 

ARLINGTON 

AREA OFFICE

5

PATRIOT'S 

PLAZA

16

POSTAL 

SQUARE

1480

TECHWORLD 

PLAZA

60

TWIN TOWERS 42

Total 5015

Includes regional employees 

working in the D.C. area

GRADE 13 & ABOVE

Ethnicity F M

American 

Indian

14 17

Asian 243 226

Black 795 438

Hawaiian/PI 2 5

Hispanic 237 233

Two or more 

Races

29 23

White 1648 2533

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR EMPLOYMENT *

AS OF 11/1/2016

* Permanent and Temporary Employees

** Supervisor count includes manager levels 2 and 

4
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

CHARLES EDWARD RIES, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D17-5101 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed October 26, 2018. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Polk County; James A. Yancey, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Megan Olson, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
KHOUZAM, LUCAS, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.
<PAGE>   1
                           SEAGULL ENERGY CORPORATION


                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3


                   CONSENT of INDEPENDENT PETROLEUM ENGINEERS


         We hereby consent to the use of our name under the heading "Oil and Gas
Operations" of Item 1 in the Annual Report on Form 10-K (the Form 10-K) for the
year ended December 31, 1998, of Seagull Energy Corporation and Subsidiaries
(the Company) and the incorporation by reference of the Form 10-K into the
Company's registration statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 2-72014, 2-80834, 33-14463,
33-43483, 33-50643, 33-50645, 33-64041, 333-13393 and 333-71375), Forms S-8 and
S-3 (Nos. 2-93087 and 33-22475), Form S-3 (Nos. 33-53729, 33-65118, 33-64051 and
333-34841) and Form S-4 (No. 333-68679).





                           /s/ DeGolyer and MacNaughton

                           DeGOLYER AND MacNAUGHTON



Dallas, Texas
February 12, 1999
#### LLOYD SPICER, JR., Through his Next Friend, LLOYD SPICER, SR. v. DAVID MONROE BYRD and JOHN PRESTON BYRD. and LLOYD SPICER, SR. v. DAVID MONROE BYRD and JOHN PRESTON BYRD.

(Filed 10 April 1963.)

Appeal by defendants from *Shaw, J.,*Regular November Civil Term 1962 of YadKIN.

These civil actions were consolidated for trial. They grew out of an .automobile collision which occurred on 25 April 1962, shortly after midnight, between the Ford automobile owned by Lloyd Spicer, Sr. and driven by his son, Lloyd Spicer, Jr., and the Pontiac automobile owned by John Preston Byrd and driven by his son, David Monroe Byrd.

The collision occurred on North Carolina Highway No. 268, at or near the point where the Traphill Road intersected said highway from the north and Elk Spur Road intersected it from the south.

*246Lloyd Spicer, Jr. brought his 'action through a next friend to recover for .personal injuries sustained in the .collision. Lloyd Spicer, Sr. brought his action to recover for damages to his automobile.

The defendant John Preston Byrd set up a counterclaim or cross action for property damages, and the defendant David Monroe Byrd set up a counterclaim or cross action for personal injuries sustained in the collision.

The evidence tends to show that Lloyd Spicer, Jr. pulled into the West End Grill, which is located at the northeastern intersection of Traphill Road and Highway No. 268; that when this plaintiff left the premises of the West End Grill, at or near the intersection he headed his car south towards Elk Spur Road; that before entering the highway he looked up and down Highway No. 268 and saw no car coming; that he started across the road and reached the center line of Highway No. 268, which runs east and west, when the Pontiac automobile driven by David Monroe Byrd hit the car plaintiff was driving on its left side. The intersection is located on the crest of a hill, and from said intersection one can see along Highway No. 268 to the east for a distance of 350 to 400 feet, then the road takes a considerable drop. The evidence further tends to show that the speed limit in the area was 35 miles per hour; that the Pontiac car which was approaching from the east on Highway No. 268 was traveling in excess of 35 miles per hour and hit the car driven by the plaintiff in the center of the intersection; that the Pontiac car skidded about 106 feet before it reached the point of impact with the Ford car driven by plaintiff Lloyd Spicer, Jr.

The jury gave plaintiff Lloyd Spicer, Jr. a verdict for personal injuries and gave plaintiff Lloyd Spicer, Sr. a verdict for damages to his oar. Judgment was entered accordingly.

The defendant appeals, assigning error.

*Allen, Henderson & Williams; McEhoee & Hall for plaintiff ap-pellees.*

Deal, *Hutchins & Minor; Ralph Davis for defendant appellants.*

Per Curiam.

There was plenary evidence in the trial below to support the verdict. Furthermore, a careful review of the evidence and the charge of the court leaves us with the impression that the defendants’ exceptions and assignments of error present insufficient prejudicial error to justify the granting of a new trial.

No error.