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








Exhibit 10.1
SECOND AMENDMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT


This Second Amendment of Employment Agreement (the “Amendment”), is executed on this 17th day of June 2016 (the “Effective Date”), by and between Vera Bradley, Inc., an Indiana corporation (the “Corporation”), and Robert Wallstrom (“Executive”). The Corporation and Executive are referred to jointly below as the “Parties.”


WHEREAS, the Corporation and the Executive  previously entered into that certain Employment Agreement dated November  4, 2013, and effective November 11, 2013, as amended by that certain First Amendment of Employment Agreement dated November 11, 2013 (the “Employment  Agreement”); and


WHEREAS, Section 19 of the Employment Agreement provides that the Employment Agreement may be amended by the Corporation and Executive, and the Parties now consider it desirable to amend the Employment Agreement as set forth herein.


NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual terms and conditions set forth below, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:


1.  The Employment Agreement shall be amended by replacing Section 10(f) with the following:


(f)   Termination Following Notice of Non-Renewal.   If the Term of this Agreement expires due the Corporation  electing  not to renew  the Term  in accordance  with Section  3, it shall  be treated as a termination of Executive’s employment  by the Corporation without Cause at the end of the then Term and Executive  shall be entitled to those amounts  set forth in Section 10(b) or 10(e) of this Agreement, as applicable, subject to and in accordance with the terms of Section 13.  If the Term of this Agreement expires due to Executive electing not to renew the Term in accordance  with Section 3, Executive shall receive, subject to Section 13, (i) the Accrued Amounts, as soon as reasonably  practicable following the date of termination; and (ii) any Bonus that has been earned in the year prior to the employment termination  that has not yet  been  paid,  which  Bonus  shall  be  payable  at  the time  payment  is  made  to  other similarly situated executives of the Corporation,  but in no event later than two and one-half (2 1⁄2)  months after the close of the year in which Executive becomes vested in such Bonus.


2.   Except as specifically modified in this Amendment, the Employment Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Second Amendment of Employment Agreement has been duly executed by the Parties.


	
						
	VERA BRADLEY, INC.
	 
	EXECUTIVE
	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ Kevin J. Sierks
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Its:
	CFO
	 
	/s/ Robert Wallstrom
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	Robert Wallstrom
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4787 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4787

  To amend the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 to reduce compliance 
                  burdens on certain banking entities.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 30, 2014

  Mr. Duffy introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                    Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 to reduce compliance 
                  burdens on certain banking entities.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Regional Financial Relief Act of 
2014''.

SEC. 2. DISTINCT AND LESS BURDENSOME REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN BANKING 
              ENTITIES.

    Paragraph (1) of section 13(e) of the Bank Holding Company Act of 
1956 (12 U.S.C. 1851(e)(1)) is amended by adding at the end the 
following: ``Such regulations shall include distinct requirements for 
banking entities with less than $50,000,000,000 in trading assets and 
liabilities that are less burdensome than the requirements for banking 
entities with $50,000,000,000 or more in trading assets and 
liabilities.''
                                 <all>
```
#### Jack Wesley LAVENDERA, Appellant, v. J. C. TAYLOR, Warden, United States Penitentiary, Leavenworth, Kansas, Appellee.

No. 8026.

United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.

July 20, 1965.

Georgious D. Dikeou, Denver, Colo., for appellant.

James R. Ward, Asst. U. S. Atty. (Newell A. George, U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.

Before PHILLIPS, BREITENSTEIN and HILL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from an order denying an application for a writ of habeas corpus. The order is affirmed on authority of Washington v. Hagan, 3 Cir., 287 F.2d 332, 333, 334 c. d. 366 U.S. 970, 81 S.Ct. 1934, 6 L.Ed.2d 1259; Hiatt v. Compagna, 5 Cir., 178 F.2d 42, 46, aff’d. 340 U.S. 880, 71 S.Ct. 192, 95 L.Ed. 639. See also: Jones v. Rivers, 4 Cir., 338 F.2d 862, 864-873; Taylor v. Simpson, 10 Cir., 292 F.2d 698, 701; Taylor v. Warren, 10 Cir., 292 F.2d 702; Wright v. Taylor, 10 Cir., 294 F.2d 592.
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**CERTIFICATION**




In
      connection with the periodic report of Glowpoint, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Michael Brandofino, Chief Executive
      Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for
      purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that
      to the best of my knowledge:




1)  The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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 at the dates
      of
      and for the periods indicated.




This
      Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission.




Date:
      January 31, 2007 /s/
                      Michael BrandofinoMichael
                        Brandofino
                        Chief
                          Executive Officer
Exhibit 32.1

JMP GROUP INC.

CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of JMP Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Joseph A. Jolson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States
Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                     |  |  |  |                        
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                     |  | 
|Date: March 12, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/    JOSEPH A. JOLSON
|                     |  |  |  | Joseph A. Jolson       
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-K pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by
reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 27, 2017

s1218 

# Order

Clerk December 27, 2017

155410

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 155410

COA: 335347

Wayne CC: 13

- 000447

- FC

DALE FREEMAN

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 25 , 2017

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER

I, Bobby Story, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Xenacare Holdings, Inc.;

2.

Based on my knowledge, this annual 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 annual report;

3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual 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 annual 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 annual report is being prepared;

(b)

Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation; and

(c)

Disclosed in this annual 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 the 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: April 15, 2008

| |                             
| | ----------------------------
| |                             
| | /s/ Bobby Story             
| | Bobby Story                 
| | Principal Accounting Officer
#### Silas F. Overton, Respondent, v. Annie E. Barclay, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion.
**Exhibit 32.1**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002     The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the QuarterlyReport on Form 10-Q of American Shared Hospital Services for the quarterly period ended September30, 2006 (the “Report”) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 ofthe United States Code.     Ernest A. Bates, M.D., the Chief Executive Officer and Craig K. Tagawa, the Chief FinancialOfficer of American Shared Hospital Services, each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:     1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and     2. the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of American Shared Hospital Services.November 14, 2006         /s/ Ernest A. Bates, M.D.   Ernest A. Bates, M.D.   Chief Executive Officer       /s/ Craig K. Tagawa   Craig K. Tagawa   Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 35.2

                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (ITEM 1123)

                               GMAC MORTGAGE, LLC

                RFMSI SERIES 2007-S1 TRUST (THE "ISSUING ENTITY")

The undersigned,  a duly authorized  officer of GMAC Mortgage,  LLC, as servicer
(the "Servicer")  pursuant to the applicable  servicing  agreement,  does hereby
certify that:

1. A review of the  Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  covered  by the
Issuing Entity's report on Form 10-K and of the Servicer's performance under the
applicable  servicing  agreement has been made under my  supervision.

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled
all of its obligations under the applicable  servicing agreement in all material
respects throughout such period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 24th
day of March 2008.


By:   /s/ Anthony N. Renzi
      Name:   Anthony N. Renzi
      Title:  Executive Vice President
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

OCT 15 1998

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

BONARD RAY DENINNO,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 97-6347

(D.C. No. CIV-97-656-T &

93-CR-55-T)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO , KELLY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore

ordered submitted without oral argument.
-2-

Defendant filed a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. The district court denied the motion, and plaintiff

appeals. We construe plaintiff’s notice of appeal as an application for a

certificate of appealability. See Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Because plaintiff has not

made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, see 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(2), we deny the request for a certificate of appealability. The appeal is

DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court

John C. Porfilio

Circuit Judge
#### W. C. CHAMBERS and Wife, MILDRED BARNES CHAMBERS, W. J. TILLEY and Wife, AILENE BROWN TILLEY, RONALD WILKINSON and Wife, MARGARET RHODES WILKINSON, T. L. KANOY and Wife, CORA WELLS KANOY, ROY L. LATHAM, W. E. BUTNER and Wife, KATHRYN S. BUTNER, NELIA NEWSOME BUTNER, A. E. SPILLMAN and Wife, BERTIE KETNER SPILLMAN, v. J. McRAE DALTON, ROBERT I. DALTON and Wife, EDITH GOSSETT DALTON, and J. H. GWYN, SR., J. H. GWYN, JR., ALLEN GWYN, Trading as GWYN MOTOR SALES.

(Filed 12 June, 1953.)

Deeds § 16b: Pleadings § 19b—

Demurrer for misjoinder of parties and causes is properly sustained in an action for breaob of restrictive covenants instituted by separate groups of owners of lots in a subdivision against tbe owner of another lot therein.

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Go.dwin, Special Judge,*January Term, 1953, Forsyth. Affirmed:

There are seven groups of plaintiffs. Each group owns a lot in a subdivision allegedly developed according to a uniform plan for residences only. Each group alleges that it has been damaged by the breach of the restrictive covenants which formed a part of the uniform plan of development. Defendants filed two demurrers: In the first they demur for that the complaint fails to state a cause of action; and in the second, for that *143there is a misjoinder of parties and causes of action. The court below sustained both demurrers, and plaintiffs appealed.

*Hayes, Hatfield •& McClain for plaintiff appellants.*

*Ratcliff, Vaughn, Hudso.n, Ferrell & Carter for defendant appellees.*

Per, Curiam.

Tbe judgment entered is somewhat novel in that it is decreed that the complaint fails to state a cause of action and at the same time it is adjudged that there is a misjoinder of parties and causes. *Shaw v. Barnard,*229 N.C. 713, 51 S.E. 2d 295. Be that as it may, the judgment entered must be affirmed. The several causes of action the plaintiffs seek to state are separate and distinct. The only relation of the one to the others is that they are all of the same nature and assert the same general type of grievance. *Davis v. Whitehurst,*229 N.C. 226, 49 S.E. 2d 394; *Burleson v. Burleson,*217 N.C. 336, 7 S.E. 2d 706. No one cause affects all the parties to the action. *Lucas v. Bank,*206 N.C. 909, 174 S.E. 301. No one group has any interest in the claims asserted by the others. Therefore, if any cause of action is stated, there is clearly a mis-joinder of parties and causes.

The judgment entered in the court below is

Affirmed.
4852-3746-6781.3

EXHIBIT A

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3679-1 Filed: 08/23/19 Entered: 08/23/19 15:40:17 Page 1

of 3
4852-3746-6781.3 Exhibit A

COMPENSATION BY COBLENTZ PATCH DUFFY & BASS LLP PROFESSIONALS

JANUARY 29, 2019 THROUGH FEBRUARY 28, 2019

The Coblentz attorneys and paraprofessionals who rendered legal services for the Debtors 

during these Chapter 11 Cases from January 29, 2019 through February 28, 2019 (the “Fee 

Period”) are:

Name of 

Professional Position

Primary 

Practice 

Group*

Year 

Admitted

Reduced 

Hourly 

Rate for 

Debtors

Total 

Hours 

Billed

Total 

Compensation

Barbara Milanovich Partner RE 1980 $648.00 44.70 28,965.60

Doug Sands Partner RE 1987 $648.00 54.30 35,186.40

Sean Coyle Partner LIT 2004 $500.00 10.00 5,000.00

Misti Schmidt Special 

Counsel 

(Former)

RE 2007 $450.00 2.10 945.00

Mark Hejinian Associate LIT 2011 $400.00 3.40 1,360.00

Joy Spezeski Associate RE 2013(IL); 

2016 

(CA)

$369.00 0.10 36.90

Leah Collins Associate RE 2016 $334.00 17.00 5,678.00

Michael Wilson Paralegal RE N/A $302.00 2.40 724.80

Yasmin Jayasuriya Paralegal LIT N/A $260.00 0.30 78.00

Viet Doan Paralegal LIT N/A $175.00 16.20 2,835.00

Total 

Professionals: $80,809.70

 

* RE = Real Estate; LIT = Litigation; BCR = Bankruptcy and Creditors' Rights; 

CORP = Corporate

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3679-1 Filed: 08/23/19 Entered: 08/23/19 15:40:17 Page 2

of 3
4852-3746-6781.3 Exhibit A

PROFESSIONALS

TOTALS

BLENDED RATE TOTAL HOURS 

BILLED

TOTAL 

COMPENSATION

Partners and Counsel 630.94 111.10 $70,097.00

Associates 345.12 20.50 $7,074.90

Blended Attorney Rate 586.41 131.60 $77,171.90

Paraprofessionals and other 

non-legal staff

192.48 18.90 $3,637.80

Total Fees Incurred 150.50 $80,809.70

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3679-1 Filed: 08/23/19 Entered: 08/23/19 15:40:17 Page 3

of 3
ĂƐĞEĂŵĞ͗W'ΘŽƌƉŽƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚWĂĐŝĨŝĐ'ĂƐĂŶĚůĞĐƚƌŝĐŽŵƉĂŶLJ

ĂƐĞEƵŵďĞƌ͗ϭεͲϯϬϬΘΘ

ƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͛ƐEĂŵĞ͗ĂŬĞƌΘ,ŽƐƚĞƚůĞƌ>>W

ĂƚĞŽĨƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗:ƵůLJϭρ͕ϮϬϭε

/ŶƚĞƌŝŵŽƌ&ŝŶĂů͗/ŶƚĞƌŝŵ

h^d&ŽƌŵϭϭͲϯϯϬͲ;ϮϬϭϯͿ

y,//dͲϮ

^hDDZzK&yWE^Z/DhZ^DEdZYh/^dzd'KZz

;^ĞĞ'ƵŝĚĞůŝŶĞƐΒ͘Θ͘ĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚĐĂƚĞŐŽƌLJŝŶĨŽƌŵĂƚŝŽŶ͘Ϳ

d'KZz DKhEd

Ϭκ ƵƚŽŵĂƚĞĚZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ;ϭϬςͿ ΨϭΘ͕ρρς͘ΘϬ

Ϭρ WŽƐƚĂŐĞ;ϭϬΘͿ ΨεϳϬ͘Θε

ϮϭϬ ŽƵƌƚŽƐƚƐ;ϭϭϮͿ ΨϭρϬ͘ϬϬ

ϮρϬ dƌĂŶƐĐƌŝƉƚƐ;ϭϭςͿ Ψρ͕ϳκϭ͘εϭ

ϮςϬ ƵƐŝŶĞƐƐDĞĂůƐ;ϭϭϭͿ Ψϭρ͕ρϮς͘ςρ

ϮϳϬ DŝƐĐĞůůĂŶĞŽƵƐ;ϭϮκͿ Ψρ͕ϯϬΘ͘Ϭϭ

ϯϳϬ ĞůŝǀĞƌLJ^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ;ϭϬϳͿ Ψϭ͕ςϳϳ͘ρς

ϯΘϬ ŽĐƵŵĞŶƚ^ƉĞĐŝĂůŝƐƚ;ϭϭεͿ Ψϭ͕ϭϮϮ͘Θε

κρϬ KŶůŝŶĞZĞƐĞĂƌĐŚ;ϬϭςͿ ΨϯϬ͘ρϬ

κϳϬ KƚŚĞƌWƌŽĨĞƐƐŝŽŶĂů^ĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ

;ϭϮϯͿ

Ψϭ͕ρςε͘Ϭϳ

κΘϬ KƵƚƐŝĚĞƵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŶŐΘŝŶĚŝŶŐ

;ϭϬϮͿ

Ψϭ͕ϭϮϳ͘ερ

ρϯϬ dĞůĞĐŽŶĨĞƌĞŶĐĞŚĂƌŐĞƐ;ϭϬρͿ Ψϭ͕ςρρ͘ϬϬ

ςϭϬ ŝƌĨĂƌĞͬdƌĂŝŶĨĂƌĞ;ϭϭϬͿ Ψεϭ͕ϮϬϭ͘ϮϬ

ςϯϬ 'ƌŽƵŶĚdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ>ŽĐĂů

;ϭϬεͿ

Ψκ͕ϮϮρ͘ϳϳ

ςϯϯ KǀĞƌƚŝŵĞ'ƌŽƵŶĚ

dƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶ>ŽĐĂů;ϭϬεͿ

Ψες͘ϭς

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2995-6 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 17:38:11 Page 1

of 2
ĂƐĞEĂŵĞ͗W'ΘŽƌƉŽƌĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚWĂĐŝĨŝĐ'ĂƐĂŶĚůĞĐƚƌŝĐŽŵƉĂŶLJ

ĂƐĞEƵŵďĞƌ͗ϭεͲϯϬϬΘΘ

ƉƉůŝĐĂŶƚ͛ƐEĂŵĞ͗ĂŬĞƌΘ,ŽƐƚĞƚůĞƌ>>W

ĂƚĞŽĨƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶ͗:ƵůLJϭρ͕ϮϬϭε

/ŶƚĞƌŝŵŽƌ&ŝŶĂů͗/ŶƚĞƌŝŵ

h^d&ŽƌŵϭϭͲϯϯϬͲ;ϮϬϭϯͿ

d'KZz DKhEd

ςϯρ 'ƌŽƵŶĚdƌĂŶƐƉŽƌƚĂƚŝŽŶKƵƚŽĨ

dŽǁŶ;ϭϭϬͿ

ΨϭϮ͕Θρε͘εϬ

ςκϬ ĂƌZĞŶƚĂů;ϭϭϬͿ Ψϭ͕Ϯρς͘κε

ςρϬ >ŽĚŐŝŶŐ;ϭϭϬͿ Ψςϳ͕ϭϭϬ͘εϯ

ςςϬ tŝͲ&ŝdĞůĞƉŚŽŶĞŚĂƌŐĞƐ

;ϭϬρͿ

Ψϭ͕ϳϯϯ͘ςκ

ςϳϬ DĞĂůƐtŚŝůĞdƌĂǀĞůŝŶŐ;ϭϭϬͿ Ψϭ͕ϭςϬ͘ϭς

ςΘϬ DŝůĞĂŐĞZĞŝŵďƵƌƐĞŵĞŶƚ

;ϭϭϬͿ

Ψϯκε͘Ϯς

dKd>  ΨϮϯϯ͕κϯϬ͘ϳκ

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2995-6 Filed: 07/15/19 Entered: 07/15/19 17:38:11 Page 2

of 2
Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3542 Filed: 08/14/19 Entered: 08/14/19 10:10:19 Page 1 of

1
#### Jerome D. Holmes, Appellant, v. William E. Roper, and another, Administrators, etc., Respondents.

— Judgment affirmed, with costs.
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________ NO. 09-12-00577-CV



### ____________________

IN THE INTEREST OF R.E.H.

________________ __________________ __________________ ___ ______________ On Appeal from the 163rd District Court Orange County, Texas Trial Cause No. B-090807-D

________________ __________________ ______________________ _____________ MEMORANDUM OPINION The appellants filed a motion to di smiss this appeal . The motion is voluntarily made by the appellants prio r to any decision of this Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). No ot her party filed notice of appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.
APPEAL DISMISSED.

_______ _________________________ CHARLES KREGER Justice Opinion Delivered October 17, 2013 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kr eger and Horton, JJ.