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

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ROBERTO ANTONIO HERNANDEZ

,

Appellant,

v.

PRESTON BROWN, VALENTINA

SAMANIEGO, ODD COUPLES

PROPERTIES, LLC, CURSADERS

REALTY INVESTMENTS, LLC, and

ENTRUST CAPITAL FUNDING, LLC

,

Appellee s

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00351

- CV

Appeal from the

205th Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2022DCV1929)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes the appeal should be

dismissed. We therefore dismiss the appeal. We further order Appellant to pay all costs of this

appeal and that this decision be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 26TH DAY OF JANUARY 2024.

JEFF ALLEY, Chief Justice

Before Alley , C.J., Palafox, and Soto, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 94 (Tuesday, May 14, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24333]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12005]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993; X Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on February 28, 1996, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the X Consortium has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in it's membership. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, the changes are as 
follows: Insignia Solutions, Ltd., Bucks, ENGLAND; NetManage, Inc., 
Cupertino, CA; and Spectragraphics Corp., Marietta, GA have been added 
to the venture. AGE Logic, Inc., San Diego, CA; and Frame Technology 
Corp., San Jose, CA have withdrawn from the venture.
    On September 15, 1993, the X Consortium filed its original 
notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 
6(b) of the Act on November 10, 1993 (58 FR 59737).
    The last notification was filed on September 1, 1995. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register on 
December 18, 1995 (61 FR 65069).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 96-12005 Filed 5-13-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
#### In re Edward Tate EIDSON and Kyle Logan Eidson. George EIDSON, Appellant, v. Deborah DECKER, Respondent.

No. 61566.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Dec. 15, 1992.

George Eidson, pro se.

Leigh Joy Carson, Clayton, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant George Eidson appeals from a decision granting name changes to his two children. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence and no error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memo*576randum for their information only setting forth the reasons for our order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
* 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 October 20, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-20072 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LEYLA BONILLA-MURILLO, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 4:03-CR-202-1

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Leyla Bonilla-Murillo pleaded guilty to an indictment charging her with violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). She was sentenced to a 57-month term of imprisonment. Bonilla contends that the district court erred in refusing to depart downward on grounds of cultural assimilation. The record reflects that the downward departure was denied because the district court believed it was unwarranted. We lack jurisdiction to review this ruling. See United States v.No. 04-20072 -2- Rodriguez-Montelongo , 263 F.3d 429, 431 (5th Cir. 2001). The appeal is dismissed in part. Bonilla argues that the district court failed to properlyimplement a downward departure granted on the basis of an overrepresented criminal history category. Her assertion that the district court intended to grant two separate departures is belied by the proceedings at Bonilla’s sentencing hearing. The sentence is affirmed. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED IN PART; and the appeal is DISMISSED IN PART.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21469]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11719]



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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

MTB Bank; De Novo Corporation to do Business Under Section 25A of 
the Federal Reserve Act

    An application has been submitted for the Board's approval of the 
organization of a corporation to do business under Section 25A of the 
Federal Reserve Act (Edge Corporation) 12 U.S.C. Sec.  611 et seq. The 
Edge Corporation will operate as a subsidiary of the applicant, MTB 
Bank, New York, New York. The factors that are to be considered in 
acting on the application are set forth in the Board's Regulation K (12 
CFR 211.4).
    The application may be inspected at the Federal Reserve Bank of New 
York or at the Board of Governors. Any comment on an application that 
requests a hearing must include a statement of why a written 
presentation would not suffice in lieu of a hearing, identify 
specifically any questions of fact that are in dispute, and summarize 
the evidence that would be presented at a hearing.
    Comments regarding the application must be received by the Reserve 
Bank indicated or at the offices of the Board of Governors no later 
than June 7, 1996.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York (Christopher J. McCurdy, Senior 
Vice President) 33 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10045:
    1. MTB Bank, New York, New York; to establish MTB International 
Investment Corporation, New York, New York, a de novo Edge Corporation 
pursuant to Section 25A of the Federal Reserve Act.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, May 6, 1996.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-11719 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
#### Kyra J. MASON, Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Appellant.

No. 20723.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Aug. 5, 1996.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenault, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for appellant.

Louis J. Nolan, Springfield, for respondent.

SHRUM, Judge.

In May, 1995, Kyra J. Mason (Mason) was arrested for driving while intoxicated in violation of § 577.010.1 Her driver’s license was taken upon arrest. Mason requested an administrative hearing to determine if she had been arrested upon probable cause to believe she was intoxicated. Following the hearing, the Director of Revenue (Director) suspended Mason’s driver’s license for 30 days, followed by 60 days of limited driving privileges. Mason appealed the administrative decision and filed a petition in the circuit court of Barton County. The trial judge found that Mason had been convicted “on July 25, 1995, of operating a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of .10 or greater” as defined in § 577.012. He then concluded that Director’s suspension of Mason’s driver’s license constituted a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and thus ordered Director to rein*267state Mason’s driving privileges and remove any record of revocation or suspension from her driving record as a result of her DWI arrest. Director appeals.

The only issue on appeal is whether the suspension of the respondent’s driving privileges constituted a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause when she was criminally convicted of driving while intoxicated, arising out of the same incident. This court finds it did not.

In a case with strikingly similar facts, the Missouri Supreme Court has held that criminal prosecution and suspension of driving privileges arising out of the same action do not constitute a violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the 5th Amendment. *State v. Mayo,*915 S.W.2d 758, 762-763 (Mo. banc 1996). The purpose of suspending the license of an individual convicted of DWI is not to impose additional sanctions on the convicted; rather these measures are to ensure the safety of others on Missouri roadways. *State v. Mayo,*915 S.W.2d at 762. *See State v. Grisham,*918 S.W.2d 926 (Mo.App.1996); *State v. Champlin,*919 S.W.2d 24 (Mo.App.1996) relying on *State v. Mayo.*

The order reinstating Mason’s driver’s license is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

MONTGOMERY, C.J., and PARRISH, J., concur.

1

. All statutory references are to Missouri Revised Statutes 1994 unless otherwise stated.
**Exhibit 13.2**

**ASAT Holdings Limited**

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to**

**Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

Pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, Kei Hong Chua, the Chief Financial Officer of ASAT Holdings Limited (the “Company”), does hereby certify as follows: 

To the best of my knowledge, the Company’s annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2007 accompanying thisCertification in the form filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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 theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated. 

Dated: October 15, 2007 

 

*The Certification set forth above is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and should not be deemed to be filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by the Company or the certifying officers.*
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00323-CR

Pedro Dominguez

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

§

From Criminal District Court No. 4

of Tarrant County (1219602D)

May 30, 2013

Opinion by Justice Meier

Concurrence by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By _________________________________

 Justice Bill Meier
Exhibit
10.1


Exhibit 10.1 — Amendment to Employment Agreement dated
February 18, 2003 between Rick Altinger and VantageMed Corporation dated
November 7, 2006


Amendment to Employment Agreement
Dated February 18, 2003


Between
Richard Altinger and VantageMed Corporation


Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the
Employment Agreement dated February 18, 2003 between Richard Altinger and
VantageMed Corporation is hereby amended to read as follows:


1.            
Position and Duties.  Employee will be employed by the Company as its
Executive Vice President of Marketing and Business Development, reporting to
the Company’s Chief Executive Officer.  Employee accepts employment with
the Company on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, and
Employee agrees to devote Employee’s full working time, energy and skill to
Employee’s duties at the Company and shall use his best efforts to perform his
duties.  These duties will include, but not be limited to, those duties
normally performed by an Executive Vice President of Marketing and Business
Development, as well as any other reasonable duties that may be assigned to
Employee from time to time.


2.            
Term of Employment.   The term of the Agreement shall continue
until February 18, 2009 (the “Term”); provided, however, that the relationship
may be terminated by Employee or the Company pursuant to the provisions of
Paragraphs 4 and 5 below.  Thereafter, subject to the provisions for
termination in Paragraph 4, this Agreement shall be extended automatically for
a term of one year (the “Renewal Term”), unless:  (a) the Company or the
Employee gives written termination notice to the other party at least thirty
days prior to either the termination of the initial Term of employment or any
Renewal Term established thereafter; or (b) the Company and the Employee agree
to a mutually acceptable date on which to terminate this agreement.


        IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date and
year written below. 


	
  

  	
   

  	
  VantageMed Corporation

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  By:

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Steve Curd

  
	
  Date:November 7, 2006

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Steve Curd 

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Its:

  	
   

  	
  Chief Executive Officer

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  /s/ Rick Altinger 

  
	
  Date:November 7, 2006

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
  Rick Altinger
#### Joe Dennis WINTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 427-87.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Nov. 23, 1988.

James R. Rodgers, Paris, for appellant.

Tom D. Wells, Dist. Atty., Paris, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*656OPINION ON APPELLANT'S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

Appeal is taken from a conviction for the offense of aggravated sexual assault. After finding appellant guilty, the jury assessed punishment at life imprisonment.

On direct appeal, appellant argued the trial court erred in instructing the jury on the law concerning good time and parole, inasmuch as the charge is predicated upon an unconstitutional statute. The Court of Appeals rejected appellant’s challenge to Article 37.07, Section 4, V.A.C.C.P. *Winton v. State,*727 S.W.2d 687 (Tex.App.—Texarkana 1987).

In his petition for discretionary review, appellant urges the Court of Appeals erred in holding Article 37.07, Section 4, supra, is constitutional. We find appellant is correct.

In *Rose v. State,*752 S.W.2d 529 (Tex.Cr.App.1988), this Court determined that Article 37.07, Section 4, is unconstitutional. Under *Rose,*it is still necessary for the Court of Appeals to conduct a harmless error analysis under the guidelines of Tex. R.App.P. 81(b)(2).

The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and this cause is remanded to that Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge 

Kolesar & Leatham, Chtd. 

Man J. Lefebvre 

Marquis Aurbach Coffing 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

CLERK'S ORDER 2
1 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstancesset forth in 5THCIR. R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 00-21109

Summary Calendar

___________________________

LEONARD PERRY, doing business as H W Security Co.,

Plaintiff - Appellant - Cross-Appellee,

VERSUS

THE PORT OF HOUSTON AUTHORITY; TED WALTERS, 

Defendants - Appellees - Cross-Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Texas

(H-99-CV-1744)

December 12, 2002

Before DAVIS, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:1

Leonard Perry appeals from the district court’s entry of judgment as a matter of law

setting aside the jury’s verdict in his favor on his Section 1983 claims against the Port of Houston

Authority and Ted Walters. Perry contends that the Port of Houston Authority violated his

substantive and procedural due process rights when the authority failed to award him a contract

for security services on which he was the lowest bidder. We agree with the district court that
Perry has no property interest in being awarded the security contract sufficient to uphold his due

process claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for essentially the reasons stated by the district court in its

Order dated October 26, 2000. 

The Port of Houston Authority cross-appeals the district court’s order requiring it, the

prevailing party, to bear its own costs. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ. P. 54(d), except when provided

otherwise by statute or rule, “costs other than attorneys’ fees shall be allowed as of course to the

prevailing party unless the court directs otherwise.” Although the district court had broad

discretion in determining whether to award costs to a prevailing party, Rule 54(d) creates a strong

presumption that the prevailing party will be awarded its costs. Wilson v. City of Plano, Texas,

160 F.3d 211, 212 (5th Cir. 1998); Schwartz v. Folloder, 767 F.2d 125, 131 (5th Cir. 1985). Our

court has held that, when a district court declines to award costs to a prevailing party, it should

state its reasons for doing so. Wilson at 212-13; Schwartz at 131-32. In this case the district

court did not state reasons for requiring the Port of Houston Authority to bear its own costs. 

Accordingly, we remand the issue of costs to the district court for reconsideration. If the district

court finds that the Port of Houston Authority is not entitled to costs, it should state its reasons

for that decision.

Judgment as a matter of law AFFIRMED; REMANDED for reconsideration of costs

award.
exv10wo



 






EXHIBIT 10.O




AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE

EL PASO CORPORATION

2001 STOCK OPTION PLAN FOR NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTORS




     WHEREAS, El Paso Corporation (the “Company”) maintains the El Paso Corporation 2001 Stock
Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors, effective as of January 29, 2001, as amended (the “Plan”);



     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 9.1 of the Plan, the Board of Directors or the “Plan
Administrator” (as defined in the Plan) may from time to time make such amendments to the Plan as
either of them may deem proper and in the best interests of the Company;



     WHEREAS, the Company desires to clarify provisions of the Plan to reflect the intent of the
Board of Directors and the Compensation Committee with respect to adjustments in the number of
authorized shares under the Plan.



     NOW THEREFORE, the following amendment shall be made to the Plan:



     Section 2.2 shall be deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:




     “In the event of a recapitalization, stock split, stock dividend, exchange of shares,
merger, reorganization, change in corporate structure or shares of the Company or similar
event, the Board of Directors or the Plan Administrator shall make such adjustments, if
any, as it determines are appropriate and equitable to (i) the number of shares authorized
for issuance under the Plan and (ii) the number of shares and the option price with respect
to outstanding stock options. Any such adjustment shall be final, binding and conclusive
on all persons claiming any right or interest under the Plan.”



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this amendment has been executed by the undersigned, thereunto duly
authorized, effective as of October 26, 2006.



	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	EL PASO CORPORATION	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	By:
	 	/s/ Susan B. Ortenstone	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	Susan B. Ortenstone	 	 
	 	 	Its Senior Vice President, Human Resources	 	 
	 	 	and Administration	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Attest:
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ David L. Siddall
 


	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Corporate Secretary
Amendment to Agency Agreement with Fleming Securities, Inc.



 Exhibit 10.2 
 [Fleming Securities, Inc. Letterhead] 
 September 30, 2006 
 Ms. Paulita M. LaPlante 
 President and Chief Executive Officer 
 Optical Sensors Incorporated d.b.a. väsamed

 7615 Golden Triangle Drive, Suite C 
 Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344 
 Ms. LaPlante: 
 This letter will confirm our agreement (i) to extend the termination date for the sale of Notes and
Warrants under the Selling Agency Agreement dated February 6, 2006, as amended effective July 25, 2006 (the “Agency Agreement”), from September 30, 2006 to and including January 6, 2007 and (ii) increase the
aggregate principal amount of the convertible promissory notes from $4,500,000 to $5,647,950 to be issued and sold under the Agency Agreement. 
 Please return to me an executed copy of this letter to confirm our understanding. 
  

			
	Sincerely,
	
	Fleming Securities, Inc.
		
	By	 	 /s/ Hayden R. Fleming

		 	Hayden R. Fleming, President

  

			
	Agreed:
	
	Optical Sensors Incorporated d.b.a. väsamed
		
	By	 	 /s/ Paulita M. LaPlante

		 	Paulita M. LaPlante, President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  6.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Deerfield Capital Corp.;7.
    
    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;8.
    
    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;9.
    
    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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     10.
    
    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):
   Date: March 12, 2008
    /s/ RICHARD G. SMITHRichard G. SmithChief Financial Officer and
Treasurer
(Principal Financial Officer)