alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Andres Gilberto Flores v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 09

- 01125

- CR

Trial court case number: 09

- DCR

- 0 51481

Trial court: 268th District Court of Fort Bend County

This case was abated and remanded to the trial court on July 5, 2012. In the order of

abatement, we ordered the trial court to appoint counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. On

October 4, 2012, the district clerk filed a supplem ental clerk’s record, containing an order of the

trial court appointing Stephen Doggett to represent appellant.

Accordingly, we REINSTATE this case on the Court’s active docket.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Jennings

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: November 14, 2012
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

ARMANDO LUNA, JR.,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-14-00035-CR

Appeal from

Criminal District Court No. 5

of Dallas County, Texas

(TC # F-1162420-L)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Armando Luna, Jr. appeals his conviction of kidnapping, enhanced with a prior felony 

conviction. Following a contested hearing on the State’s motion to proceed with adjudication of 

guilt, the trial court found that Appellant had violated the terms and conditions of deferred 

adjudication community supervision and granted the State’s motion. The trial court adjudicated 

Appellant guilty and assessed his punishment at imprisonment for twenty years. We affirm.

FRIVOLOUS APPEAL

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the 

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 

2094, 18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by advancing contentions which counsel says might arguably 

support the appeal. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807 (Tex.Crim.App. 1978); Currie v. State, 
- 2 -

516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974); Pena v. State, 932 S.W.2d 31 (Tex.App.--El Paso 1995, 

no pet.). A copy of counsel’s brief has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been 

advised of his right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. Appellant has not 

filed a pro se brief.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and agree that the appeal is 

wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably 

support the appeal. The judgment is affirmed. 

February 13, 2015

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, J., and Barajas, C.J., (Senior Judge)

(Barajas, C.J., Senior Judge, sitting by assignment, not participating)

(Do Not Publish)
EXHIBIT 34.1



LOGO

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM Board of Directors and Shareholders First National Bank of Omaha Omaha, Nebraska
We have examined managements assertion, included in the accompanying Managements Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria Pursuant to Item 1122 of Regulation AB, that First National Bank of Omaha (FNBO)
complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commissions Regulation AB for the First National Master Note Trust (the Platform) as of and for the year ended December 31f 2016,
excluding criteria 1122(d)(l)(iii), 1122(d)(l)(v), 1122(d)(2)(iii), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(3)(iii), 1122(d)(3)(iv), 1122(d)(4)(x), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii) which management has determined are not applicable to the
activities performed by FNBO with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for FNBOs compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on managements assertion about FNBOs compliance with
the servicing criteria based on our examination. Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about
FNBOs compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Platform, determining whether FNBO 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 FNBO during the period covered by this report and,
accordingly, such samples may not have included servicing activities related to each 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 FNBO 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 FNBOs compliance with the servicing criteria. In our opinion, managements assertion that FNBO complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December
31, 2016 for the Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. Omaha, Nebraska March 30, 2017
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the references to our firm under the caption "Experts" and
"Selected Financial Data", and to the use of our report dated March 24, 2000,
with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Microtune, Inc. and to
the use of our report dated March 24, 2000, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements of HMTF Acquisition (Bermuda) Ltd. and the consolidated
financial statements of Temic Telefunken Hochfrequentztechnik GmbH in Amendment
No. 3 to the Registration Statement (Form S-1 No. 333-36340) and related
Prospectus of Microtune, Inc. for the registration of 4,600,000 shares of its
common stock.

                                          /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Dallas, Texas

July 13, 2000
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-1603

LISA ANN LEE, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Division Four-Resident Engineer's Office; DONDUPREE, in his individual and official capacity; THOMAS M. MCKEEL, a/k/a Mike McKeel, in his official and individual capacity; KATHYUNDERWOOD HAYES, in her official and individual capacity; JOHNNY B. VICK, in his official and individual capacity; CLAUDIA R. SPEED, in her official and individual capacity, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (CA-98-967-5-BR(2)) Submitted: September 21, 2000 Decided: September 27, 2000 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Lisa Ann Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Tina Ann Krasner, Assistant Attorney General, Sarah Ann Lannom, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.2 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Lisa Ann Lee appeals the district court’s order granting theDefendants’ motion for summary judgment on her employment discrimination complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Lee v. North Carolina Dep’t of Transportation , No. CA-98-967-5-BR(2) (E.D.N.C. Apr. 4, 2000). 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
Order entered November 20, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00856-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF C.S.B AND R.D.B, CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 255th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-11-15158

ORDER

In an order dated October 8, 2014, we ordered Shantel Beheler, Official Court Reporter 

for the 255th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, to file by October 24, 2014, either 

the reporter’s record or written verification that appellant has not paid for the record. As of 

today’s date, Shantel Beheler has not responded. 

Accordingly, we again ORDER Shantel Beheler to file, by DECEMBER 5, 2014, either 

the reporter’s record or written verification that appellant has not paid for the record. 

If the Court does not receive either the reporter’s record or the required written 

verification of no payment, we will utilize the remedies available to obtain the reporter’s record, 

which may include ordering Shantel Beheler not sit as a court reporter until she complies with 

this order.

We caution appellant that if the Court receives written verification of no payment, we 

will order the appeal submitted without the reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c).
We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order by electronic 

transmission to The Honorable Lori Hockett, Presiding Judge of the 255th Judicial District 

Court, Shantel Beheler, and counsel for all parties.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
No. 87-6347.

#### Ayers *v.*United States.

C. A. 3d Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 169 (Wednesday, September 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 53701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21795]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0394]


Clinical Studies of Safety and Effectiveness of Orphan Products 
Research Project Grant (R01); Correction

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice 
that appeared in the Federal Register of August 6, 2010 (75 FR 47602). 
The document announced the availability of grant funds for the support 
of FDA's Office of Orphan Products Development (OPD) grant program. The 
document was published with an error. This document corrects that 
error.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vieda Hubbard, Acquisition Support and 
Grants, Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 
20857, 301-827-7177, email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#afd9c6cacbce81c7dacdcdceddcbefc9cbce81c7c7dc81c8c0d9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d6a0bfb3b2b7f8bea3b4b4b7a4b296b0b2b7f8bebea5f8b1b9a0">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR Doc. 2010-19354, appearing on page 
47602 in the Federal Register of Friday, August 6, 2010, the following 
correction is made:
    1. On page 47602, in the second column, in the ``DATES'' section, 
beginning in the sixth line, the sentence ``2. The anticipated start 
dates are November 2010; November 2012.'' is corrected to read ``2. The 
anticipated start dates are November 2011 and November 2012.''

    Dated: August 26, 2010.
David Dorsey,
Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Budget.
[FR Doc. 2010-21795 Filed 8-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>      5
       
<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                    9,591
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          9,591
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            9,591
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     5,296
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                  4,560
<OTHER-SE>                                 (265)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              9,591
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              0
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             9,024
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (9,024)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (9,024)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                             (9,024)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - [Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0427]

# AGENCY:

 Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

 Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                         The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a notice that appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         of August 23, 2010 (75 FR 51829). The notice announced the public workshop entitled “Medical Devices & Nanotechnology: Manufacturing, Characterization, and Biocompatibility Considerations.” The notice was published with an incorrect registration Web site. This document corrects that Web site.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Paul Gadiock, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, rm. 4432, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-5736.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In FR Doc. 2010-20837, appearing on page 51829 in the                     **Federal Register**                     of Monday, August 23, 2010, the following correction is made:                

                    1. On page 51829, in the second column, in the                     *Registration and Requests for Oral Presentations*                     section, in the first full paragraph, beginning in the third line, “                    *http://www.fda.gov/​MedicalDevices/​NewsEvents/​WorskshopsConferences/​default.htm*                    ” is corrected to read “                    *http://www.fda.gov/​MedicalDevices/​NewsEvents/​WorkshopsConferences/​default.htm*                    ”.                

Dated: August 27, 2010.

David Dorsey,

Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Budget.

[FR Doc. 2010-21801 Filed 8-31-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. HELEN MAE REINHARDT.

October 29, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


Randy Davis, President
Enviro-Clean of America, Inc.
1023 Morales
San Antonio, Texas 78207

Re:  b2bStores.com, Inc. Lock-up Agreement
Dear Mr. Davis:

          Reference is made to that certain Lock-up Agreement entered into by
Enviro-Clean of America, Inc. (the "Lock-up Agreement") in connection with the
initial public offering of b2bstores.com, Inc. (the "Company") which went
effective February 15, 2000.  The undersigned hereby consents to the private
sale of 1,000,000 shares of Common Stock of the Company covered by the Lock-up
Agreement to zero.net, Inc., a Delaware corporation, on the condition that said
purchaser enter into a new lock-up agreement restricting the transfer of said
1,000,000 shares of Common Stock for a period of twelve months following the
effective date of the Company's registration statement.

          This letter agreement by the undersigned shall be binding on the
undersigned and our respective successors and assigns.  Each of the undersigned
has the authority to enter in to this letter agreement.

Dated:  03/14/00
       ---------

                                Gaines Berland, Inc.

                                By: /s/ Joseph Berland
                                   ----------------------------

                                Name: Joseph Berland
                                     --------------------------
                                Title: Chairman
                                      -------------------------

                                Nolan Securities, Inc.

                                By: /s/ Bruce P. Kelly
                                   ----------------------------

                                Name: Bruce P. Kelly
                                     --------------------------
                                Title: Managing Director
                                      -------------------------
#### Fernando REGALADO, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 46838.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 9, 1973.

Stewart Larry Victorson, El Paso, for appellant.

Steve'W. Simmons, Dist. Atty., and Harry Tom Petersen, Asst. Dist. Atty., El Paso, Jim D. Vollers, State’s Atty., and Robert A. Huttash, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION

ROBERTS, Judge.

This appeal is taken from an order revoking appellant’s probation; a six-year sentence was assessed.

Appellant complains of an abuse of discretion by the trial judge in three separate allegations.

He first states that the court erred in revoking his probation since all the evidence used at the hearing was accomplice testimony. This Court has held that the testimony of an accomplice witness need not be corroborated in order for the evidence to be sufficient to support the decision of the court to revoke. Kelly v. State, 483 S.W.2d 467 (Tex.Cr.App.1972), citing Barnes v. State, 467 S.W.2d 437 (Tex.Cr.App.1971). We adhere to those decisions.

Appellant next contends that the State failed to prove up venue, since there was no direct evidence that the offense occurred in El Paso County, Texas. The conditions of probation imposed upon appellant recite that he “shall commit no offense against the laws of this or any other State or of the United States.” Thus, this constituted the only burden upon the State at the revocation hearing in regard to this issue.

*186The appellant raised his objection at the conclusion of the hearing; no claim was advanced either at that time or on appeal that the offense took place either outside the State of Texas or outside the United States. Additionally, there was much circumstantial evidence adduced at trial that the offense took place in El Paso, Texas.1 Though no harm is shown in the present case, we would certainly hope that in the future the place of the alleged offense would be shown with more clarity. The necessity is especially clear where, as in this case, the city involved lies in such close proximity to our neighboring nation of Mexico.

Finally, appellant contends that, since he is a heroin addict, he should have been committed to the Narcotics Rehabilitation Act Program instead of being imprisoned. The issue was presented to the trial judge. His decision presents no abuse of discretion.

The judgment is affirmed.

1

. The evidence refers to various shopping centers and street names, indicating that the offense transpired in El Paso.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                             5
<LEGEND>

This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Consolidated
Capital Institutional Properties 3 2000 First Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.

</LEGEND>

<CIK>                                                0000768890
<NAME>                           CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTIES/3
<MULTIPLIER>                                              1,000


<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                         3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                     DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                        JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                                    5,195
<SECURITIES>                                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                               351
<ALLOWANCES>                                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                              0 <F1>
<PP&E>                                                   53,678
<DEPRECIATION>                                          (17,925)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           42,551
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                         0 <F1>
<BONDS>                                                  27,925
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                         0
<PREFERRED>                                                   0
<COMMON>                                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                               13,319
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             42,551
<SALES>                                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                          3,350
<CGS>                                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                          2,785
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                          523
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                               0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                               0
<CHANGES>                                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                                554
<EPS-BASIC>                                                1.43 <F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                 0
<FN>

<F1> Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet. <F2> Multiplier is 1.

</FN>


</TABLE>
#### M. E. LUKINS, Appellant, v. A. A. MEDER, etc., et al., Appellees. A. A. MEDER *&*MEDER CORP. et al., Appellants, v. Noble LILLARD et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Feb. 1, 1974.

As Modified on Denial of Rehearing June 21, 1974.

Richard M. Trautwein, Rubin & Trautwein, Charles C. McConnell, Louisville, for appellants.

Preston L. Terry, III, Richard M. Trautwein, Sandy Paniello, Louisville, for appellees.

Memorandum Opinion of the Court by

Chief Justice OSBORNE,

Affirming.*