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

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 14

- 00049

- CR

Gilbert Junior Collins a/k/a Gilbert

Jouinor Collins

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 3

o f Tarrant County (1324834D )

April 23, 2015

Opinion by Justice Dauphinot

Concurrence by Chief Justice Livingston

(p)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial cour t’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_ /s/ Lee Ann Dauphinot

______________ Justice Lee Ann Dauphinot
H. R. 4939 

One Hundred Thirteenth Congress 

of the 

United States of America 

AT THE SECOND SESSION 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Friday, 

the third day of January, two thousand and fourteen 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2551 Galena 

Avenue in Simi Valley, California, as the ‘‘Neil Havens Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. NEIL HAVENS POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 2551 Galena Avenue in Simi Valley, California, 

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Neil Havens Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Neil Havens Post Office’’. 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### Kokomo Strawboard Company, Respondent, v. Horace Inman and another, Appellants

—Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Opinion

*Ter Curiam.*
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT
SANDRA A. ZIKRY, Appellant,
v. EXODUS WOMEN'S CENTER, INC.; TAMPA OBSTETRICS, P.A.; JILL L. HETCHMAN M.D.; GINA WASHINGTON M.D.; and SOBIAH MALLICK M.D., Appellees. No. 2D22-2010 December 27, 2023 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Paul L. Huey, Judge. Sandra A. Zikry, pro se. Jason M. Azzarone and Louis J. La Cava of La Cava Jacobson & Goodis, P.A., Tampa, for Appellees. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. VILLANTI, LUCAS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-1514

NOBLE R. MANN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

STANDARD MOTOR PRODUCTS, INCORPORATED,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, District 

Judge. (3:13-cv-00068-JRS)

Submitted: July 1, 2013 Decided: July 15, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Noble R. Mann, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Dale Wilson, III, 

KELLEY, DRYE & WARREN, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Noble R. Mann appeals the district court’s order

granting the Appellee’s motion to dismiss his Title VII 

complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).* This court reviews de 

novo a district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss for failure 

to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Philips v. 

Pitt Cnty. Mem’l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 179-80 (4th Cir. 2009). 

A claimant who fails to file a complaint within the 

ninety-day statutory time period mandated by Title VII generally 

forfeits his right to pursue his claims. See Baldwin Cnty.

Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 149-51 (1984). The ninetyday period begins as of receipt of the right-to-sue letter from 

the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”). 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2000e-5(f)(1) (2006). The ninety-day statute of limitations 

period for Title VII actions is not tolled because the initial 

action was dismissed without prejudice. See O’Donnell v. Vencor 

Inc., 466 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2006); Price v. Digital 

Equip. Corp., 846 F.2d 1026, 1027 (5th Cir. 1988). When the 

plaintiff voluntarily dismisses a lawsuit governed by a federal 

statutory limitations period, the state savings statutes do not 

apply. Beck v. Caterpillar Inc., 50 F.3d 405, 407 (7th Cir. 

 * Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2000e et seq. 
3

1995); Victor Foods, Inc. v. Crossroads Econ. Dev. of St. 

Charles Cnty., Inc., 977 F.2d 1224, 1227 (8th Cir. 1992) (state 

savings statute did not toll federal limitations period).

Mann’s right-to-sue letter issued by the EEOC is dated 

July 16, 2010. Mann’s complaint was filed, the earliest,

January 26, 2012, or clearly beyond the statutory ninety-day 

limit. Because Virginia’s savings statute under Va. Code Ann. 

§ 8.01-229(E)(3) (2007) does not operate to toll a federal 

statutory limitations period, Mann’s Title VII complaint was 

untimely. 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We 

deny Mann’s motion to place the appeal in abeyance. See 50 App. 

U.S.C.A. § 522(b)(2)(A), (B) (West Supp. 2013). We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
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

EXHIBIT C

EXPENSE SUMMARY

FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 1, 2019 THROUGH APRIL 30, 2019

EXPENSES AMOUNTS

Meals $13,468.44

Transportation 8,993.21

Courier/Mail Services 2,032.34

Duplicating 1,142.54

Special Disbursements (including Experts) 4,464.89

Travel 189,168.66*

Total Expenses Requested: $219,270.08

* - Hotel expenses have been capped for reimbursement purposes at $600.00/night. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3484-3 Filed: 08/08/19 Entered: 08/08/19 18:35:54 Page 1

of 1
#### HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY v. GURNEY P. HOOD, Commissioner of Banks, and Therefore Statutory Receiver, BANK OF BLACK MOUNTAIN.

(Filed 2 May, 1945.)

Appeal and Error § 31c—

Wliere appellant is not required to docket his appeal, from an order granting a motion for a change of venue, until the Fall Term of this Court, and appellee files at the Spring Term, a motion to docket and *188dismiss on the ground that the appeal on the face of the record is frivolous and only for delay, which appellant controverts, motion of appellee denied without expressing any opinion on the merits of the appeal.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Johnson, Jr., Special Judge,*at February Term, 1945, of Wake.

This action was instituted in the Superior Court of Wake County to determine the liability of the plaintiff on certain surety bonds executed for and on behalf of the Bank of Black Mountain, indemnifying said bank against loss under circumstances and conditions set forth in said bonds.

The defendant made a motion for change of venue and to remove to Buncombe County, N. C., as a matter of right and also in the exercise of the court’s discretion for the convenience of witnesses and the promotion of justice. Motion granted and plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

Since the appellant is not required to docket its appeal until the Fall Term of this Court, the appellee has filed a motion to docket and dismiss the appeal for the reason he contends, that it appears upon the face of the record that the appeal is obviously frivolous and appears to have been taken only for the purpose of delay.

In reply to the motion to docket and dismiss the appeal, the appellant denies that it is. seeking a review of a discretionary order. It contends that it appears conclusively from the record that there are no issues of fact presently raised and therefore an order for removal for the. “convenience of witnesses,” when there are no witnesses to be convenienced, is premature. That if issues of fact are raised when answer is filed, which will necessitate a jury trial and the attendance of witnesses, then and not until then will it be proper to make a motion for removal for convenience of witnesses. Furthermore, it is contended that since only questions of law are presently raised, the order of removal cannot be sustained as a matter of law.

*A. J. Fletcher and J. G. B. Ehringhaus for plaintiff.*

*B. B. Williams for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

We express no opinion on the merits of the appeal, other than to say we think the appellant is entitled to a hearing thereon.

Motion denied.
Summary of Non Employee Director Compensation Arrangements



 Exhibit 10.3 
 SUMMARY OF NON EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS 
 Non-employee directors are paid an annual retainer of $162,000
(reduced from $180,000, effective as of July 1, 2009). The Presiding Director and Committee Chairs receive an additional annual fee of $5,000. No meeting fees or committee membership fees are paid. 
 Under the Deferred Compensation Program for Non-Employee Directors, each non-employee director is required to defer at least 50 percent of his or her retainer in
the form of Common Stock Units and can elect to defer up to 100 percent. A Common Stock Unit is what is sometimes referred to as “phantom stock” because initially no stock is actually issued. Instead, a book entry account is kept for
each director that shows how many Common Stock Units he or she has. When a director leaves the Board, he or she receives actual shares of common stock corresponding to the number of Common Stock Units in his or her account. Each non-employee
director’s deferred stock account is credited with Common Stock Units every January. The ongoing value of each Common Stock Unit equals the market price of the common stock. When dividends are paid on the common stock, each account is credited
with equivalent amounts in additional Common Stock Units. If U. S. Steel were to undergo a change in control resulting in the removal of a non-employee director from the Board, that director would receive a cash payment equal to the value of
his or her deferred stock account. 
 Under our Non-Employee Director Stock Program, upon joining our Board, each non-employee director is eligible to
receive a grant of up to 1,000 shares of common stock. In order to qualify, each director must first have purchased an equivalent number of shares in the open market during the 60 days following the first date of his or her service on the
Board.
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 1 of

27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 2 of

27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 3 of

27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 4 of

27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 5 of

27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 6 of

27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 7 of

27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 8 of

27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 9 of

27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 10

of 27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 11

of 27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 12

of 27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 13

of 27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 14

of 27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 15

of 27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 16

of 27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 17

of 27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 18

of 27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 19

of 27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 20

of 27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 21

of 27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 22

of 27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 23

of 27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 24

of 27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 25

of 27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 26

of 27
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2827 Filed: 07/02/19 Entered: 07/02/19 13:49:42 Page 27

of 27
EX-33.3
(logo) FIS TAX SERVICES
A DIVISION OF FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES

FIS Tax Services
3100 New York Drive, Suite 100
Pasadena, CA 91107
tel: 626.345.2010 * 866-457.4112
fax: 626.398.5205


Management Compliance Statement


Management of FIS Tax Services (FIS) and formerly known as LSI Tax Services, is
responsible for assessing compliance with applicable servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB of the Securities and Exchange Commission
relating to residential mortgage loans (the Platform), except for General
Servicing Consideration criteria (i) - (iv), Cash Collections and Administration
(i) - (vii), Investor Remittances and Reporting (i) - (iv), and Pool Asset
Administration (i) - (x), (xiv), and (xv), which FIS has determined are not
applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform.

FIS' management has assessed the effectiveness of the Company's compliance with
the applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended 2007. In making
this assessment, management used the criteria set forth by the Securities and
Exchange Commission in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of Regulation AB. FIS has
determined the following servicing criteria in paragraph (d)(4) of Item 1122 are
applicable to the activities it performed with respect to the Platform:

(xi)   Payments made on behalf of an obligor (such as tax or insurance payments)
       are made on or before the related penalty or expiration dates, as
       indicated on the appropriate bills or notices for such payments, provided
       that such support has been received by the servicer at least 30 calendar
       days prior to these dates, or such other number of days specified in the
       transaction agreements.

(xii)  Any late payment penalties in connection with any payment to be made on
       behalf of an obligor are paid from the servicer's funds and not charged
       to the obligor, unless the late payment was due to the obligor's error or
       omission.

(xiii) Disbursements made on behalf of an obligor are posted within two business
       days to the obligor's records maintained by the servicer, or such other
       number of days specified in the transaction agreements.

Based on such assessment, management believes that, as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2007, FIS has complied in all material respects with the servicing
criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of Regulation AB of the Securities and
Exchange Commission relating to the servicing of the Platform.

KPMG LLP, a registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation report
with respect to management's assessment of compliance with the applicable
servicing criteria as of and for the year ended 2007.

To the best of my knowledge and belief, based on such assessment, FIS has
fulfilled all of its applicable obligations throughout the reporting period.



/s/ Darryl A. De Bond
Darryl A. De Bond
Executive Vice President

January 05, 2008
J-S77028-16 

NON -PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Appellee 

v. 

DAVID ALPHONSE GOAD 

Appellant 

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF 

PENNSYLVANIA 

No. 255 MDA 2016 

Appeal from the Order Entered November 2, 2015 

In the Court of Common Pleas of Snyder County 

Criminal Division at No(s): CP- 55 -CR- 0000147 -2011 

CP- 55 -CR- 0000413 -2010 

BEFORE: PANELLA, OLSON and PLATT,* JJ. 

JUDGMENT ORDER BY OLSON, J: FILED NOVEMBER 08, 2016 

Appellant, David Alphonse Goad, appeals from the order entered on 

November 2, 2015. We vacate and remand. 

The factual background and procedural history of this case is as 

follows. On November 24, 2014, Appellant was ordered to pay costs, fees, 

and restitution stemming from two convictions for retail theft. Appellant 

failed to make the required payments and, therefore, a contempt hearing 

was held on March 24, 2015. At that hearing, Appellant agreed to a 

payment plan. Appellant failed to comply with the payment plan's terms. 

Thus, a second contempt hearing was held on October 30, 2015. 

At the October 30, 2015 hearing, one witness testified, however, 

Appellant was not permitted to cross -examine the witness. See N.T., 

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to the Superior Court 
J-S77028-16 

10/30/15, at 7 -9. On November 2, 2015, the trial court found Appellant in 

civil contempt and ordered him imprisoned until he purged the contempt, or 

for a maximum period of 15 days to 6 months. 

Appellant filed a timely pro se notice of appeal. This Court remanded 

this case to the trial court to determine whether Appellant wished to be 

represented by his court -appointed counsel or if he wished to proceed pro se. Appellant chose to be represented by counsel, who filed a brief on his 

behalf. 

Appellant presents one issue for our review: 

Did error occur where Appellant was not given the opportunity to 

offer a defense? 

Appellant's Brief at 5. 

After Appellant filed his brief, the parties filed a joint application 

seeking remand for a new contempt hearing. We agree with the parties that 

Appellant is entitled to a new contempt hearing. In order to comply with the 

United States Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment's right to due process 

during a civil contempt hearing, a defendant must have a full and fair 

opportunity to cross -examine any witnesses offered against him or her. See 

Sutch v. Roxborough Mem'/ Hosp., 142 A.3d 38, 77 (Pa. Super. 2016). 

As noted above, in this case Appellant was not provided the opportunity to 

cross -examine the lone witness offered against him. Thus, we conclude that 

Appellant's constitutional right to due process was violated. Accordingly, we 

-2 
J-S77028-16 

vacate the order finding Appellant in contempt and remand for further 

proceedings consistent with this Judgment Order. 

Application to remand granted. Order vacated. Case remanded. 

Jurisdiction relinquished. 

Judgment Entered. 

/ 

J seph D. Seletyn, 

Prothonotary 

Date: 11/8/2016 

-3
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2985 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 16:47:54 Page 1 of

2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2985 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 16:47:54 Page 2 of

2
**EXHIBIT32.01**

**Section 1350 Certification**

In connection with this annual report of ML APM GlobalCommodity FuturesAccess LLC (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the datehereof (this “Report”), I, Benjamin C. Weston, Chief Executive Officer andPresident of Merrill Lynch Alternative Investments LLC, the manager of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. This Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2. The informationcontained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: March 30, 2007                  |                   |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|
|                                  |                   |   |
| By                                    | /s/ Benjamin C. Weston |   |
| Benjamin C. Weston                    |
| Chief Executive Officer and President |
|                                       |                        |  |  |

 

----
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

In re: 

PG&E CORPORATION and PACIFIC GAS 

AND ELECTRIC COMPANY,

 Debtors 

Chapter 11 

No. 19-30088 (DM) 

(Jointly Administered) 

TRANSFER OF CLAIM OTHER THAN FOR SECURITY 

A CLAIM HAS BEEN FILED IN THIS CASE or deemed filed under 11 U.S.C. § 1111(a). 

Transferee hereby gives evidence and notice pursuant to Rule 3001(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of 

Bankruptcy Procedure of the transfer, other than for security, of the claim referenced in this 

evidence and notice. 

YSI Inc Cherokee Debt Acquisition, LLC 

Name of Transferor Name of Transferee

Schedule No: 1033054 & 3.4014

Debtor: Pacific Gas and Electric Company 

(19-30089) 

Claim Amount: $55,118.00 

Name and Address where notices and payments 

to transferee should be sent: 

Cherokee Debt Acquisition, LLC 

1325 Avenue of the Americas, 28th Floor 

New York, NY 10019 

I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided in this notice is true and correct 

to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

By: _____________________ Date: August 8, 2019 

Transferee/Transferee’s Agent

Penalty for making a false statement: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, 

or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152 & 3571. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3462 Filed: 08/08/19 Entered: 08/08/19 12:02:07 Page 1 of

2
CHEROKEE DEBT ACQUISITION, LLC

1325 Avenue of the Americas, 28th Floor

New York, NY 10019

Attn: Vladimir Jelisavcic

55,118.00

100

CHEROKEE DEBT ACQUISITION, LLC

Vladimir Jelisavcic

Manager

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3462 Filed: 08/08/19 Entered: 08/08/19 12:02:07 Page 2 of

2
Exhibit 4.1


THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON


NEW YORK’S FIRST BANK-FOUNDED 1784 BY ALEXANDER HAMILTON


 


 


2 HANSON PLACE, 12TH FLOOR, BROOKLYN,
N.Y. 11217


 


 


 


June 28, 2016


 


Hennion & Walsh, Inc.


2001 Route 46, Waterview Plaza


Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


 


Smart Trust 246


 


Dear Sirs:


The Bank of New York
Mellon is acting as trustee for the series of Smart Trust set forth above (the “Trust”). We enclosed a list
of the Securities to be deposited in the Trust on the date hereof. The prices indicated therein reflect our evaluation of such
Securities as of close of business on June 27, 2016, in accordance with the valuation method set forth in the Standard Terms and
Conditions of Trust and Trust Agreement. We consent to the reference to The Bank of New York Mellon as the party performing the
evaluations of the Trust Securities in the Registration Statement (No. 333-211081) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
with respect to the registration of the sale of the Trust Units and to the filing of this consent as an exhibit thereto.


 


 


Very truly yours,


 


/s/ GERARDO CIPRIANO                                       


Gerardo Cipriano


Vice President
June 26, 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GRAHAM R. WILLIAMS, HERBERT H. PRATT AND ZICIX

CORPORATION , Appellant s
NO. 14

- 14

- 00436

- CV V.

MAZUMA HOLDING CORP. , Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the June 5, 2014, denial by operation of law of their motion to dismiss . Having considered the motion and found it meritor ious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant, Graham R. Williams, Herbert H. Pratt and Zicix Corporation , jointly and severally

. We further order that mandate be issued immedi ately. We further order this decision certified below for observance.