alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered December 2 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 13
- 00218
- CR DARREN DWYONE GREEN, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F11
- 62506
- K



### O RDER The reporter’s record was originally due in this appeal on April 7, 2013. After abating the appeal for findings, on September 18, 2013, we ordered court reporter Janice Garrett to file the reporter’s record by November 1, 2013. We warned Ms. Garrett that if she did not file the record by that date, we would order that she not sit as a court reporter until she files the record in this appeal. When the record was not filed by November 8, 2013, we ordered Janice Garrett t o file the reporter’s record by November 19, 2013. We further ordered that Janice Garrett not sit as a court reporter until she files the record in this appeal. The Court now has before it Ms. Garrett’s November 26, 2013 request for an extension
until Jan uary 17, 2013 to file the record in this appeal. She states that her workload and a medical condition require this extension.The Court DENIES the November 26, 2013 request for an extension until January 17,

2013 to file the record. We ORDER Janice Garre tt, official court reporter of the Criminal District Court No. 4, to file the reporter’s record in this appeal by DECEMBER 13 , 2013

. Ms. Garrett may make any necessary arrangements for assistance in transcribing the record. However, she remains responsib le for filing the complete record in this appeal. We further ORDER that Janice Garrett not sit as a court reporter until she has filed the record in this appeal.
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the Honorable Dominique Collins, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 4; Janice Garrett, official court reporter, Criminal District Court No. 4; to counsel for all parties; and to the Dallas County Auditor’s Office.

/s/ LANA MYERS JUSTICE
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Audwin L. DAVIS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-4400.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 30, 2002.

Decided Nov. 8, 2002.

Frank W. Dunham, Jr., Federal Public Defender, Paul G. Gill, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Paul J. McNulty, United States Attorney, S. David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

*127Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Audwin L. Davis appeals the district court’s revocation of supervised release imposed pursuant to a conviction for possession of a firearm by a controlled substance abuser. Davis’s attorney has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. On Davis’s behalf, counsel contends that the district court abused its discretion in sentencing Davis to twelve months of incarceration for his violations of the terms of supervised release. Davis was advised of his right to file a pro se supplemental brief but has not done so.

We have reviewed the claims and find no abuse of discretion in the sentence imposed. *See United States v. Davis,*53 F.3d 638, 642-43 (4th Cir.1995). In addition, we have examined the entire record in this case in accordance with the requirements of *Anders*and find no meritorious issues for appeal. We therefore affirm.

This court requires that counsel inform his client, in writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If the client requests that a petition be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a copy thereof was served on the client. Finally, we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
Exhibit 33.2
                                 ------------


          ASSERTION OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE SERVICING CRITERIA



The Bank of New York and The Bank of New York Trust Company, N. A.
(collectively, the "Company") provides this platform-level assessment of
compliance with the servicing criteria specified in Item 1122(d) of Regulation
AB promulgated by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Management has determined that the following servicing criteria are applicable
in regards to the following servicing platform for the following period:

Platform: Publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially
required under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended) residential
mortgage-backed securities and other mortgage-related asset-backed securities
issued on or after January 1, 2006 (and like-kind transactions issued prior to
January 1, 2006) for which the Company provides trustee, securities
administration, paying agent or custodial services. The platform includes like
kind transactions for which the Company provided trustee, securities
administrator, paying agent or custodial services as a result of the Company's
acquisition as of October 1, 2006 of portions of JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.'s
corporate trust business, including structured finance agency and trust
transactions.

Applicable Servicing Criteria: All servicing criteria set forth in Item
1122(d), to the extent required by the related transaction agreements as to
any transaction, except for the following criteria: 1122 (d) (1)(ii), (iii),
(iv), (4) (iv), (v), (vi), (vii), (viii), (ix), (x), (xi), (xii) and (xiii).

Period: Twelve months ended December 31, 2006.

With respect to the Platform and the Period, the Company provides the
following assessment of compliance in respect of the Applicable Servicing
Criteria:

o The Company is responsible for assessing its compliance with the Applicable
Servicing Criteria.

o The Company has assessed compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.

o As of December 31, 2006 and for the Period, the Company was in material
compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria.



                                       1
<PAGE>


Ernst & Young LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has
issued an attestation report with respect to the Company's foregoing
assessment of compliance.



      The Bank of New York                    The Bank of New York
      The Bank of New York Trust              The Bank of New York Trust
         Company, N.A.                           Company, N.A.


      /s/ Robert L. Griffin                   /s/ Patrick J. Tadie
      ---------------------------             ---------------------------
      Robert L. Griffin                       Patrick J. Tadie
      Authorized Signer                       Authorized Signer


March 1, 2007



                                       2
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-50927) of Chyron Corporation of our report dated June 11, 2004 relating to the financial statements of Chyron Corporation Employees' 401(k) Plan, which appears in this Form 11-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Melville, New York

June 28, 2004
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 160 (Monday, August 18, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 48246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19040]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review; Notice of Meetings

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its 
intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The 
purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The 
agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals 
as part of the selection process for awards. The review and evaluation 
may also include assessment of the progress of awarded proposals. The 
majority of these meetings will take place at NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, Virginia 22230.
    These meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals being 
reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential nature, 
including technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and (6) 
of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to review the 
agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act.
    These closed proposal review meetings will not be announced on an 
individual basis in the Federal Register. NSF intends to publish a 
notice similar to this on a quarterly basis. For an advance listing of 
the closed proposal review meetings that include the names of the 
proposal review panel and the time, date, place, and any information on 
changes, corrections, or cancellations, please visit the NSF Web site: 
http://www.nsf.gov/events/advisory.jsp. This information may also be 
requested by telephoning 703/292-8182.

    Dated: August 13, 2008.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-19040 Filed 8-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Exhibit 3.2
 SPARTECH CORPORATION
BYLAWS
 (Amended and Restated March 8, 2006;
Amended December 19, 2007 & March 12, 2008)




---



##### 



2    
    (i)
    
    All directors hereafter elected by the stockholders shall serve for one-year
terms; and(ii)
    
    The term of any director hereafter elected by the Board to fill a vacancy or
newly created position on the Board of Directors shall expire at the next annual
meeting of stockholders.




---



##### 



3              First
 Second




---



##### 



4 Third
 Fourth




---



##### 



5




---



##### 



6




---



##### 



7




---



##### 



8




---



##### 



9




---



##### 



10   
 1
 
 1
    
    Article THIRTEENTH was deleted from the Certificate
of Incorporation by shareholder vote on March 8, 2006. Prior to its deletion
Article THIRTEENTH provided as follows: THIRTEENTH




---



##### 



11
EX-34 (a)

[LOGO] Deloitte

Deloitte & Touche LLP
Two World Financial Center
New York, NY 10281-1414
USA

Tel: +1 212 436 2000
Fax: +1 212 436 5000
www.deloitte.com

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Board of Directors of
ARCap Servicing, Inc.

We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying
Management's Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria, that
ARCap Servicing, Inc. (the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set
forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (the "SEC")
Regulation AB for the SEC Regulation AB Regulated Transactions Servicing
Platform (the "Platform") as of and for the year ended December 31, 2006,
excluding the following criteria 1122(d)(1)(iii), (d)(2)(ii), (d)(3)(i) -
(d)(3)(iv), (d)(4)(ii), and (d)(4)(xv), which management has determined are not
applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the
Platform. Appendix A to management's assertion identifies the individual
asset-backed transactions defined by management as constituting the Platform.
Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing
criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion
about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our
examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards
established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, as
adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and,
accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's
compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample
basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether
the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing
criteria during the specified period and performing such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to
selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered
by this report and, accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing
activities related to each specific asset-backed transaction included in the
Platform. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance
arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above
that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the
Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our
examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does
not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing
criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2006 for the SEC Regulation AB Regulated Transactions Servicing
Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

March 14, 2007


Member of
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
GMAC Mortgage
                    SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT (Item 1123)

                            GMAC Mortgage, LLC

                                  2006-3H


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
6th day of March 2007.

By:  /s/Anthony N. Renzi
   ---------------------
Name:  Anthony N. Renzi
Title: Executive Vice President








GMAC Mortgage, LLC       www.gmacmortgage.com
500 Enterprise Road
Horsham, PA 19044
EX-10.2



 Exhibit 10.2 

Novatel Wireless, Inc. 
 9645
Scranton Road 
 Suite 205 
 San
Diego, CA 92121 
 April 29, 2014 
 Peter V. Leparulo

 Chief Executive Officer 
 Novatel Wireless, Inc. 

9645 Scranton Road 
 Suite 205 

San Diego, CA 92121 
 Dear Peter: 

The Company, with your consent, is separating the positions of Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and appointing an independent director as non-executive
Chairman, pursuant to the Settlement Agreement to be entered into as of the date of this letter. 
 This letter updates your November 2, 2007
Employment Agreement with the Company to reflect those changes. 
 In April 2008, the Board of Directors of the Company appointed you as the Company’s
Chief Executive Officer, and since April 2008 you have been serving as both the Company’s Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. Section 1 of the Employment Agreement only refers to your service as Executive Chairman. Retroactive
to the commencement of your service as Chief Executive Officer, Section 1 shall be construed as also referring to your service as Chief Executive Officer. In that capacity, you shall have the rights and duties chief executive officers typically
have, and report directly to the Board. Unless clearly inappropriate in the context, every reference in your Employment Agreement to your position, authority, rights, or duties shall be construed as referring to both your Executive Chairman and
Chief Executive Officer position, authority, rights, or duties while you hold both positions and, when you only hold one of those positions, to that position and its authority, rights, or duties. 

Section 2.6(viii) of your Employment Agreement provides that “[f]ailure by the Company to elect you to the position of sole Chairman of the Board of
Directors” would give you “Good Reason” to resign. Your failure to be re-elected to the Board would be one way this Good Reason event could occur. While you are willing to give up your Executive Chairman position, you are not willing
to give up the protection that Section 2.6(viii) affords you in the event of non-re-election to the Board. If the Company implements the Settlement Agreement being signed concurrently with this letter, you agree that cessation of your Executive
Chairman position and the appointment of a new chairman with the duties specified in the Position Description, the form of which has previously been furnished to you, shall not constitute “Good Reason” under Section 2.6 of your
Employment Agreement, and the Company agrees that your failure to be re-elected to the Company’s Board while you remain willing to serve would remain a “Good Reason” event under that section. 







 Except as provided in the two preceding paragraphs, nothing in this letter amends or waives any provision of your
Employment Agreement. 
 Please confirm you agreement with the foregoing by countersigning this letter in the space indicated below. 

Sincerely, 
  

			
	NOVATEL WIRELESS, INC.
		
	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	
	Title:	 	

 Accepted and agreed to as of the date first written above: 

 

	
	  
 Peter V. Leparulo
#### C. O. WEBB, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John William COATS et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No. 8199.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Oct. 29, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 10, 1954.

Russell E. Gahagan, Natchitoches, for appellants.

Bethard & Bethard, Coushatta, for appel-lee.

HARDY, Judge.

This is a companion suit to that of Jowers against the same defendants, 76 So.2d *99,*and was consolidated with said case for purposes of trial. The facts and the law involved are identical with the Jowers case and for the reasons therein assigned;

It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the judgment appealed from in the instant case be and it is hereby affirmed at appellant's cost.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND THE RELATED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1999 OF PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         165,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  407,900
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    269,500
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,013,000
<PP&E>                                       6,141,900
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,686,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,889,300
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          754,700
<BONDS>                                        806,500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       362,500
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,014,300
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,889,300
<SALES>                                      2,096,900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,096,900
<CGS>                                        1,652,800
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,652,800
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               330,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              68,300
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (47,500)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,300
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (41,600)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (3,500)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (45,100)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.78)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 35.5

                        Servicer Compliance Statement for
                 GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc., as Servicer




                        GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC.
                          SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

                                   GSR 2006-4F

     I, Michael De  Francesco,  an  authorized  officer of  GreenPoint  Mortgage
Funding, Inc. (the "Servicer"), certify that:

     1.   A review  of the Servicer's  activities  during  the  period  from and
including January 1, 2006 through and including December 31, 2006 (or applicable
portion  thereof)  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.

     Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to
them in the Agreement.

Date:   February 28, 2007

        /s/ Michael De Francesco
        ------------------------------------------
        Michael De Francesco
        Senior Vice President, Loan Administration
Exhibit 32.4



Statement of Chief Financial Officer



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Southern California Gas Company (the "Company") certifies that:



(i)

the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the "Quarterly Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(ii)

the information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







November 10, 2008



/S/  Robert SchlaxRobert SchlaxChief Financial Officer