alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Richard Efren Hignojos, * From the 244th District

 Court of Ector County,

 Trial Court No. C-38,608.

Vs. No. 11-12-00264-CR * September 30, 2014

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Wright, C.J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand this cause to the trial court 

for further proceedings consistent with this court’s opinion.
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 30554 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
BRIAN KEITH HEBERT , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 2:13

- CR

- 3 15

- 7

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, HO, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Brian Keith Hebert appeals the sentence imposed following the revocation of his supervised release. He contends that the ten

- month term of imprisonment wa s substantively unreasonable because it wa s greater than necessary to accomplish the goals of sentencing

. We ty pically review a revocation sentence to determine whether it is “plainly unreasonable.” United States v. Miller , 634 F.3d 841, 843 (5th Cir.

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 13, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-30554 Document: 00515310213 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/13/2020No. 19

- 30554

2 2011). A revocation sentence is substantively unreasonable where the district court did not account for a sentenc ing factor that should have received significant weight, gave significant weight to an irrelevant or improper factor, or made a clear error in judgment when balancing the sentencing factors. United States v. Warren , 720 F.3d 321, 332 (5th Cir. 2013). R ev ocation

s entences w ithin the advisory guideline range are presumptively reasonable. See United States v. Lopez

- Velasquez , 526 F.3d 804, 809 (5th Cir. 2008). Here, Hebert fails to show that his sentence was unreasonable, much less plainly so

. See Miller , 634 F.3d at 843; see also United States v. Rodriguez , 602 F.3d 346, 361 (5th Cir. 2010) ( concluding that we need not resolve which standard of review governs as the appellant’s argument failed under the standard more favorable to the appellant )

. T he district court found that Hebert’s multiple positive drugs tests within the span of less than a year warranted a sentence near the bottom of the guideline range

. Hebert fails to overcome the presumption that the sentence wa s reasonable. See Warren , 72 0 F.3d at 332

- 33; Lopez

- Velasquez , 526 F.3d at 809

. AFFIRMED. Case: 19-30554 Document: 00515310213 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/13/2020
## 4.13

**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS** 

# lfomoreblo HA Eodgor amntyAttdltor ulll.lu8onceuaty oeorget4mt,

ea8 Deer, 8irt

**de br**  **him In**  **ge the**  

# defendant? the 8bovoutd mlated P *B follarrt dehadant lrlth lc’ tried in the **ld in**  **Ww** jurtloo ed end rernrrr hlr

‘3. Doer the hot tbst the earukble gee8 out Of th0 OOUXtw t0 -0 tb0 W88t &vtW th8 tiSw WeiawnJtR

### 1.14

## 115

**Wom~hetVehav8** uidaboveaad iaO$iafoaNo. O-1081, **it** b8-8 WM8urJr **t0 &a8VO,**  **pour'** 8000Rkd**01, third**  ~W8tiiaar.

lh8tlag uut thl8 Utf8frOtOPf~~ 4nmrer8 swp inatim, **V8** l6
**Exhibit 10.61**   Prepared by: McGuireWoods LLPTax Map Parcel No. 047-2-01-0070ATERMINATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT     THISTERMINATION OF LEASE AGREEMENT is dated as of 13 December 2007, between SUNRISEASSISTED LIVING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Virginia limited partnership (“Lessor”), and PAUL J.KLASSEN and TERESA M. KLASSEN (collectively “Lessee”), and recites:RECITALS:     Lessor and Lessee were parties to a certain Ground Lease or Lease Agreement dated June 7, 1994covering certain real estate in Fairfax County, Virginia and recorded in the Clerk’s Office of theCircuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia in Deed Book 9147 at page 1747 (the “Lease”). The partiesdesire and intend to reflect of record the termination of the Lease.TERMINATION:     NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing premises, the undersigned agree that theLease is terminated as of no further force and effect as of 15 December, 2007, and Lesseehas no further right, title or interest in the “Premises” leased thereunder.     WITNESS the following signatures.
1

 
      SUNRISE ASSISTED LIVING LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, by itsGeneral Partner: SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING INVESTMENTS,
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 99 (Monday, May 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28778-28779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-12447]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Magma Flood Retarding Structure (FRS) Supplemental Watershed 
Plan, Pinal County, AZ

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service.

ACTION: Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 
(40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
(NRCS) Regulations (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an 
environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Magma 
Flood Retarding Structure (FRS) Supplemental Watershed Plan, Pinal 
County, Arizona.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. McKay, State Conservationist, 
USDA-NRCS, 230 North First Avenue, Suite 509, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, 
telephone (602) 280-8801.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The environmental assessment of this 
federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause 
significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. 
Based on evidence

[[Page 28779]]

presented, David L. McKay, State Conservationist, has determined that 
the preparation and review of an environmental impact statement are not 
needed for this project.
    The project proposes to rehabilitate the Magma FRS to provide for 
continued flood protection for a portion of the Town of Florence and 
surrounding areas, while meeting NRCS and State of Arizona safety and 
performance standards.
    The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been 
forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various 
Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties. Copies of 
the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above 
address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment are 
on file and may be reviewed by contacting Don Paulus, Assistant State 
Conservationist for Programs, at the above address.

    (This activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance under No. 10.904, Watershed Protection and Flood 
Prevention, and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 
12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and 
local officials.)


    Dated: May 14, 2010.
David L. Mckay,
State Conservationist.
[FR Doc. 2010-12447 Filed 5-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF KAYENTA KREATIONS, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          16,777
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,113
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,890
<PP&E>                                           9,310
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (930)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  26,868
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              642
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,019
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    26,868
<SALES>                                            654
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   654
<CGS>                                            (358)
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   22,433
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  15
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,618)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        87
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (21,705)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (21,705)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 

767 Fifth Avenue 

New York, NY 10153-0119

EXHIBIT C 

EXPENSE SUMMARY FOR THE 

PERIOD MARCH 1, 2019 THROUGH MARCH 31, 2019 

EXPENSES AMOUNTS

Computerized Research $42,352.39 

Meals $1,523.43 

Corporation Services $106.94 

Travel $57,282.45 

Transportation $5,786.73 

Duplicating $1,738.50 

Messenger $877.20 

Telephone $285.00 

Total Expenses Requested: $109,952.64 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2418-3 Filed: 06/05/19 Entered: 06/05/19 18:19:58 Page 1

of 1
EXHIBIT 32

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

In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Footstar, Inc. (the
"Company") for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, (the "Report"), each of
the undersigned officers of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
(section) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (section) 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

         (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.


Date: September 2, 2004


------------------------------
Dale W. Hilpert
Chairman, President and
Chief Executive Officer


----------------------------
Richard L. Robbins
Senior Vice President of Financial Reporting and Control
(Principal Financial Officer)






                                     -112-
<PAGE>
##### 



Exhibit 32 Certification of the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
and Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
As adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
and Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of INTERMET Corporation (the Company),
hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for
the quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company. /s/ GARY F. RUFFGary F. Ruff
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ ROBERT E. BELTSRobert E. Belts
Vice President of Finance and
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)Date: June 23, 2005
EXHIBIT 32.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. § 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of First Chester County
Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, John A. Featherman, III, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
the Board of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company. Date: May 11, 2009/s/ John A.
 FeathermanJohn A.
 FeathermanChief
 Executive OfficerChairman of
 the Board
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 10.1

                     SIXTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


               This SIXTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made effective
as of December 10, 2002, by and among Chester National Bank, a national bank,
Chester Bancorp, Inc., A Delaware Corporation, and Edward K. Collins.

                  WHEREAS, the parties hereto previously entered into and
executed that certain Employment Agreement dated October 4, 1996, as amended by
that a First, Second, Third, Fourth and Fifth Amendment to Employment Agreement
dated December 31, 1997, December 8, 1998, December 14, 1999, December 12, 2000,
and December 11, 2001 (the "Employment Agreement"). Capitalized terms used
herein and not otherwise defined herein have the meanings given to such terms in
the Employment Agreement;

                  WHEREAS, the parties to the Employment Agreement desire to
amend the Agreement to extend the term thereof for an additional year, as
contemplated by Section 2 of the Employment Agreement;

                  WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Bank and Company has
conducted a formal performance evaluation of the Executive for purposes of
determining whether to extend the Employment Agreement, and has determined that
such Employment Agreement should be extended for an additional year.

                  NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants
contained herein and in the Employment Agreement, and upon the other terms and
conditions hereinafter provided, the parties hereto agree that the term of the
Employment Agreement is hereby extended until January 1, 2006 and all other
terms and provisions of the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.

                  IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Amendment to Employment Agreement as of the 10th day of December 2002.


CHESTER NATIONAL BANK                       CHESTER BANCORP, INC.

By:                                         By:
   --------------------------------            ---------------------------------

Name: Robert H. Gross                      Name: Michael W. Welge
     ------------------------------             --------------------------------

Title: Vice President and Secretary         Title: Chairman, President and CFO
      -----------------------------               ------------------------------


EXECUTIVE


-----------------------------------
Edward K. Collins
Chief Executive Officer
Secretary and Treasurer
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-23-00057-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 324th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 324-727406-22

Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

IN THE INTEREST OF D.L. AND X.L., CHILDREN
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

After receiving pro se Appellant’s brief on May 15, 2023, we notified Appellant 

that her brief did not comply with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i) and

38.1(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), and (k). See Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i), 38.1(a)–

(k). We directed Appellant to file an amended brief complying with the appellate rules 

no later than May 26, 2023, and warned her that the failure to do so could result in 

either the waiver of noncomplying points or the striking of her noncompliant brief

and dismissal of her appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3; 2nd Tex. App. 

(Fort Worth) Loc. R. 1. Despite our warning, Appellant never filed an amended brief.

“We liberally construe pro se briefs, but to ensure fairness in our treatment of 

all litigants, we hold pro se litigants to the same standards as licensed attorneys and 

require pro se litigants to follow the applicable laws and rules of procedure.” Branch v. 

Fannie Mae, No. 02-11-00355-CV, 2012 WL 3030525, at *1 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 

July 26, 2012, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.); see Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 

S.W.2d 181, 184–85 (Tex. 1978). Because Appellant has not followed the applicable 

laws and rules of procedure despite being given the opportunity to do so, we strike 

Appellant’s brief and dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 

38.8(a), 38.9(a), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: July 13, 2023
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. BORGES DIAZ and ESTRELLA VELASQUEZ,

Appellees. No. 2D23-27 April 3, 2024 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Paul Huey, Judge. Daniel M. Schwarz and Kara Rockenbach Link of Link & Rockenbach, P.A., West Palm Beach, for Appellant. Jeremy D. Bailie and Timothy W. Weber of Weber, Crabb & Wein, P.A., St. Petersburg, for Appellees. PER CURIAM. For the reasons explained in Citizens Property Insurance v. Barberan, No. 2D22-2744 (Fla. 2d DCA Apr. 3, 2024), we conclude that the trial court properly instructed the jury on the burden of proof. We affirm the final judgment without further comment.2

CASANUEVA, SILBERMAN, and BLACK, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 2271    Filed: 05/29/19    Entered: 05/29/19 13:46:34    Page 1 of1
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

BAKER 

&

HOSTE TL E R L LP ATTOR NE YS AT LAW

SAN FRANCISCO

 

EXHIBIT C 

TCC TIMELINE AND DELIVERY UNITS 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2299-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 12:56:45 Page 1

of 2
Media Delivery

OOHLocal Digital Units 54 UnitsLocal Static Units 18 UnitsFlyer Distribution 5x Days/CountyAd Tech FeesProductionDigitalProgrammatic Display 60,000,000 ImpsResident List Display 20,000,000 ImpsFacebook Newsfeed 33,000,000 ImpsOTT/Connected TV Display 6,600,000 ImpsAd Tech FeesPrint14 Local Newspapers 14x Full PageVideo

Spot Market Television - :30s 900 TRPs per MarketOTT/Connected TV Video - :30s 5,700,000 ImpsAudio

Spot Market Radio - :60s 2,100 TRPs per MarketTotalMedia DeliveryOOHLos Angeles Digital Units 10 UnitsSan Diego Digital Transit 29 UnitsSan Diego Static Units 10 UnitsAd Tech FeesDigitalInsurance Company List Display 200,000 ImpressionsFacebook Newsfeed 28,000,000PrintLos Angeles Times 7x Full PageWall Street Journal California Edition 7x Full PageUSA Today 7x Full PageVideo

Programmatic Video - :30s 6,250,000 ImpsAudio

Pandora Audio Everywhere - :30s 6,700,000 ImpsTotalMedia DeliveryDigitalProgrammatic Display 30,000,000 ImpsPrintPeople Magazine 4x Full PageSports Illustrated 4x Full PageTotalMedia DeliveryDigitalProgrammatic Display 20,000,000 ImpsSite Retargeting Display 5,000,000 ImpsFacebook Email Matching 5,000,000 ImpsTotal

National

Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 

Western US - California, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington

Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 

Month 5

Month 3 Month 4 Month 5

Local - San Francisco, Sacramento, Chico-Redding, and Eureka DMAs

Month 3 Month 4 

California

Month 1 Month 2

Month 1 Month 2 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2299-3 Filed: 05/31/19 Entered: 05/31/19 12:56:45 Pag

of 2
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS OF PRESIDENT AND CEO PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Gail Montgomery, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Nutrition 21, Inc.;

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 periods 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 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: December 24, 2003

Gail Montgomery
President and Chief Executive Officer


                                       21