alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-06-0253-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL B

JULY 27, 2006

______________________________

RICARTE G. GONZALEZ, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 364TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 2001-436822; HONORABLE BRADLEY S. UNDERWOOD, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Ricarte G. Gonzalez, appeals his conviction for indecency with a child

and sentence of incarceration in the Institutional Division of the Texas Department of

Criminal Justice for a period of 15 years, and fine of $3,000. We dismiss for lack of

jurisdiction.

Following jury trial, appellant was convicted of indecency with a child and sentence

was imposed on March 22, 2006. Appellant timely filed a Motion for New Trial on April 21,

2006. As such, appellant’s notice of appeal was due by June 20, 2006. See TEX. R. APP.
2

P. 26.2. Appellant filed his notice of appeal on June 23, 2006. Appellant has not filed a

motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal in this cause.

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2 requires a notice of appeal to be filed within

30 days after sentence is imposed unless the defendant timely files a motion for new trial.

TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a). If the defendant timely files a motion for new trial, the notice of

appeal is due within 90 days of the imposition of sentence. Id. While the Rules of

Appellate Procedure do not establish the jurisdiction of courts of appeals, the Rules do

provide procedures which must be followed to invoke a court’s jurisdiction over a particular

appeal. Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 523 (Tex.Crim.App. 1996). If the jurisdiction of

a court of appeals is not properly invoked, the power of the appellate court to act is as

absent as if it did not exist and the appeal will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See

State v. Riewe, 13 S.W.3d 408, 413-14 (Tex.Crim.App. 2000); Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 523.

An untimely notice of appeal is insufficient to invoke an appellate court’s jurisdiction to

address the merits of the appeal and the court can take no action other than to dismiss the

appeal. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998).

As appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely, this court’s jurisdiction has not been

invoked. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

Mackey K. Hancock

 Justice

 Do not publish.
#### AT & T CORPORATION, Appellant, v. FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION, Appellee.

No. 01-1511.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Nov. 18, 2002.

Before GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and HARRY T. EDWARDS and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record compiled before the Federal Communications Commission and on the briefs filed by the parties. It is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Commission’s Order be affirmed. The decision in this case is controlled by our opinion in *WorldCom, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission,*308 F.3d 1 (2002), in which the appellant made the same basic arguments as does AT & T here. In that case, we rejected a challenge to the Commission’s use of New York UNE rates as a benchmark in a § 271 proceeding for Massachusetts. We *454found that the Commission’s reliance upon the states’ processes of rate revision and correction provided “reasonable grounds to be satisfied that the disputed rates were unlikely to exceed the range of TELRIC compliance.” *Id.*at *12, slip op. at 8. The same is true in this case.

In the prior case we also acknowledged that “[a]t some point, WorldCom’s argument plainly must become a winner. In a market with falling costs, ancient UNE rates cannot serve as a valid benchmark.” *Id.*at *11, slip op. at 7. In this case, however, AT & T has not made a showing that the Texas UNE rates were so antiquated that the Commission’s reliance upon the rate revision processes in Texas and Missouri was arbitrary and capricious.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. RApp. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001029387
<NAME> JENNIFER LOOMIS & ASSOCIATES INC
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          30,168
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   24,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                       996
<INVENTORY>                                     48,690
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               111,168
<PP&E>                                          89,528
<DEPRECIATION>                                  54,820
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 348,816
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           60,089
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,249
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   348,816
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               130,126
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  137,437
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,797
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (21,108)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (6,829)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (14,279)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14,279)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0)
        
<PAGE>

</TABLE>
EX-35 (b)
(logo) WELLS FARGO

Corporate Trust Services
MAC N2702-011
9062 Old Annapolis Road
Columbia, MD 21045
410 884-2000
410 715-2380 Fax

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.


March 12, 2007

Ace Securities Corporation
AMACAR GROUP
6525 Morrison Boulevard, Suite 318
Charlotte, NC 28211

RE: Annual Statement As To Compliance for ACE Securities Corp. Home Equity Loan
    Trust, Series 2006-HE2

Per Section 4.15 of the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of 4/1/2006,
the undersigned Officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (Master Servicer), hereby
certifies the following for the 2006 calendar year or portion thereof:


(A)     a review of such party's activities during the preceding calendar year
        or portion thereof and of such party's performance under this Agreement,
        or such other applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer
        or Servicing Function Participant, has been made under such officer's
        supervision and

(B)     to the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review, such
        party has fulfilled all its obligations under this Agreement, or such
        other applicable agreement in the case of an Additional Servicer or
        Servicing Function Participant, in all material respects throughout such
        year or portion thereof, or, if there has been a failure to fulfill any
        such obligation in any material respect, specifying each such failure
        known to such officer and the nature and status thereof.


Certified By:
/s/ Kristen Ann Cronin
Kristen Ann Cronin, Vice President

Certified By:
/s/ Gordon Johnson
Gordon Johnson, Assistant Secretary
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
        THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
        STATEMENTS OF INCOME, CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, AND CONSOLIDATED
        STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS, AND QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
        SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                      OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1998
<BOOK-VALUE>                        PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>            1,207,403
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>              5,290
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                 373,579
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                17,412
<OTHER-ASSETS>                          30,366
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       1,634,050
<COMMON>                               165,307
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                    0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                    448,223
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>         613,530
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0
<PREFERRED>                                  0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                   462,400
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                         700
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                    0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>               0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                    0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                  0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                             0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>         557,420
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>        1,634,050
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>              655,368
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                    44,642
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>             523,228
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>             567,870
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                 87,498
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                         648
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>          88,146
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                17,322
<NET-INCOME>                            70,824
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                  0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>           70,824
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                48,394
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>               15,562
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                  84,901
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                0
        



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    This schedule contains summary financial information
                    extracted from the Liquidating Trust's statement of net
                    assets in liquidation at September 30, 1998 and the
                    Liquidating Trust's statement of changes in net assets
                    in liquidation for the nine months ended September 30,
                    1998, and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
                    such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>         1,000
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                            128,648
<SECURITIES>                                       94,727
<RECEIVABLES>                                           0
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                             0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                        0
<PP&E>                                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    223,375
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              41,644
<BONDS>                                                 0
<COMMON>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                        181,731
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      223,375
<SALES>                                                 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    5,481
<CGS>                                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       3,466
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (30,894)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (30,894)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (30,894)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                       (.59)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                       (.59)
        

</TABLE>
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

In Re: Appeal of Springfield : Hospital :

Folio No. 42

- 00

- 06625

- 01 :

: Appeal of: Prospect Crozer, LLC : No. 191 C.D. 2017

AMENDING ORDER

AND NOW, this 2 nd day of March , 2018, on page 10, the first full

paragraph, first sentence, of the majority opinion filed on February 13, 2018, is

hereby amended to read as follows:

Unlike Lawrence County, Delaware County is a Second Class A

county and, therefore, is subject to the Second Class County Asse ssment Law rather

than the Fourth to Eighth Class County Assessment Law.

DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge
##### 



PHELPS DODGE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES Exhibit 11 COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
(Unaudited; $ in millions except per share data) Six Months EndedSecond Quarter
    
    June 30,2004
    
    2003
    
    2004
    
    2003Income (loss) before cumulative effect of accounting change
    
    $
    226.6
    
    
    
    (15.2
    )
    
    
    412.3
    
    
    
    (38.6
    )Cumulative effect of accounting change (1)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    8.4Net income (loss)
    
    $
    226.6
    
    
    
    (15.2
    )
    
    
    412.3
    
    
    
    (30.2
    )Preferred stock dividends
    
    
    (3.4
    )
    
    
    (3.4
    )
    
    
    (6.8
    )
    
    
    (6.8
    )Net income (loss) applicable to common shares
    
    $
    223.2
    
    
    
    (18.6

    )
    
    
    405.5
    
    
    
    (37.0
    )Basic:Average number of common shares outstanding
    
    
    92.9
    
    
    
    88.6
    
    
    
    92.3
    
    
    
    88.6Diluted:Average number of common shares outstanding
    
    
    92.9
    
    
    
    88.6
    
    
    
    92.3
    
    
    
    88.6Common stock equivalents - stock options
    
    
    1.0
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    1.4
    
    
    
    Common stock equivalents - restricted stock
    
    
    0.3
    
    
    
    0.5
    
    
    
    0.3
    
    
    
    0.5Conversion of mandatory convertible preferred stock
    
    
    4.2
    
    
    
    5.0
    
    
    
    4.2
    
    
    
    5.0Diluted average number of common shares outstanding (2)
    
    
    98.4
    
    
    
    94.1
    
    
    
    98.2
    
    
    
    94.1Basic earnings (loss) per share:Income (loss) before cumulative effect of accounting change
    
    $
    2.40
    
    
    
    (0.21
    )
    
    
    4.39
    
    
    
    (0.51
    )Cumulative effect of accounting change (1)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    0.09Basic earnings (loss) per share
    
    $
    2.40
    
    
    
    (0.21
    )
    
    
    4.39
    
    
    
    (0.42
    )Diluted earnings (loss) per share:Income (loss) before cumulative effect of accounting change
    
    $
    2.30
    
    
    
    (0.21
    )
    
    
    4.20
    
    
    
    (0.51
    )Cumulative effect of accounting change (1)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    0.09Diluted earnings (loss) per share (2)
    
    $
    2.30
    
    
    
    (0.21
    )
    
    
    4.20
    
    
    
    (0.42
    )
  (1)
    
    The six months ended June 30, 2003, included adoption of SFAS No. 143, Accounting for Asset Retirement Obligations.  (2)
    
    The incremental shares associated with restricted stock and the assumed conversion of the mandatory convertible preferred shares to common shares were
excluded from the diluted loss per share calculation for the quarter and six months ended June 30, 2003, as their impact would have been anti-dilutive.
#### John Pirkl Iron Works, Respondent, v. Peter J. Ryan, Appellant.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, upon the authority of *Knowles*v. *Lichtenstein*(33 App. Div. 605). Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ., concurred.
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549



________________





FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT,

PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





DATE OF REPORT:  August 12, 2004





CHYRON CORPORATION

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

|New York                                       | 1-9014                   | 11-2117385                          
|---------------------------------------------- | ------------------------ | ------------------------------------
|(State or Other Jurisdiction
of Incorporation) | (Commission File Number) | (I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)

|5 Hub Drive                              |           
|---------------------------------------- | ----------
|Melville, New York                       | 11747     
|(Address of Principal Executive Offices) | (Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (631) 845-2000

________________







Item 7.  Financial Statements and Exhibits

(c) Exhibits.

99.1 Press Release of Chyron Corporation dated August 11, 2004.

Item 12. Results of Operations and Financial Condition

On August 11, 2004, Chyron Corporation issued a press release announcing its results of operations for the second quarter and six months ended June 30, 2004. A copy of the press release, including its Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited) for the three months and six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, and Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets (Unaudited) at June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1



SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report on Form 8-K to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

CHYRON CORPORATION

| | By:    | /s/ Jerry Kieliszak      
| | ------ | -------------------------
| | Name:  | Jerry Kieliszak          
| | Title: | Senior Vice President and
| |        | Chief Financial Officer  



|Exhibit No. | Description                          
|----------- | -------------------------------------
|            |                                      
|99.1        | Press Release, dated August 11, 2004.

Date:  August 12, 2004
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

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

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 28, 2010 

p0621 

Order 

 

June 28, 2010 

140626 

BEVELYN FISHER, Personal Representative of the 

Estate of TIARA FISHER, deceased, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 140626 

 COA: 288106 

Oakland CC: 07-087761-NI 

SOUTHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS, 

SOUTHFIELD BOARD OF EDUCATION, and 

YOLETTA PATRICE HALL, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

and 

RICHARD JAMES FARRELL, 

Defendant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 12, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Golden State WARRIORS, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

No. 01-1394.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Nov. 15, 2002.

Before RANDOLPH and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, and WILLIAMS, Senior Circuit Judge.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This cause was considered on the record compiled before the National Labor Relations Board and was argued by counsel. It is

*4ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition for review is denied, and the order of the National Labor Relations Board is enforced. The Board’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence; its conclusions of law are not in error, and its distinction of *Sterling Processing Corp.,*291 NLRB 208 (1988), is reasonable.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.
The Honorable Elsijane T. Roy, United States District Judge for the Eastern

1

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2240

___________

LaVerne G. Rens, parent and next *

friend of L.R., a minor, *

 *

Appellant, *

 *

v. * Appeal from the United States

 * District Court for the

Arkansas Department of Education; * Eastern District of Arkansas

Little Rock School District, *

 * [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: November 17, 1998

 Filed: January 7, 1999 

___________

Before McMILLIAN, RICHARD S. ARNOLD, and MORRIS SHEPPARD

ARNOLD, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

LaVerne G. Rens appeals from the final judgment entered in the District Court1

for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissing his claims against the Arkansas

Department of Education and the Little Rock School District in this action brought

under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400-1491
-2-

(1990 & Supp. 1997). Upon a thorough review of the record and the parties’ briefs,

we conclude that dismissal was warranted, because Rens’s complaint alleges no more

than a harmless procedural violation of the IDEA. Because we believe that an opinion

would lack precedential value, we summarily affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.