alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Tyrone L. ROBERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry DuBOSE, Captain; Mr. Sottile, Chief Jailer; J. Jenkins, Jailer, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 00-7514.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted Dec. 20, 2000.

Decided Jan. 16, 2001.

Tyrone L. Roberson, pro se. Isaac McDuffie Stone, III, Law Office of Duffle Stone, Bluffton, SC, for appellees.

Before WILKINS, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Tyrone Lamar Roberson, a South Carolina inmate, appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Defendants, denying his motion for appointment of counsel, denying his writ of mandamus and denying relief requested in supplemental motions to his 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp.2000) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp.2000). This Court reviews only those issues raised in the appellant’s informal brief, therefore, only the motion for summary judgment is before this Court. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. *See Roberson v. DuBose,*No. CA-97-3444-5-11-BF (D.S.C. Sept. 13, 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.

*DISMISSED.*
No. 87-1231.

#### Pendergrass *v.*Office of Personnel Management.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 31.1 

 

**Certifications**

 

I, J.A. Cardwell, Sr., certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Petro Stopping Centers, L.P.; 

 

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 tomake 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 financialcondition, 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 officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: 

 

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and 

 

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting. 

 

Date: November 13, 2003 

/s/ J.A. Cardwell, Sr.

     (J.A. Cardwell,Sr.) 

     Chairman and Chief Executive Officer****
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**
JUDGMENT
No. 04

- 15

- 00397

- CV
IN THE ESTATE OF Luisa R. MONTEMAYOR
From the Probate Court No

. 2, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2010

- PC

- 3012 Honorable Tom Rickhoff, Judge Presiding
BEFORE JUSTICE ANGELINI , JUSTICE BARNARD , AND JUSTICE CHAPA In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this court’s opinion and judgment of March 9, 2016, are withdrawn and this court’s opinion and judgment of this date are substituted in their stead. The tr ial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Costs of this appeal are taxed against appellant, Marcelo R. Montemayor

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 43.4.
SIGNED June 1, 2016.

_____________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                         117,098
<SECURITIES>                                   160,275
<RECEIVABLES>                                   61,046
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     12,373
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               377,429
<PP&E>                                          81,575
<DEPRECIATION>                                  47,694
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 424,967
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           73,618
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       270,932
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,628
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   424,967
<SALES>                                        291,922
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               291,922
<CGS>                                          130,947
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  130,947
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               112,336
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,064
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 55,723
<INCOME-TAX>                                    16,717
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             38,625
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     33
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    38,658
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.98
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.91


</TABLE>
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                              SAFELITE GLASS CORP.
                      RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                              (Dollars in Millions)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                                          3 MONTHS       3 MONTHS      YEAR
                                                                                            ENDED          ENDED       ENDED
                                              1994       1995        1996       1997    MAR 29, 1997   APR 4, 1998  APR 3, 1999
                                              ----       ----        ----       ----    ------------   -----------  -----------
<S>                                           <C>        <C>         <C>        <C>          <C>           <C>         <C>
EARNINGS & LOSSES:
     PRE-TAX INCOME (LOSS) FROM
       CONTINUING OPERATIONS                  (2.9)       7.5        19.2       (0.4)        0.0           (5.9)       (9.5)
     INTEREST EXPENSE                          4.5        6.0         6.7       27.5         6.3           10.9        46.7
     PORTION OF RENTAL EXPENSE
       REPRESENTATIVE OF AN
       INTEREST FACTOR                        11.5       12.0        12.5       14.3         3.3            7.1        26.3

     TOTAL EARNINGS (LOSSES)                  13.1       25.5        38.4       41.4         9.6           12.1        63.5

FIXED CHARGES:
     INTEREST EXPENSE                          4.5        6.0         6.7       27.5         6.3           10.9        46.7
     PORTION OF RENTAL EXPENSE
       REPRESENTATIVE OF AN
       INTEREST FACTOR                        11.5       12.0        12.5       14.3         3.3            7.1        26.3

     TOTAL FIXED CHARGES                      16.0       18.0        19.2       41.8         9.6           18.0        73.0

RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED
     CHARGES                                    --        1.4         2.0         --         1.0             --          --

DEFICIENCY OF EARNINGS TO FIXED
     CHARGES                                  (2.9)        --          --       (0.4)         --           (5.9)       (9.5)
</TABLE>


(1) Prior to 1998, the Company's fiscal year ended on the Saturday closest to
    December 31 of each year. On May 18, 1998, the Company changed its
    fiscal year to the Saturday closest to March 31.
1 

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00146-CR

NO. 09-23-00147-CR

__________________

MITCHELL DALE FORTIN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 435th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause Nos. 21-06-08504-CR, 21-06-08514-CR

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

A jury found Appellant Mitchell Dale Fortin guilty of the first-degree felony 

offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child and the second-degree felony offense 

of indecency with a child by contact. See Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§ 21.02(b), (h); 

21.11(a)(1), (d). The jury assessed Fortin’s punishment at thirty-five years of 

imprisonment for the offense of continuous sexual abuse of a child and at twenty 
2

years of imprisonment for the offense of indecency with a child. The trial court

granted the State’s Motion to Cumulate Sentence and ordered the sentences to run 

consecutively. 

On appeal, Fortin’s appellate counsel filed Anders briefs that present 

counsel’s professional evaluation of the records and concludes the appeals are

frivolous. See Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 

807 (Tex. Crim. App. 1978). On November 17, 2023, we granted an extension of 

time for Fortin to file pro se briefs, and Fortin filed no responses. 

Upon receiving the Anders briefs, this Court must conduct a full examination 

of all the proceedings to determine whether the appeals are wholly frivolous. Penson 

v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988) (citing Anders, 386 U.S. at 744). We have reviewed 

the entire records and counsel’s briefs, and we have found nothing that would 

arguably support the appeals. Bledsoe v. State, 178 S.W.3d 824, 827–28 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 2005)(“Due to the nature of Anders briefs, by indicating in the opinion that it 

considered the issues raised in the briefs and reviewed the record for reversible error 

but found none, the court of appeals met the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate 

Procedure 47.1.”). Therefore, we find it unnecessary to order appointment of new 
3

counsel to re-brief the appeals. Cf. Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial court’s judgments.1

AFFIRMED.

 W. SCOTT GOLEMON

 Chief Justice

Submitted on February 26, 2024

Opinion Delivered February 28, 2024

Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Horton and Wright, JJ. 

1Fortin may challenge our decision in these cases by filing a petition of 

discretionary review with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. SeeTex. R. App. P. 

68.
080228-F-JZ511-896.JPG
            MICHAEL W. ZEHNERMichael W. Zehner, a member of the Senior Executive Service, is Deputy General Counsel, International Affairs Division, Office of the Air Force General Counsel, Washington, D.C. He is responsible for providing legal advice to the Secretary of the Air Force, Assistant Secretaries, General Counsel, and officials of the Secretariat and Air Staff on international matters and civil aviation issues. 
Following graduation from law school in 1979, Zehner was associated with the Washington, D.C. law firm of Galiher, Clarke, Martell, and Donelley. In December of 1980, he joined the Air Force General Counsel's Office and assumed his present position as Deputy General Counsel in 1994. His primary areas of practice are international law, security assistance, and information and space operations.**EDUCATION**
1976 Bachelor of Science degree in corrections administration and psychology, Kansas State University 
1979 Juris Doctor degree, Washburn University School of Law 
1980 Master of Laws degree in international law, George Washington University**CAREER CHRONOLOGY**
1. 1979 - 1980, attorney, Galiher, Clarke, Martell and Donelley, Washington, D.C. 
2. 1980 - 1994, Assistant Deputy General Counsel, Office of the Air Force General Counsel, Washington, D.C. 
3. 1994 - present, Deputy General Counsel, International Affairs Division, Office of the Air Force General Counsel, Washington, D.C.**PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS AND ASSOCIATIONS**
Kansas State Bar 
(Current as of February 2008)
#### ARTHUR KAHN CO., Inc. v. SWITZER BROS., Inc., et al. SWITZER BROS., Inc. v. CAMPUS SWEATER & SPORTSWEAR CO. et al.

Civ. Nos. 28165, 28124.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

Sept. 7, 1951.

See also D.C., 101 F.Supp. 541.

No. 28165:

John F. Oberlin, Cleveland, Ohio, George B. Finnegan, Jr. and Morgan, Finnegan & Durham, all of New York City, for plaintiff.

Ely & Frye and Albert L. Ely, Jr., all of Cleveland, Ohio, for defendants.

No. 28124:

Ely & Frye and Albert L. Ely, Jr., and Youart H. Kerslake, all of Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

*539Roy C. Green, F. O. Riohey, H. F. Schneider, Richey & Watts, Eli Goldston and Mooney Hahn, Loeser, Keough & Freedheim, all of Cleveland, Ohio, George B. Finnegan, Jr., New York City, for defendants.

JONES, Chief Judge.

Memorandum on Motion for Temporary Injunction.

The parties to this litigation appeared in the Court’s chambers and informally presented the questions precipitated by the motion for temporary injunction of the so-called “Texas” suit.

Due to the necessity of prompt disposition of the questions presented, the Court will not be able to state its reaction from the facts, presentations and arguments of counsel for the parties except briefly as follows:

It is clear, and the parties seem to agree, that a court which first acquires jurisdiction of an equitable action, particularly a declaratory judgment action, should preserve its jurisdiction by enjoining proceedings involving the same issues and the same parties in a Federal Court of another District.

Also, it seems to be the law that one who defends a suit in the name of another in aid of some interest of his own —openly to the knowledge of the opposing party — becomes a real party in interest, is bound by the judgment, and it will be res judicata as to him.

Applying the foregoing law to the facts presented, the following conclusions are reached for disposition:

The existence of an indemnification policy protecting Kahn’s claimed customers, defendants in the “Texas” suit, against any adverse judgment there, and the affidavits by counsel for Kahn that it will defend the “Texas” suit, are not conclusive that it is controlling the “Texas” litigation. Its actual appearance in that litigation alone will demonstrate that it is the real party in interest. Cofax Corp. v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co., D.C., 79 F.Supp. 842; Zenith Radio Corp. v. Dictograph Products Co., Inc., D.C., 66 F.Supp, 473.

When and if Kahn appears and defends the “Texas” suit, it should request a stay of proceedings there by demonstrating to the Texas District Court that it is the real party in interest and that a suit involving the same parties and issues is pending here.

Injunction denied.
583 A.2d 349

#### RONALD AND LINDA URBAN AND RAYMOND M. TOMASSO, JR. v. PLANNING BOARD OF THE BOROUGH OF MANASQUAN, ETC.

March 30, 1990.

Petition for certification granted. (See 238 *N.J.Super.*105, 569 A.2d 275)
##### 



1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Advocat Inc.;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:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide
reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation
of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles;(c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures
and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent quarter that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting; and
 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:
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; and(b)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal controls over financial reporting.
 August 8, 2007
    /s/ William R. Council,  IIIWilliam R. Council, IIIChief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32
                                   ----------

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Globus International
Resources Corp(the "Company") for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2004 (the
"Report"), the undersigned each hereby certifies that:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

        Date: November 1, 2006         /s/ YURY GREENE
                                       ----------------------------------
                                       Yury Greene
                                       Chief Executive Officer


        Date: November 1, 2006         /s/ HERMAN ROTH
                                       ----------------------------------
                                       Herman Roth, Chief Financial
                                       Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company, and forwarded to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12308, CAPITOL STATION, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711

3/4/2015 

### OFF8G8AL BUSINESS ' 

# STATE©FTEXAS/f^|1 PENALTY F0K §§"o9f, PRIVATE USE JACKSON, JAMES EDWARDSThis is to advise that the Court has'denied withoj, writ of habeas corpus. 

### JAMES EJ2WARDS JACKSON 20002 GflERRY OAKS LANE 

### HUMjZLE, TX 77346 

# .^"S

02 1M

504279596 MAR06 2015 Bailedfrom ziW.Re747644f04 

### written order the application for Abel Acosta, Clerk

I A

AMRS3B ?3^B 

### Miiil-1M'Plrll',hl-"''iillilii'MHill!'l'-H1killM1,i1' ^
#### Angelica PEREZ f/k/a Angelica Reveiz, Appellant, v. Luis F. REVEIZ, Appellee.

No. 4D09-1008.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Dec. 15, 2010.

Mary E. Peña of Peña *&*Associates, P.A., Miami, for appellant.

June Galkoski Hoffman and Michael L. Elkins of Fowler White Burnett, P.A., Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Angelica Perez f/k/a Angelica Reveiz (“the mother”), appeals the trial court’s final judgment granting appellee, Luis F. Reveiz’s (“the father”), counter-petition to modify custody and visitation and the denial of her motion to *102vacate and for rehearing. We affirm the trial court’s decision to modify which was based upon its findings of a substantial change in circumstances and that modification was in the children’s best interests. The findings were supported by competent, substantial evidence. We also affirm the trial court’s denial of the mother’s post-judgment motions to vacate and for rehearing. Resolving credibility issues in favor of the father, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the mother’s motions.

In her last issue, the mother argues the trial court erred in determining in its final judgment that the father was entitled to attorney’s fees. At the final hearing, the father’s attorney told the court he was seeking attorney’s fees and costs for what he considered frivolous and vexatious litigation by the mother. The attorney was sworn in and testified to the amount he billed and his rate per hour. The court then told counsel that the final judgment should include a reservation on the attorney’s fees issue and that they set a hearing before a general master on the issues of entitlement and amount. However, in the final judgment, there was a finding that the father was entitled to attorney’s fees and it ordered that a hearing be held before a general master to determine the total amount due. The father concedes the determination of entitlement to attorney’s fees made in the final judgment was error. We reverse and remand for a hearing on the father’s entitlement to attorney’s fees and the amount, if any.

*Affirmed in Part; Reversed in Paid and Remanded.*

HAZOURI, CIKLIN and LEVINE, JJ„ concur.