alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The State of TexasAppellee/s



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

February 4, 2014

N o. 04

- 12

- 00398

- CR

Robert WATSON

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

From the 274th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 11

- 1543

- CR

Honorable Gary L. Steel, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

The panel has considered the Appellant ’ s Motion for Rehearing, and the motion is

DENIED.

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 4th day of February, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
#### In re MARRIAGE OF Linda Orlan PEW and Ross William Pew Linda Orlan Pew, Petitioner-Respondent, and Ross William Pew, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 16052.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division One.

Nov. 29, 1989.

W. Henry Johnson, Douglas, Douglas & Johnson, Neosho, for petitioner-respondent.

C.R. Rhoades, Rhoades, Paul & Paul, Neosho, for respondent-appellant.

PREWITT, Judge.

This is an appeal from a decree dissolving the parties’ marriage. Appellant complains that the trial court erred in awarding maintenance to respondent and in dividing marital property.

The trial court made twelve pages of extensive and apparently carefully considered findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court discussed and made findings regarding the basis on which maintenance was ordered pursuant to § 452.335.1, RSMo Supp.1988 and the amount of maintenance as provided in § 452.335.2, RSMo Supp.1988. The court followed the same procedure on the factors to be considered in dividing property as covered in § 452.330.1, RSMo Supp.1988.

An examination of the record convinces us that no error of law appears and that the judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. An opinion would have no precedential value and the judgment is affirmed in compliance with Rule 84.16(b).

Respondent’s ability to work was in dispute. Where there is conflicting testimony, deference is given to the trial court’s conclusions. *In re Marriage of Reagan,*589 S.W.2d 118, 120 (Mo.App.1979). A spouse should not have to consume her part of the marital property for living expenses before she would be entitled to maintenance. *In re Marriage of Powers,*527 S.W.2d 949, 955 (Mo.App.1975).

The trial court has discretion in the division of marital property. A just division does not have to be equal. This is particularly true where one party has engaged in misconduct. *Arp v. Arp,*572 S.W.2d 232, 235 (Mo.App.1978).

The judgment is affirmed.

CROW, P.J., and GREENE, J., concur.
Case 4:17-cr-01620-RCC-DTF Document 44 Filed 06/28/18 Page 1 of 12
Case 4:17-cr-01620-RCC-DTF Document 44 Filed 06/28/18 Page 2 of 12
Case 4:17-cr-01620-RCC-DTF Document 44 Filed 06/28/18 Page 3 of 12
Case 4:17-cr-01620-RCC-DTF Document 44 Filed 06/28/18 Page 4 of 12
Case 4:17-cr-01620-RCC-DTF Document 44 Filed 06/28/18 Page 5 of 12
Case 4:17-cr-01620-RCC-DTF Document 44 Filed 06/28/18 Page 6 of 12
Case 4:17-cr-01620-RCC-DTF Document 44 Filed 06/28/18 Page 7 of 12
Case 4:17-cr-01620-RCC-DTF Document 44 Filed 06/28/18 Page 8 of 12
Case 4:17-cr-01620-RCC-DTF Document 44 Filed 06/28/18 Page 9 of 12
Case 4:17-cr-01620-RCC-DTF Document 44 Filed 06/28/18 Page 10 of 12
Case 4:17-cr-01620-RCC-DTF Document 44 Filed 06/28/18 Page 11 of 12
Case 4:17-cr-01620-RCC-DTF Document 44 Filed 06/28/18 Page 12 of 12
**Exhibit 10.17**

 

**Amendment to Employment Agreement of A. Leigh Powell.**

 

On December 31, 2002, the Executive Compensation Committee of the Board ofDirectors, acting by unanimous written consent, passed the following resolutions: 

 

***RESOLVED***, to amend the October 2000 Employment Agreement of A. Leigh Powell, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation (the “Employment Agreement”), effectiveJanuary 1, 2002, as follows: 

 

**Current:Section 2.2d**—Furthermore, if Executive is employed in good standing by the Company on January 1, 2003, or in the event he is terminated (other than for Cause) at any time prior to January 1, 2003, Executive shall receive a direct stockgrant of 100,000 shares of Company common stock. 

 

**Revised: Section 2.2d**—Furthermore, if Executive is employed in good standing by the Company on January 1, 2003, or in the event he is terminated (other than for Cause) at any time prior to January 1, 2003, Executive shallreceive a direct stock grant of 100,000 shares of Company common stock to be issued on the first business day after the lifting of the fourth quarter 2002 employee trading blackout pursuant to the Company’s insider trading policy.

 

1
#### Michael A. CAMPBELL, Appellant, v. Margaret Lynn CAMPBELL, n/k/a Margaret Lynn Austin, Respondent.

No. 65268.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 11, 1994.

Richard P. Dorsey, St. Charles, for appellant.

John C. Maxwell, Charles, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRANDALL, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Michael A Campbell, appeals from the St. Charles County Circuit Court’s decision denying appellant’s motion to modify the parties’ decree of dissolution as to custody. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the findings of the Commission are supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the Commission’s finding pursuant to Rule 84.-*43616(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties here involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for the decision.
#### Linda Sue WILMESHER, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Robert JETT, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 62026.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 9, 1993.

David L. Baylard, Briegel, Baylard, Pa-tane and Arand, P.C., Union, for petitioner/ appellant.

Steven P. Kuenzel, James W. McGetti-gan, Jr., Eckelkamp, Eckelkamp, Wood and Kuenzel, Washington, for respondent/respondent.

Before AHRENS, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Mother appeals following the trial court’s increase of father’s child support obligation from $50 per week to $350 per month. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the trial court are supported by substantial evidence and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the *631reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 32.1

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

with Respect to the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

for the Quarter Ended March 31, 2006

of WorldSpace, Inc.

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18,
United States Code), the undersigned officer of WorldSpace, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), does hereby certify, to the best of such officers knowledge, that:

1. The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2006 (the Form 10-Q) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. Information
contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                   |  |                                                                |  | 
|------------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Date: May 12, 2006 |  | /s/    NOAH A.
SAMARA                                         
|                   |  | Noah A. Samara Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President

The certification set forth above is being furnished as an Exhibit solely pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or the certifying officers.
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302  OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Deerfield Capital Corp.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the
period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included
in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)
and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     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):
   Date: March 12, 2008
    /s/ JONATHAN W. TRUTTERJonathan W. TrutterChief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
**Schedule
      10.18**


Payees








1.  Senior
      Secured Convertible Promissory Note, dated February 21, 2006 by the Company
      in
      favor of PFK Acquisition Group, LLC in the amount of $100,000





2.  Senior
      Secured Convertible Promissory Note, dated February 14, 2006, by the Company
      in
      favor of Alfred F. Bracher, III in the amount of $100,000.





3.  Senior
      Secured Convertible Promissory Note, dated March 13, 2006, by the Company in
      favor of Howard Goldberg in the amount of $100,000.





4.  Senior
      Secured Convertible Promissory Note, dated February 14, 2006, by the Company
      in
      favor of Real Path, Inc. in the amount of $25,000.





5.  Senior
      Secured Convertible Promissory Note, dated February 7, 2006, by the Company
      in
      favor of Schachter Trust, Diane Schachter, Trustee in the amount of $25,000.





6.  Senior
      Secured Convertible Promissory Note, dated March 24, 2006, by the Company in
      favor of Harvey Goldberg in the amount of $20,000.





7.  Senior
      Secured Convertible Promissory Note, dated March 21, 2006, by the Company in
      favor of Larry Chimerine in the amount of $10,000.





8.  Senior
      Secured Convertible Promissory Note, dated February 13, 2006, by the Company
      in
      favor of Nob Hill Capital Partners, LP in the amount of $100,000.





9.  Senior
      Secured Convertible Promissory Note, dated June 28, 2006, by the Company in
      favor of PFK Acquisition Group II, LLC in the amount of $100,000.





10.  Senior
      Secured Convertible Promissory Note, dated July 30, 2006, by the Company in
      favor of Nob Hill Capital Associates, LP in the amount of $20,000.





11.  Senior
      Secured Convertible Promissory Note, dated July 30, 2006, by the Company in
      favor of Nob Hill Capital Partners, LP in the amount of $100,000.





12.  Senior
      Secured Convertible Promissory Note, dated August 10, 2006, by the Company
      in
      favor of Nicolette Consulting Group Limited in the amount of $100,000.
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Lenard HOUSTON, Defendant/Appellant. Lenard HOUSTON, Movant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 61500, 64619.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Oct. 4, 1994.

Robert E. Steele, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals from the conviction on three counts of first degree burglary, § 569.-160 RSMo 1986, four counts of first degree robbery, § 569.020 RSMo 1986, one count of second degree robbery, § 569.030 RSMo 1986 and one count of armed criminal action, § 571.015.1 RSMo 1986. He was sentenced to a total of fifty years of imprisonment. This appeal is consolidated with an appeal from the denial of his rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b). The motion court did not clearly err in denying defendant’s motion for post conviction relief pursuant to Rule 29.15. The denial of post conviction relief is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
#### Colonel Theodis BROWN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS, et al., Defendants/Respondents, and Treasurer of the State of Missouri as Custodian of the Second Injury Fund.

No. 65020.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

May 17, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied Aug. 15, 1994.

Theodis Brown, pro se.

Ronnie L. White, City Counselor, James F. Matchefts, Asst. City Counselor, St. Louis, for City of St. Louis, defendant-respondent.

Robert T. Hart, Susan M. Kelly, Kortenhof & Ely, St. Louis, for Bi-State Development Agency and City of Kinloch, defendants-respondents.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Cynthia A. Quetsch, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Second Injury Fund.

Before GRIMM, P.J., and CARL R. GAERTNER and AHRENS, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Claimant appeals *pro se*from the denial of his workers’ compensation claim. We affirm.

Claimant’s brief does not comply with Rule 84.04. As stated in a previous workers’ compensation case appealed by this claimant, claimant filed “an incomprehensible brief.” *Brown v. City of St. Louis,*842 S.W.2d 163, 165 (Mo.App.E.D.1992). We would be justified in dismissing his appeal for this failure. Nevertheless, we elected to review his claims and find that none have merit.

The decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the whole record. No error of law appears. An opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b).
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.
  /s/ James G. AzleinJames G. Azlein,President and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Randy L. ElkinsRandy L. Elkins,Controller and Acting Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit  32.1




                       CERTIFICATION  PURSUANT  TO  SECTION  906
                       OF  THE  SARBANES-OXLEY  ACT  OF  2002


In  connection  with  the amended annual  report  of  InterCare DX,  Inc.
(the "Company")  on  Form  10-KSB  for  the  period  ending  December  31, 2004
as Filed  with   the   Securities   and   Exchange  Commission  on   the   date
Hereof  (the  "Report"), I,  Anthony  C.  Dike, the  Chief  Executive  Officer,
 certify, pursuant to 18  U.S.C.  1350,  as  adopted pursuant   to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act  of  2002,  that:

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

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

     A signed  original  of  this  written  statement  required  by Section 906,
or  other  document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or  otherwise adopting the
signature  that  appears  in  typed  form  within the electronic version of this
written statement required  by Section 906,  has been  provided to InterCare DX,
Inc.,  and  will  be  retained   by   InterCare  DX, Inc.., and furnished to the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon request.


DATE:  May 13,   2005         By:  /s/  Anthony  C.  Dike
                                        -------------------
                                         Anthony  C.  Dike
                                         Chairman  and  CEO
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5832 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 5832

 To authorize Inspectors General to continue operations during a lapse 
               in appropriations, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 29, 2023

 Mr. Connolly introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
               Committee on Oversight and Accountability

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To authorize Inspectors General to continue operations during a lapse 
               in appropriations, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Keep the Watchdogs Running Act''.

SEC. 2. INSPECTOR GENERAL OVERSIGHT DURING LAPSE IN APPROPRIATIONS.

    Subsection (g) of section 6 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 
U.S.C. App.) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
    ``(4) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and in addition to 
any other authority, during a lapse in appropriations, an Inspector 
General may incur obligations in advance of appropriations--
            ``(A) for such amounts as may be necessary and at a rate 
        for operations and under the authority and conditions as 
        provided in the most recently enacted appropriations Acts; and
            ``(B) to perform the duties of the Office with respect to 
        any program and operation of the establishment that continues 
        during the lapse in appropriations.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.5

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UNIVERSAL CITY FLORIDA HOLDING CO. II

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the quarterly report of Universal City Florida Holding Co. II (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending October 1, 2006 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, John R. Sprouls certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:



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



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

Dated: November 14, 2006



By:

/s/ JOHN R. SPROULSJohn R. SproulsPrincipal Executive Officer
NO. 07-03-0127-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

MAY 20, 2003

______________________________

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLANT

V.

KRISTOPHER COX, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 31ST DISTRICT COURT OF GRAY COUNTY;

NO. 6053; HONORABLE STEVEN R. EMMERT, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, The State of Texas, by and through its District Attorney, Richard J.

Roach, filed a Motion to Dismiss Appeal on May 16, 2003, stating that it desires to

withdraw its appeal.
2

Without passing on the merits of the case, we grant appellant’s motion for voluntary

dismissal and hereby dismiss the appeal. Tex. R. App. P. 42.2. Having dismissed the

appeal at appellant’s request, we will not entertain a motion for rehearing, and our

mandate will issue forthwith. 

James T. Campbell

 Justice

Do not publish.
1

John T. Boyd, Chief Justice (Ret.), Seventh Court of Appeals, sitting by assignm ent. TEX. GOV’T

CODE ANN. §75.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 2004). 

NO. 07-03-0436-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL E

MARCH 19, 2004

______________________________

RICARDO DWAYNE GOMEZ, 

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF RANDALL COUNTY;

NO. 8,543-B; HON. JOHN B. BOARD, PRESIDING

_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS, JJ., and BOYD, S.J.1

Appellant Ricardo Dwayne Gomez appeals his conviction for driving while

intoxicated. Pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant entered a plea of guilty to the charge,

and the trial court assessed punishment at five years in prison. However, the sentence

was suspended and appellant was placed on three years community supervision. The trial

court eventually revoked appellant’s probation, upon motion by the State, and sentenced

him to five years imprisonment. Appellant timely noticed his appeal, and counsel was
2

appointed. The latter moved to withdraw after filing a brief pursuant to Anders v. California,

386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and representing that she had

searched the record and found no arguable grounds for reversal. The motion and brief

illustrated that appellant was informed of his rights to review the appellate record and file

his own brief. So too did we inform appellant that any brief he cared to file had to be filed

by March 11, 2004. To date, appellant has filed no pro se response or brief. Nor has he

moved for an extension of time to file same. 

After conducting an independent review of the record, we find no reversible error.

Appellant informed the court via the plea admonishment papers he signed that he was 1)

properly indicted, 2) represented by legal counsel, and 3) mentally competent when

entering his plea. Furthermore, the punishment levied was within the range provided by

statute. And, because no appeal was taken within 30 days from the date of appellant's

initial conviction, we have no jurisdiction over purported error arising at or before his

original plea hearing. Manuel v. State, 994 S.W.2d 658, 661 ( Tex. Crim. App. 1999). 

Accordingly, counsel's motion to withdraw is granted, and the judgment of the trial

court is affirmed. 

Brian Quinn 

 Justice 

Do not publish.