alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-24-00022-CV

WAYMON SCOTT HARTWELL AND HARTWELL FARMS, LLC, Appellants

V.

FANNIN BANK, Appellee

On Appeal from the 336th District Court

Fannin County, Texas

Trial Court No. CV-15-42242

Before Stevens, C.J., van Cleef and Rambin, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice van Cleef
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellants, Wayman Scott Hartwell and Hartwell Farms, LLC, filed their notice of 

appeal in this matter on March 21, 2024. Appellants are not indigent and are, thus, responsible 

for paying or making adequate arrangements to pay the clerk’s fee for preparing the record. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b). The clerk’s record in this appeal was due to be filed with this Court on

or before April 22, 2024. The district clerk notified this Court that Appellants had not filed a 

designation of record and had neither paid for nor made adequate arrangements to pay for

preparation of the clerk’s record.

By letter dated April 23, 2024, the clerk of this Court notified Appellants that the record 

was late due to their failure to pay and gave them until May 3, 2024, to cure the defect. Further, 

we warned Appellants that, if we did not receive an adequate response to our letter within ten

days of the date of the letter, this appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b).

We received no communication from Appellants responsive to our April 23 

correspondence, and the record was not filed. Consequently, this appeal is ripe for dismissal. 

Pursuant to Rules 37.3(c) and 42.3(b), we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution.

1

 See TEX.

R. APP. P. 37.3(b); 42.3(b).

Charles van Cleef

Justice

Date Submitted: May 8, 2024

Date Decided: May 9, 2024

1On March 25, 2024, Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Based on our 

disposition of this matter, we deny that motion as moot.
Exhibit 23.2



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Form S-8 Registration Statement No. 333-89251 of our report dated February 24, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Energy Exploration Technologies and its subsidiaries (the "Company") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2002 (which includes an emphasize of matter paragraph relating to the ability of the Company to continue as a going concern) appearing in this annual report on Form 10-K of Energy Exploration Technologies for the year ended December 31, 2002.



/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Chartered Accountants

Calgary, Alberta, Canada
March 31, 2003
1

The Honorable Charles A. Shaw, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Missouri. 

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 08-2120

___________

United States of America, *

*

 Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Eastern District of Missouri.

Felipe Mendoza, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

 Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: May 23, 2008

Filed: June 19, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Felipe Mendoza appeals from the district court’s1

 denial of his motion for

reduction of his sentence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment

706 to the United States Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.), which reduced

certain base offense levels in U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) depending on the quantity of

cocaine base (crack) involved. 
-2-

Mendoza pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute in excess of five kilograms of

powder cocaine. Mendoza was sentenced to 262 months in prison and judgment was

entered on September 30,1994. In April 2008 Mendoza filed a motion to reduce his

sentence pursuant to Amendment 706. The district court denied the motion and

Mendoza appeals.

Mendoza’s sentence was driven by the quantity of powder cocaine he

conspired to distribute. Amendment 706 was enacted by the United States Sentencing

Commission to help alleviate the sentencing disparity which adversely affected

defendants convicted of crack cocaine offenses. See U.S.S.G. Supp. to app. C 229-31

(2007). As such, Amendment 706 only affects those defendants whose guideline

range was determined based on their involvement with crack cocaine. Consequently,

Mendoza does not qualify for relief under Amendment 706.

Accordingly, the district court’s order denying relief pursuant to the guideline

amendments is summarily affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

______________________________
»72-/r

ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 01-13-00373-CR OFFENSE: 19.02 (Murder)

Norma Jean Clark v. The State of

STYLE: Texas COUNTY: Harris

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRM TRIAL COURT: 228th District Court

DATE: 01/13/2015 Publish: NO TC CASE #: 1295757

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Norma Jean Clark v. The State of

STYLE: Texas CCA#: 172 -IS

APPBLLAslT^ Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

Kgfl/ttTb JUDGE:

DATE: OVl^l^SJUDGE: /t/t /L^t^i^^

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

PC:

DNP:

MOTION FOR

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ELECTRONIC RECORD
| Subsidiary                                                |   | State      of Incorporation |   | Percentage      of Securities      owned       |
|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------|
| The      Commercial Savings Bank                          |   | Ohio                        |   | 100%      by the Corporation                   |
|                                                      |   |                        |   |                                           |
| Beck      Title Agency, Ltd.                              |   | Ohio                        |   | 49.9%      by The Commercial Savings      Bank |
|                                                      |   |                        |   |                                           |
| Commercial      Financial and Insurance      Agency, Ltd. |   | Ohio                        |   | 100%      by the Corporation                   |

----
Hon., Gordon C, Cass

County Attorney Iampasas,Texas

Rer IWe of a pickup licensedwith a farm license tag.
Your question as to whether a farmer can take his family to church In his Ford pickup, licensedwith a:Sarm license tag, and not violate the law, has been receivedbf " this department. (5 ,:,'

We believe that the IntentIonof the Legislatures, .:,' ia passing section 6a OS article 667% of~our atatutth was ~‘~ to lessen the burden upon the farmer of operatit&“a mototi vehicle that he uses for' farm purposes. In order to lessen that burden the Legislature providedthat the farmermight obtain a license tax, known as a Sarm llcease for SISty percent (SO$) of the regular commerciallicense S&e,

The Legislaturenamed certain specificpurposes for which a farmer might use a car ,or other vehicle licensed with a farm tag, but they obviouslycould not name all of the particular fact situationsthat ml&t arise, that would entitle the farmer to we the car bearing such a license tag. An examlnatl.on of'the statute reveals to us an IntentIon that the Sarmerwith a vehiclebearing such a licensemight use our roads and highways for such purpose6as were necessary and incidentalto the operationof his farm. Most assuredly, the Legislatureknew that the average farmer in Texas could not aSSord one vehicle to be used for farm purposesaud another Sunday car that he could use only on Sunday to take his family to church. In our .opiaion the Legislaturecontemplatedthat the farmermight use such vehicle to uarry his SzaUyto church on Sunday, if he so desired.



### Wethink that It would be a harsh and unsound construction

of this article to hold that the vehicle licensed with a farm tag must not be used for any other purpose thanHon. oordon C. Cass,May 4, 1939, Page 2 (O-706)

that specifically

uamed in the statute. So long as the Sarmer dO8S note

abuse the privilege,created by the exemption provided for In sectj.on 6a of article 6675a,he may use his automobileor vehicleto take his SamIly to church.

In oti opinion the Sarmer that uses his motor vehicle regularlyand continuously for farm purposesas outlined in our statutes, and on Sunday takes his family to church or drives to a neighbor'shouse, he may.do so without violatingarticle 6673, sectton 68.
Yours very truly ATTORHl$ST

GRHERA$ OF TEXAS

HIit Omb~: jl, APPROVED: /a/ H.Q.B. .' BY /a/ Morris Hodges Worrls Hodzeg Ass.Istant

Gerald 6. &la& : ATTORREY fSMERl& OF,TEXAS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-10174

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOE GONZALES, also known as Joe Ben Gonzales,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:15-CR-140-1

Before JONES, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Joe Gonzales has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th 

Cir. 2011). Gonzales has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief 

and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with 

counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 20, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 17-10174 Document: 00514279477 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
No. 17-10174

2

appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is 

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 17-10174 Document: 00514279477 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/20/2017
## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. PD-0959-20 CHARITY IRVIN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEX AS

ON APPELLANT’S AND STATE’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS

SMITH COUNTY

Per curiam . Y E A R Y , J., filed a dissenting opinion in w hich S L A U G H T E R , J., joined. O P I N I O N Appellant was convicted o f possession of m etham phetam ine and sente n c e d t o two y ears in prison. In the bill of costs, the trial court assessed Appellant a $25 tim e p ay m ent f ee. See T E X . L O C A L G O V ’ T C O D E § 133.103. On appeal, the Court of Appeals struck a portion

o f that f ee as being unconstitutional. Irvin v. State , No. 12-19-00347-CR, 2020 Tex

. A p p . LEXIS 7312 (Tex. App. – Ty ler Sept. 9, 2020).I RVIN - 2

The State has f

iled a petition f

o r discretionary review c h allenging t h e c ourt’s constitutional analy sis. W e recently handed down our opin i o n i n Dulin v. State , Nos. PD0856-19 & PD-0857-19, 2021 Tex. Crim

. App. LEXIS 273 (Tex. Crim

. App. Mar. 31, 2021), in w hich we held that the tim e pay m ent f ee was assessed p rem aturely because the p endency of appeal suspends the obligation to pay court costs. As a result, there w a s no need to reach the State’s constitutional argum ents. W e grant review on our own m otion of the f ollowing ground: Should the “Tim e Pay

m ent Fee” be struck as prem aturely assessed? Addressing that ground in light of Dulin , we vacate the judgm ent of t he C ourt of Appeals, and rem and this case to the C ourt of Appeals f o r proceedings consistent with this opinion. The State’s petition is ref used. Appellant’s petition is also ref u sed. DATE DELIVERED: MAY 12, 2021 DO NOT PUBLISH
First Amendment to Fein Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.17 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO FEIN EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 

This First Amendment to Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”) is made by and between Evan Fein (the
“Executive”) and Impinj, Inc. (the “Company” and together with the Executive hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties”) on February 9, 2015. 

W I T N E S S E T H: 

WHEREAS, the Parties previously entered into an employment offer letter, dated October 13, 2000 (the “Prior
Agreement”); 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Executive amended the Prior Agreement on December 23, 2009 (the
“Amended & Restated Fein Employment Agreement”), to govern the terms and conditions with respect to Executive’s continued employment with the Company; and 

WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the Amended & Restated Fein Employment Agreement to provide for 100%
acceleration in certain circumstances upon a change of control, among other things. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable
consideration, Executive and the Company agree to further amend the Amended & Restated Fein Employment Agreement, as follows: 
 1.
Section 7(b)(D) of the Amended & Restated Fein Employment Agreement is hereby amended and replaced in its entirety as follows (with deletions struck through and insertions italicized and underlined):: 

“(D) accelerated vesting of all outstanding Awards as to fifty percent (50%) one hundred percent
(100%) of the then unvested portion of any such Award and” 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of the Parties has executed
this Amendment, in the case of the Company by its duly authorized officer, as of the day and year set forth above. 
  

							
	COMPANY	 		 	IMPINJ, INC.
			
		 		 	 /s/ Chris Diorio

		 		 	By:	 	Chris Diorio, Ph.D.
		 		 	Title:	 	CEO
			
	EXECUTIVE	 		 	EVAN FEIN
			
		 		 	 /s/ Evan Fein
Exhibit 32.1  Certification of H. Y. Reid) Li





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 Amersin Life Sciences Corporation. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the twelve month period ended January 31st, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), as Chief Executive Officer of the Company I hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my 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.

/s/ H. Y. (Reid) Li



H. Y. (Reid) Li
Chief Executive Officer
May 16, 2005

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 will be retained by Amersin Life Sciences Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
463 A.2d 28

#### Cunningham, Appellant v. Cunningham.

Argued March 1, 1983.

Robert J. Matthews, for appellant; Bruce Allen Nicholson, for appellee.

*625Before CERCONE, P.J., CAVANAUGH and WIEAND, JJ.

The order of the lower court is affirmed.

WIEAND, J., dissented.
#### Rudolph Heiser v. Cincinnati Abattoir Company.

Motion granted.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2374 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2374

       To suspend temporarily the duty on certain TAED chemicals.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 6, 2000

   Mr. Helms introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend temporarily the duty on certain TAED chemicals.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY DUTY SUSPENSION.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

      

``    9902.29.01    Tetraacetylethyl  Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     enediamine (CAS                                                         31/2004          ''
                     Nos. 10543-57-                                                                            .
                     4, 61791-28-4,
                     9004-32-4, 1328-
                     53-6, 147-14-8,
                     1302-78-9, and
                     14808-60-7)
                     (provided for
                     in subheading
                     2924.10.10)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
|    |                                                                                                                     |
|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.; and |

|    |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            |
|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 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. |

|        |
|--------|
|        |  |  |  |  |
|   | Date: | May 10, 2016 | /s/ Tunc Doluca |   |
|   |   |   |   |   |
|   |   |   | Tunc Doluca |   |
|   |   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>    5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF
OPERATIONS FILED AS PART OF THE QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM
10-Q.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                       DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                                      998,317
<SECURITIES>                                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                2,284,450
<ALLOWANCES>                                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         4,296,758
<PP&E>                                                      702,969
<DEPRECIATION>                                              320,383
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           8,250,729
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                    3,819,778
<BONDS>                                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                       12                                                      
<COMMON>                                                  67,982
<OTHER-SE>                                                             0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                              4,415,006
<SALES>                                                   8,540,959
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          8,540,959
<CGS>                                                     6,930,616
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                             1,661,854
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          7,439,239
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           472,548
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          (6,579,444)
<INCOME-TAX>                                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      (6,579,444)
<DISCONTINUED>                                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                         0
<CHANGES>                                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                             (6,579,444)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                     (1.28)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                     (1.28)
        


</TABLE>
463 A.2d 33

#### Commonwealth v. Smith, Appellant.

Argued February 3, 1982.

Robert J. Donatoni, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant; Robert P. Brendza, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before WICKERSHAM, ROWLEY and McEWEN, JJ.

The order of the learned Chester County Common Pleas Court President Judge Dominic T. Marrone is affirmed.
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-68914)and in the related Prospectus pertaining to the registration of $700,000,000 in Debt Securities, Preferred Stock and Common Stock, the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-65833) pertaining to the registration of 3,452,181 Shares of CommonStock, the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-41433) pertaining to the registration of 3,713,331 Shares of Common Stock, the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-44997) pertaining to the registration of 728,929 Sharesof Common Stock, the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-09945) pertaining to the BRE Properties, Inc. Dividend Stock Purchase and Dividend Reinvestment Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-69217) pertaining tothe Amended and Restated 1992 Employee Stock Plan, the Amended and Restated Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan, and the Consultancy Stock Option Agreement dated March 2, 1998, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-02257)pertaining to the Amended and Restated Non-Employee Director Stock Option Plan of BRE Properties, Inc. and the Assumed Real Estate Investment Trust of California 1991 Officer Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8No. 33-61209) pertaining to the BRE Properties, Inc. 1994 Non-Employee Director Stock Plan and Chief Executive Officer Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-60082) pertaining to the BRE Properties, Inc. 1992Employee Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-05389) pertaining to the BRE Properties, Inc. 1984 Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-09945) and in the related Prospectuspertaining to the registration of 2,000,000 Shares of Common Stock, and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 filed January 11, 2002 ) pertaining to the 1999 BRE Stock Incentive Plan as amended, of our report dated January 13, 2003,with respect to the consolidated financial statements and related financial schedule of BRE Properties, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2002.