alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-06-0451-CR IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL D JANUARY

18, 2007

______________________________ LARRY DARNELL McKELLER, Appellant

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

_________________________________ FROM THE 1 08th DIS TRICT CO URT OF POT TER COUNT Y; NO. 52,950-E; HON. ABE LOPEZ, PRESI DING

_______________________________ ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

_______________________________ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRTLE, JJ. Appellant

appeals from an order d eferring his adjudication. The clerk’sand reporter’s records w

ere due on December

18, 2006. The clerk filed an extension mot ion
on January 11, 2007, statingthatappellant had not paid or made arr angements to pay

for the record and an attorney had n ot been ap point ed for the appeal. The r eporter sent a letter to the court on January 3, 2007, statingshe was not requested to prepare a record b y anyone involved in t his case. On January 3, 2007, a letter w as sent to appellant’ s attorney asking for

certificati on that he has compl ied with the Rulesof Appellate Procedu re2

concerning the filing of the appellate re cord. He fil ed a response on J anuary 16, 2007 , stating he has

not yet been ap pointed on appeal. Acco rdin gly, we abate this appeal and reman d the cause to the 108 th District Court of Potter County (trial court) for further proceeding s. Upon remand, the trial court shall immed iatel y

cause notice of a h earing to be given and, thereafter, conduc t a hearing to determ ine the followin g: 1. whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; 2. whether appel lant is indi gent; 3. wh ether

appellant is entitled to a free appellate recor d due to h i s indigency ; and 4. whether appellant has counsel or is entitled to appointed counsel. The trial cour

t shall caus e the hearingto be transcribed. If it is determined that appellant

desires to prosecute the appe al and is entitled to appoi nted counsel, then t he trial courtis further di rected to appoint counsel for appel lant. So too sha ll it 1)execute f indings of fact and conclusio ns of law addr

essing the for

egoing i ssues and disc losing the name, address, state bar number , a nd phone and fax number of any attorney app ointed to represent

appellant on appeal , 2) cause to b e developed a s uppl ement al clerk’s record containing its findings of fact and conclusions of law and all orders it may issue as a result of its hearing in this matter, and 3) cause to be developed a reporter’s record tra nscribing the evide nce a nd ar gume nts p rese nted at th e af orem enti one d hea ring, if an y. Add itio nall y, the district

court shallthen file thesupplemental records and r eporter’s r

ecords trans cribing the hearing with the clerk of this court on or b efore F ebruar

y 20, 2007. S hould fu rther time be needed by the trial court to perform these tasks, then s ame must be requested before February 20, 2007.3

It is so or

dered. Per Curiam Do not publish

.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2189 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2189

         To suspend temporarily the duty on Pigment Yellow 147.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 7, 2000

Mr. Edwards (for himself and 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 Pigment Yellow 147.

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

SECTION 1. TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF DUTY ON PIGMENT YELLOW 147.

    (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:

      

``    9902.32.00     Pigment Yellow   Free              No change         No change         On or before 12/
                     147 (CAS No.                                                            31/2002          ''
                     4118-16-5)                                                                                .
                     (provided for
                     in subheading
                     3204.17.60)....

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
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>
```
**IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA** No. DA 21 - 0632 IN THE MATTER OF: M.D.F. and C.R.F., Youth s in Need of Care. **ORDER** Upon consideration of Counsel’s mo tion to withdraw as counsel of r ecord , and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS H EREBY ORDERED that the Appellant Father in this matter shall file a response to this motion within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The response must be served upon all counsel of record, including the Attorney General, the County Attorney, and the Appellate Defender’s Office. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court give notice of this Order by mail to a ll counsel of record and to the Appellant Father at his last known address.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

June 27 2022

06/27/2022
exhibit10_3.htm


    


    


    


    Ready
Welder Corporation

    1891
N. Gaffey Street, Suite A

    San
Pedro, CA 90731

    Phone:
310-832-2541

    


    Promissory
Note

    


    Date:
December 31, 2007

    


    Amount:
$2,213,807.10

    


    For
value received, on demand, or no later than December 31, 2008, Ready Welder
Corporation promises to pay to the order of Theodore Holstein MD, as trustee of
Holstein family trust, dated August 1976, a California revocable trust, at 2259
Warmouth Street, San Pedro, California 90732, or at such other place as shall be
designated by lender in writing, in United States currency, the principal amount
of Two Million, Two Hundred and Thirteen Thousand Eight Hundred and Seven
Dollars and Ten cents ($2,213,807.10) with interest accrued from December 31,
2006 at the rate of 8% per annum.

    


    Note:  This
Promissory Note is a consolidation of the net un-reimbursed value of all
previous Promissory Notes outstanding, and any unpaid interest accrued on those
notes, as of December 31, 2007 less any payments made against those notes and
accrued interest paid prior to and including December 31, 2007.

    


    Lender:________/s/________________                                                                                                12/31/07____________________

                Theodore
Holstein, MD,
CEO                                                                                                Date

    


    Witness:________/s/________________                                                                                                12/31/07____________________

                  Esperanza
Sanchez                                                                                                               Date
## In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07 - 16 - 00201 - CV IN THE MATTER OF THE MARRIAGE OF EDITH CERVANTES RODR IGUEZ AND JUAN ANTON IO RODRIGUEZ AND IN THE INTEREST OF O.A.R. AND K.P.R. , CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 222nd District Court Deaf Smith County, Texas Trial Court No. DR

- 2015K - 162, Honorable Roland D. Saul, Presiding 

### June 30 , 2016 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. On June 22, 2016 , appellant, Juan Antonio Rodriguez , filed a motion to dismiss his appeal that complies with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1). No decision of this Court having been delivered to date and without passing on the merits of the appeal, we grant the motion and dismiss appellant’s appeal. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(a)(1). Because appellant’ s motion does not address costs, costs will be taxed against appellant. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.1(d). If dismissal will prevent appellee , Edith Cervantes Rodriguez, from seeking relief to which she would otherwise2

be entitled, the Court directs appellee to file a timely motion for rehearing. No motion for rehearing from appellant will be entertained. Mackey K. Hancock Justice
exv10w20






Exhibit 10.20



For the fiscal year ended 2008, the non-employee directors of Quest Energy GP, LLC (“Quest Energy
GP”), the general partner of Quest Energy Partners, L.P. received the following compensation:





	 	•	 	from January 1, 2008 to August 22, 2008:






	 	 	– a pro rated annual director fee of $32,000 per year;
	 
	 	 	– a pro rated annual fee of $7,500 per year for the Audit Committee Chairperson;
	 
	 	 	– a pro rated annual fee of $2,500 per year for any other committee chairperson;






	 	•	 	from August 23, 2008 to December 31, 2008:






	 	 	– a pro rated annual director fee of $42,000 per year;
	 
	 	 	– a pro rated annual fee of $30,000 per year for the Chairman of the Board;
	 
	 	 	– a pro rated annual fee of $7,500 per year for the Audit Committee Chairperson; and
	 
	 	 	– a pro rated annual fee of $2,500 per year for any other committee chairperson.




Additionally, the Chairman of the Board, a non-employee director, received a $30,000 pro rated fee
based on length of service.



In March 2009, Quest Energy GP’s board of directors approved a change to the structure of the
non-employee directors’ compensation, effective January 1, 2009, based on the recommendation of the
Compensation Committee as follows:





	 	•	 	annual director fee of $125,000 per year;
	 
	 	•	 	annual fee of $10,000 per year for the Audit Committee chairperson; and
	 
	 	•	 	annual fee of $5,000 per year for any other committee chairperson.




Additionally, the Chairman of the Board, a non-employee director, will receive an annual fee of
$30,000 per year. No equity awards will be paid to the non-employee directors for 2009.
Exhibit 32


                              CERTIFICATION OF
              CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

     Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.
     Section 1350)

     The undersigned, as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, respectively, of FNB Corporation, certify that, to the best of their
knowledge and belief, the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2006, which accompanies this certification fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of FNB
Corporation at the dates and for the periods indicated.  The foregoing
certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) and shall not be relied upon for any other
purpose.  The undersigned expressly disclaim any obligation to update the
foregoing certification except as required by law.




    Date:  March 9, 2007               /s/William P. Heath, Jr.
                                          William P. Heath, Jr.
                                          President & Chief Executive Officer




    Date:  March 9, 2007               /s/Daniel A. Becker
                                          Daniel A. Becker
                                          Executive Vice President &
                                            Chief Financial Officer
NO. 12-16-00156-CR

 12-16-00157-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

SARAH CANNON, 

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE

§

§

§

APPEALS FROM THE 217TH 

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

ANGELINA COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Appellant has filed a motion to dismiss these appeals. The motion is signed by Appellant 

and her counsel. No decision has been delivered in the appeals. Accordingly, Appellant’s 

motion to dismiss is granted, and the appeals are dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

Opinion delivered August 3, 2016.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 3, 2016

NO. 12-16-00156-CR

SARAH CANNON,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 217th District Court 

of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2016-0144)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss 

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and 

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and 

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

AUGUST 3, 2016

NO. 12-16-00157-CR

SARAH CANNON,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 217th District Court 

of Angelina County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 2016-0048)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss 

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and 

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismissed, and 

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
if(typeof Drupal!=="undefined"&&typeof jQuery!=="undefined"){(function(e){Drupal.behaviors.picture={attach:function(t){if(!("HTMLPictureElement"in window)){var n=e(t).find("img");if(n.length){window.picturefill({elements:n.get()})}}if(t==="#cboxLoadedContent"&&e(t).find("picture").length){e.colorbox.resize();e("img",t).once("colorbox-lazy-load",function(){e(this).load(function(){this.style.maxHeight=e(window).height()+"px";this.style.maxWidth=e(window).width()+"px";e.colorbox.resize({innerHeight:this.height,innerWidth:this.width});this.style.maxHeight=null;this.style.maxWidth=null})})}}}})(jQuery)}
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.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration #12164 and #12165]
 AGENCY: Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Maryland (FEMA-1910-DR), dated 05/06/2010. *Incident:*
                         Severe Winter Storms and Snowstorms. *Incident Period:*
                         02/05/2010 through 02/11/2010. *Effective Date:*
                         05/06/2010. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         07/06/2010. *Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         02/07/2011.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road,  Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 05/06/2010, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:*
                     Allegany, Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Baltimore City, Calvert, Caroline, Carroll, Cecil, Charles, Dorchester, Frederick, Garrett, Harford, Howard, Kent, Montgomery, Prince George's, Queen Anne's, Saint Marys, Talbot, Washington, Wicomico. The Interest Rates are: PercentFor Physical Damage:Non-Profit Organizations With Credit Available Elsewhere
3.625Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000For Economic Injury:Non-Profit Organizations Without Credit Available Elsewhere
3.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 12164B and for economic injury is 12165B. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) James E. Rivera, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 2010-11409 Filed 5-12-10; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
#### MICHAEL McDERMOTT *v.*MICHAEL HENNESY and others. THE SAME *v.*THE SAME.

*Su/rplus moneys*— application *for distribution*of— *Costs.*

Upon an application for the distribution of the surplu's moneys arising upon a sale under a foreclosure of a mortgage, no costs can be allowed except those particularly specified in the Code, viz., motion fees and the fees of the referee.

The hearing before the referee is not a trial, and no extra allowance can be made.

Ahpeai. from an order directing tbe distribution of tbe surplus moneys, arising under a sale bad in pursuance of tbe judgment entered in tbis action.

Tbe defendants, Catherine Mallery and John Ii. Gleason, were junior mortgagees. After tbe payment of tbe costs of tbe action there remained a surplus of $1,012.63. Hpon the application of tbe defendant Catherine Mallery, an order was made referring it to a referee to ascertain and report as to tbe priorities of tbe several liens upon such surplus, and as to who were entitled to receive the same. After the filing and report of tbe referee tbe defendant Mallery moved for an allowance for costs for tbe proceedings had before him, and an order was made at tbe Special Term directing tbe payment to her out of such surplus, of tbe sum of $150. From tbe order granting this allowance tbis appeal was taken.

*Peary & Martim,*for the defendant A. Gleason, appellant.

Tbe order is appealable. *{People*v. *PT. IT. C. P. P. Co.,*29 N. Y., 418; *Ennis*v. *Purcell,*2 Thompson *&*Cook, 538; *Sluyter*v. *Smith,*2 Bosw., 673; *Wilkinson*v. *Tiffcmy,*4 Abb. Pr., 98.) Tbe court exceeded its power in granting tbe order appealed from. (Chap. 270 of 1854; *Elwell*v. *RoVbins,*43 How. Pr., 108.)

*T. McManus,*for tbe respondent Gleason.

This is a proceeding in equity, and the costs are in tbe discretion of tbe court. (Code, § 306; *Taylor*v. *Pool,*43 N. Y., 628; *Piper*v. *Poppenheusen,*43 id., 68 ; *Southwick*v. *Southwick,*49 id., 511; *Krekeler*v. *Rit-ter,*62 id., 375.)

*60*Per Guriam:*

Without deciding whether this application should be called a special proceeding or a proceeding in the foreclosure action, we are satisfied that in either case the views expressed by Judge Balcom, in *Elwell*v. *Robbins*(43 How., 108), as to costs, are correct. There is no right to grant an extra allowance. (See also, *Rens. and Sara. R. R. Co. v. Davis,*55 N. Y., 145.) The only costs which can be allowed are those particularly specified in the Code, viz., motion fees and referee’s fees. The hearing before the referee, is not a trial.

The only costs, therefore, which can be allowed are ten dollars costs of the motion to confirm the referee’s report and his fees, and ten dollars costs of order appointing referee, if that was allowed in that order. The order appealed from must be modified accordingly.

The question involved is, perhaps, new, and no costs of the appeal are allowed to either party.

Present — LeabNEd, P. J., Booees and BoaedmaN, JJ.

Orders reversed and order granted to be settled by LeaeNed, P. J., as per his memorandum. No costs of appeal.
#### GEORGE A. SEAMAN and others, Executors of JOHN B. SEAMAN, Appellants, *v.*G. IRVINE WHITEHEAD, Respondent.

*Attachment as fen' a contempt*— *a smrogate cannot issue it to enforce payment by executors of a sum of money directed to be paid by them, by a dewee made on a fmal accounting.*

Appeal from an order, made by the surrogate of the county of Dutchess, directing an attachment to issue against the appel lants, as executors, for a failure to pay to the respondent the sum of $163.65, as required by a decree, made upon their final accounting, entered May 31, 1878, and denying a motion by the executors to open the said decree, and for a rehearing.

With reference to the attachment, the court at General Term said: “We think the learned surrogate erred in ordering an attachment to issue against the executors for the non-payment of the sum ordered by the decree, on final accounting, to be paid to the respondent Whitehead. The case of *Watson*v. *Nelson*(69 N. Y., 536) seems decisive upon this point. The surrogate could only enforce a final decree, or an interlocutory order for the payment of money by an execution against the person, or if the debt ordered paid was founded upon contract, by an execution against the property. This result is arrived at by the Court of Appeals after a very full examination of the statutes. The case of *Seaman*v. *Duryea*(11 N. Y.,' 324), which seems to favor the view that an attachment could issue as for a contempt, upon non-payment of moneys by a guardian, under a surrogate's order, is considered in *65the biter case of *Watson*v. *Nelson.*The court say that the question whether the proper process was a commitment, as for a contempt, or a precept or execution, was not discussed or considered in *Seaman*v. *Duryea.*That part of the order, therefore, which directs the attachment to issue as for a contempt should be reversed.”

*Albert Slichney*and *Edward M. Shepard,*for the appellants. *W. I. Thorn,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Barxard, P. J. ;

DykmaN, J., concurred.

Gilbert, J., concurred as to the attachment, but thought the decree should have been opened and corrected as to allowance.

Order modified in accordance with opinion of Justice BaeNard, and order to be settled by him.