alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[No. 24287.

Department Two.

March 6, 1933.]

#### Anton Grgurinovich *et al., Respondents,*v. E. C. Peck & Company, *Appellant.**1*

*William L. Hyndman,*for appellant.

1

Reported in 19 P. (2d) 923.

Blake, J.

The plaintiffs brought this action to recover $785.43, which they claimed to be the balance due under a contract to clear land. Prom a judgment for $341.56 in plaintiff’s favor, defendant appeals.

The sole question in dispute is as to the price per acre respondents were to receive. The appellant had *116a contract with the state of Washington for clearing the right of way on state highway No. 9 between Montesano and Aberdeen. On November 5,1931, appellant entered into a contract with respondents to clear the right of way from station No. 398 to station No. *418.*The respondents claim that the agreed price was $300 per acre. The appellant, in its answer, alleged' that the contract price was $100 per acre, and tendered $46.44, being the balance due on the contract at that price. .

The trial court found that the contract, as entered into, provided for $100 per acre, but that, shortly after respondents started to work, an agreement was entered into whereby respondents were to receive “fair and reasonable compensation,” and it entered judgment on that theory.

We find nothing in the record that warrants such finding. It is contrary to the contentions of both respondents and appellant. Respondents’ complaint was predicated on a contract at $300 per acre, and their evidence tended to support the complaint. On the other hand, appellant’s defense was based on a contract at $100 per acre, and evidence offered by it tended to support its position. We are, therefore, confronted with the problem of determining what was the agreed price per acre.

The determination of the question does not require an extended review of the evidence. There are certain undisputed facts and some disinterested testimony that make it conclusively appear to us that the agreed price was $100 per acre. In the first place, $300 per acre was much in excess of the price appellant was to receive under its contract with the state. Then, it was understood that respondents were to be paid on estimates of the state engineer, as to the amount of land cleared. On December 5 and 22, respectively, they were *117paid on such estimates at the rate of $100 per acre. They accepted the payments without protest either as to the estimates or the amounts due. Finally, one Batinovich, a friend of respondents, through whose intercession respondents obtained the contract, testified that, two weeks after they commenced work, Grgurinovich told him they were getting $100 per acre.

The judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded with directions to enter judgment in favor of respondents in the sum of $46.44, being the amount tendered by appellant.

Bíeals, O. J., Main, Tolman, and Steinert, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT D 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4731-4 Filed: 11/14/19 Entered: 11/14/19 15:02:36 Page 1

of 2
Project Category Category Code Total Hours Billed Total Fees

Case Administration 11 2.10                            $           1,305.00

Fee Application/Client Billing 12 31.30                                     12,727.00

Retention/Engagement Matters 13 69.50                                     32,013.50

Attend Court Hearings/Review Pleadings 14 2.20                                         1,453.00

Claims Analysis/Objection 31 1,945.60                            968,077.00

Creditors and Creditors Committee Contact 52 24.60                                     15,806.00

Travel (at 1/2 Billing Rate) 80 222.70                                   59,117.50

                  2,298.00 $   1,090,499.00

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 4731-4 Filed: 11/14/19 Entered: 11/14/19 15:02:36 Page 2

of 2
Allocation of Certain Office Costs Relation to Thomas J. Pritzker



 Exhibit 10.26 
 The Pritzker Organization, L.L.C. 
 71 South Wacker Drive, 47th Floor 
 Chicago, Illinois 60606 
 December 8, 2006 
 Global Hyatt Corporation 
 71 South Wacker Drive, 12th Floor 
 Chicago, Illinois 60606

  

	 	Re:	Allocation of Certain Office Costs Relating to Thomas J. Pritzker 

 Dear Sir or Madam: 
 As you know, Thomas J. Pritzker (“TJP”) maintains his business office at Hyatt
Center, 71 South Wacker Drive, Chicago, Illinois on a portion of the 47th floor
(such portion utilized by TJP, the “Premises”). TJP provides services to Global Hyatt Corporation (“Company”) as an employee. TJP also provides services to the undersigned and, as applicable, other organizations affiliated with
Company (such organizations together with Company are referred to herein to as the “Service Organizations”). 
 This letter
agreement addresses the allocation to the Service Organizations of certain occupancy and operation costs (the “Costs”) incurred by the undersigned, The Pritzker Organization, L.L.C. (“TPO”) that relate to the services of TJP. The
Costs include both costs directly incurred by TPO, as well as certain costs allocated to TPO under various allocation agreements, including unwritten arrangements based on past dealings (collectively, the “Entity Allocation Agreements”).

 Company hereby agrees, and each of the other Service Organizations have separately agreed, to equitably share in bearing the Costs
attributable to TJP (the “TJP Costs”). 
 Based on the foregoing and effective as of July 1, 2005, the parties hereto agree as
follows: 
  

	 	1.	Company hereby appoints TPO as the authorized party responsible for determining the amount of the TJP Costs and, in turn, the amount of the TJP Costs allocable to Company.


  

	 	2.	TPO will periodically invoice Company for its share of the TJP Costs, and Company shall promptly remit payment therefor. If the Fill amount invoiced is not received from Company
within thirty (30) days of its receipt of the invoice, Company shall pay to TPO a late charge of five percent (5%) of the unpaid amount. In addition, all unpaid amounts shall bear interest from the date due until paid in full at a per
annum interest rate equal to eighteen percent (18%). 

  

	 	3.	Company shall have the right to request information and calculations used in determining the amount billed to Company. 








 If you agree with the foregoing, please execute this letter in the space provided below, whereupon the
letter shall become a legal binding obligation of the parties hereto. 
  

			
	 The Pritzker Organization, L.L.C.,
 a
Delaware limited liability company

		
	By:	 	/s/ John Stellato
	Name: 	 	John Stellato
	Title:	 	Executive Vice President


  

			
	 Agreed to and accepted as of the 
 9
th day of January, 2007:

	
	Global Hyatt Corporation, a Delaware corporation
		
	By:	 	/s/ Kirk A. Rose
	Name: 	 	Kirk A. Rose
	Title:	 	Senior Vice President Finance
RECEIVED IN

COURT OF CRi.viiNAL APPEALS

FLJ Ob201§ !. <^*/^

Abel Mcosxa, Clerk

^ &/#<*/*? fft/<J s?\^y tfD/^ce/^'iJ'

-ffr<^ £6j/wr- #f* jl/>S&*~/^ /s*J .J^^^Ly^r

^^r&?&>&At*-* crj>^ jf-&&U /p&**^s«Jrr

^sO /&J sf~/?y?&&c^ tfer/t^ <fZ£7g?^ y^<D

S> f^/J - <P$ <Z ?/&/l>- t?/9/h/?^X/fr.

</^&/?#*i£jp. J(f ^r^f^r^ 2>^ crg&Zv:

0/u, ^-, /t-SSerts ^_= f/u>/^ ^ 263 « = T<J0/£*£.. w c *=/*>—&/<o"'

dZ>*>Asr: f)*~£-£*xr, s£ts^>r^y_ x'^K&rr

yy/^ ^r7&t*/&v' f*7frtf~'jjy&-/&**-&*_J2£s*4?~

//-{j ^;/Mr<r /?&****&- Asj&'s&j>r~*->6'£.&-

<7~£> s£&r~~ /?//*- j*rK /fyfA^^rrod. ^2>x->

j&j: */Ke.

^r<^ /iSb r~'jv x-^-aJj>&^-^ </?*>?—

~f/j-^ w^ry/Jr- fh Tfr%* abcJ/i-j^/**><«-

/>~f/>&r4- 2> P #/j-{isnr^'/$^£#&Lc<r&LyL

#-a». 7^>/lj? vyf/j- ?<r /*? y A&^rraAt*«j&g-

/f& /,r s^^a; &s*J ysw ^^ <7d /^<rd*J.

^£&£SjJ& /^ TV-ssf *y<rr&* ^

y^/h/n fjAi/AJ?- /7~ jr>/r&&2-ja?ui&

-fib fit d& />>^X \fD^ A- 'fas/<^^/Tfa'crr^

a^/tV/*^ /?^/^/y /g^w^y* a-^^tra-A SJ7^ <rfr^ &/hr^ ffi.f'tM tf/^&
^^^/^ ^_L(__

&£>AjU&a^ ^^/rjv^&st.

£A/¥^^f?^<) S££ ^^^/^^^
**[Letterhead of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.]**

Exhibit 35.1.5.2

**SUBSERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**

 

 

RE:  Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-AR1:  This Pooling and Servicing Agreement, is dated and effective as of January 1, 2007, among Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc., as Depositor, Citimortgage, Inc., as Master Servicer and Trust Administrator, Citibank, N.A. as Paying Agent, Certificate Registrar and Authenticating Agent and U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee

 

The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, as subservicer (the “Subservicer” per the Mortgage Loan Subservicing Agreement, dated October 1, 2007) pursuant to the Citigroup Mortgage Loan Trust Inc. Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2007-AR1 (The “Agreement”), does hereby certify that:

 

(1)         A review of the activities of the Subservicer during the period from October 1, 2007 to December 3, 2007 and of the performance of the Subservicer under the Agreement has been made under my supervision; and

 

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

 

Date:  02/28/2008

 

 

|   | JPMorgan Chase Bank, |
|--------|----------------------|

|   | National Association, |
|--------|-----------------------|

|   | As Subservicer |
|--------|----------------|

 

 

|   | By:  /s/ David Lowman |
|--------|-----------------------|

|   | Name:  David Lowman |
|--------|---------------------|

|   | Title: | Executive Vice President |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-14-00722-CV

Paula Garcia, Individually d/b/a J. C. Sports Con-Action

v.

Fairhaven Crossing, Ltd.

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No 6 of Hidalgo County, Texas

Trial Cause No. CL-12-0472-F

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against 

parties incurring same. 

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 28, 2015
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS**

**Eononble Allen**  **0.** D.w ,Attorner Borfne, Ten0 AUSTIN

Pil8OII Janus III, 1989

will una fou fou prement

ed. st an opinion, it ith the rbquoatfor a npuert thatyou do not



## BJ LRIRdLCU;.,,

AS#ldanttebxuary 7, 1939

Ho-able Allen 0. Wilson CountJ Attornb~ Roorne, Texas DearMr.WIl~n OpInlo5 Ro. o-lu R~;ru$IrIoation or Deputy
Your lettsrof January 12, lOsO,requesting a5 opI5Ion has bean **rmaaivad** by this Department. The portlnent portio5s

or 'fourlbttsr

being as ?ollowsr *On January1 a 5ew sherift, **oolleotor** and asseasorassunmd

thb duties I5 this oountyanb being lnsxpsrlenoed

he has appointed

as ens o? MS deputies a man whose resldenoe is outsldb this oounty. *I m&Q like to hare rour opinion as **to** whetheror not tills is legalaad timether he oe pay thisperson**out** o? the feeso? offloe or whether he oan only employhim to assistand pay htm out o? his pareonal

### funds. Furthor, is a deputysupposed to hare the sams quall?IcatIo5s as to rssldenoe, l t o ., a s the eleoted

oifloer.n
~lsed that Zt 18 the opl5lon o? this Department, a5d fou are so adit would be lsgal ior the shsri?? to employas a do a parson vbc~

is a aon-resldmt o? the sountyi In **this** oonneot **r** ty **05,** It Is assumed that the &puty,opon appointment, has aore& or dll move, his resldenae to the aountl where he expeots to sem, oo1- plyingwith Artlole16, Seotlon 14, ot the Oonstltutlon. Thb statutes of Texas do not presorlbs a5y spsolilo @aal- %?IoatIoas

Sor a deputy sherl??. Be Is apowered to 

### perrormthe dutieso? the shsrlir, and upon his appointment to tlm orrloe,

bs is required

to take the oath that 1s a&sInIstered to otherpub110 otilolals

as 1s prmldsd In Artlole16, SeotlonI, o? the Co5stltutlonor the Stats of Texas. I? he OM mast the qualifloatlons or this oath,he oan legally pualifr

as a deputJr

shsrlf?. Rshmsl ts. Roam%of.Suprs., 134 R.W. 596 (Iowa). State,33 S.R. 117. See also,Barkreader vs.Hon. Allen C. Wilson, ?ebruary 7, 1939, Page 2

In ssswer to t&s queetlonwith r8ferenOb to how the deputy should bs aid, your attention is dlrootsdto Artisle 3902, Rerlssd Olr 1

P Statutes

of Texas, whloh protldss the marlmum amoullt

to, **b8** paid 

### to deputy 

### 8horirr8. It is the 

### opiel05.0r this Department,snd you are so advised, that salarlss should be paid out or the fees of offloe.
Tours rbry truly ATTORNRY

ORIQCRAL

OF TEXAS

APPROVED:
**A!lTORNZY O?!X?ERAT.**  **Oi**
#### STATE v. AGNEW MOTT WILLIAMS, JR.

(Filed 25 March, 1953.)

Constitutional Law § S2: Criminal Law § 56—

Where a prosecution for a misdemeanor is transferred to the Superior Court from the Recorder’s Court upon defendant’s demand for a jury trial, initial trial in the Superior Court upon the original warrant is a nullity and the judgment will be arrested on appeal to the Supreme Court.

Appeal by defendant from *Sharp, Special Judge,*at September Term, 1952, Of CRAVEN.

Criminal prosecution upon warrant issued out of Craven County Recorder’s Court charging that on 5 June, 1952, defendant did unlawfully operate a motor vehicle on the public highways of North Carolina while his license was suspended, contrary to the form of the statute, etc.

In the Recorder’s Court a jury trial was demanded. "Whereupon, the case was transferred to the Superior Court for initial trial, and was there tried upon the warrant issued as above stated.

Verdict: Guilty.

Judgment: Imprisonment.

Defendant appeals therefrom to Supreme Court, and here moves in arrest of judgment on authority of *S. v. Thomas,*236 N.C. 454, 73 S.E. 2d 283.

*437
      *Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Bruton for the State.*

Pee, CueiaM.

The Attorney-General for the State concedes that this case is not distinguishable from the case of *S. v. Thomas, supra,*as to bill of indictment being required to confer jurisdiction on the Superior Court, and in this respect confesses error in the judgment from which appeal is taken and prays that this case be remanded to the Superior Court of Craven County for trial upon a bill of indictment which may subsequently issue. Hence, judgment is arrested, and the case so remanded.

Judgment arrested.
EXHIBIT 32 
Section 1350 Certifications  STATEMENT FURNISHED PURSUANT TO 
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 The undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of J-Kan, Inc. This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the
Annual Report on Form 10-K of J-Kan, Inc. for the year ended July 31, 2008. The undersigned certify that such 10-K Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such 10-K Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of J-Kan, Inc. as of
July 31, 2008. This Certification is executed as of
October 17, 2008. By: /s/ JERRY W. NEEL, JR. Jerry W. Neel, Jr. President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)  By: /s/ JERRY W. NEEL, JR. Jerry W. Neel, Jr. Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to J-Kan, Inc. and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 63707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30202]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-57-000]


Southern National Gas Company; Notice of GSR Revised Tariff 
Sheets

December 6, 1995.
    Take notice that on November 30, 1995, Southern Natural Gas Company 
(Southern) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective 
December 1, 1995.

Twenty-fourth Revised Sheet No. 15
Twenty-fourth Revised Sheet No. 17

    The proposed tariff sheets reflects a slight decrease in Southern's 
December 1, 1995, FT and FT-NN GSR surcharge.
    Southern states that the above referenced sheets will be applicable 
to parties who are not in support of Southern's Stipulation and 
Agreement filed on March 15, 1995 in Docket Nos. RP89-224, et al.
    Southern states that copies of the filing were served upon 
Southern's intervening customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protect said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC. 20426, in 
accordance with 18 CFR 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. Pursuant to section 154.210 of the Commission's 
regulations, all such motions or protests must be filed not later than 
12 days after the date of the filing noted above. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of Southern's filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc- 95-30202 Filed 12-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
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 B 

COMPENSATION BY WORK TASK CODE FOR 

SERVICES RENDERED BY WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 

FOR THE PERIOD OCTOBER 1, 2019 THROUGH OCTOBER 31, 2019 

TASK 

CODE DESCRIPTION HOURS AMOUNT 

002 Asset Sales/363 Sales 2.80 $2,818.50 

003 Automatic Stay 16.70 $17,919.50 

004 Bankruptcy Litigation 179.80 $153,312.50 

005 Bar Date Motion/Claims Reconciliation/Claim Reconciliation Issue 401.60 $384,401.50 

006 Case Administration (docket updates, WIP and calendar) 28.10 $17,987.00 

008 Chapter 11 Plan/Plan Confirmation 662.10 $691,483.50 

009 Communications with Client 14.00 $13,065.00 

010 Corporate Governance and Board Issues 56.70 $69,708.50 

011 Customer, Supplier and Vendor Issues 19.90 $20,609.00 

012 DIP Financing/ Cash Mgmt/ Hedging Transactions 2.00 $2,141.00 

013 Disclosure Statement 6.20 $4,292.00 

014 Employee Issues 185.90 $180,464.00 

016 Exclusivity 336.00 $361,227.50 

017 Executory Contracts/Lease Issues 27.30 $24,753.00 

018 General Case Strategy(includes calls with client and team calls) 114.60 $121,247.50 

019 Hearings and Court Matters 114.80 $131,308.50 

021 Non-Bankruptcy Litigation 8.80 $10,698.50 

022 Non-Working Travel 53.50 $70,022.50 

024 Reclamation/503(b)(9) 18.70 $13,792.00 

025 Regulatory Issues including CPUC and FERC 72.20 $83,636.50 

026 Retention/Billing/Fee Applications: WGM 77.60 $67,593.50 

027 Retention/Fee Application: Ordinary Course Professionals 1.70 $1,819.50 

028 Retention/Fee Application: Other Professionals 70.30 $61,999.00

030 Tax Issues 171.40 $205,992.50 

031 U.S. Trustee issues/ meetings/ communications/monthly operating 0.60 $675.00 

032 Unsecured Creditor Issues/ Communications/Meetings 5.10 $4,308.00 

035 Real Estate and Real Property Issues 37.80 $33,564.00 

036 Tort Claimants Committee, including Wildfire Claimants 26.10 $22,494.00 

037 Insurance Issues 1.10 $1,219.00 

Total: 2,713.40 $2,774,552.50 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 5315-2 Filed: 01/09/20 Entered: 01/09/20 11:14:21 Page 1

of 1
#### In the Matter of WILLIAM N. BURNETT, by and Through His Guardian and Mother, MRS. *L.*F. FINBURG.

(Filed 28 November, 1945.)

Appeal and Error §§ 4, BOe—

In *habeas corpus,*petitioner asking for release from arrest upon telephonic revocation of his parole, where it appears that on the hearing below that petitioner’s parole had then been revoked in due form, G. S.. 134-85, the legality of his arrest and detention is presently academic, hence motion of the Attorney-General to dismiss must be allowed.

Habeas corpus proceedings, heard by *Burney, J.,*in Chambers at Wilmington, N. 0., 16 July, 1945. Here on petition for a writ of *certiorari.*

Petitioner was duly committed to the Jackson Training School. On 19 February, 1945, he was released on parole. On 12 July, 1945, acting on a telephonic revocation of the parole, the probation officer of New Hanover County ordered his arrest. Writ of *habeas corpus,*after hearing, was denied and petitioner was recommitted. Thereupon, on his petition, writ of *certiorari*issued from this Court.

*647
      *W. L. Farmer and Rodgers & Rodgers for petitioner.*

*Attorney-General McMullan and Assistant Attorney-General Tuclcer for respondent.*

Per Curiam.

On 16 July, 1945, tbe date of tbe bearing below, petitioner’s parole was revoked in due form. G. S., 134-85. He is now lawfully detained. Tbe legality of bis original arrest and detention is presently academic. Hence tbe motion of tbe Attorney-General to dismiss must be allowed. *Cochran v. Rowe, ante,*645; *Martin v. Sloan,*69 N. C., 128; *S. v. R. R.,*74 N. C., 287; *Waters v. Boyd,*179 N. C., 180, 102 S. E., 196; *Trade Association v. Doughton,*192 N. C., 384, 135 S. E., 131; *Board of Education v. Comrs. of Johnston,*198 N. C., 430, 152 S. E., 156; *Efird v. Comrs. of Forsyth,*217 N. C., 691, 9 S. E. (2d), 466.

Petition dismissed.
**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 Annual Report of NORTHWEST CHARIOTS INCORPORATED (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas Dewar, Chief Executive Officer 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:

The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) 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 the Company.

Date: January 14, 2008

By: ***/s/ Douglas Dewar***

Douglas Dewar

President, Chief Executive Officer and principal executive officer

----
Order entered January 16 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 14
- 00914
- CR CODY JOHN HOLT, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court

Grayson County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 062011 

### O RDER
The Court ORDERS the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and recommendations and determine whether appellant desi res to prosecute the appeal, whether appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See
T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8( b ). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the
trial court shall co nduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State , 742 S.W.2d 708 (Tex. App.

– Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective represen tation, which may include appointment of new counsel.We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. This appeal is A BATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are received, whichever is earlier.
/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE