alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order filed, July 22, 2016.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 01066

- CR NO. 14

- 15

- 01067

- CR NO. 14

- 15

- 01068

- CR

____________ DYLAN ANDREW QUICK , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 339th District Court

Harris County, Texas Tri al Court Cause No. 1383658 , 1383659, 1383660



### ORDER
The reporter’s record in this case was due April 01, 2016

. See Tex. R. App.
P. 35.1. On April 12, 2016 , this court ordered the court reporter to file the record within 30 days. The record has not been filed with the cou rt. Because the reporter’s record has not been filed timely, we issue the following order.We order Patricia Palmer , the substitute court reporter, to file the record in

this appeal within 30 days of the date of this order

. No further extension will be

e ntertained absent exceptional circumstances. The trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(c). If Patricia Palmer does not timely file the record as ordered,
we wi ll issue an order directing the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine the
reason for the failure to file the record.

PER CURIAM
#### Mario DESCHAM, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D11-1409.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

July 6, 2011.

Mario Descham, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before RAMIREZ and SHEPHERD, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Hernandez v. State,*61 So.3d 1144 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011).
#### STATE ex rel. Emanuel WILLIAMS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2648.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 2011.

In re Williams, Emanuel; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. J, No. 348-945; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1420.

Denied. La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.8; *State ex rel. Glover v. State,*93-2330 (La.9/5/95), 660 So.2d 1189.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Aaron BENJAMIN.

No. 2011-KK-2599.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 1, 2011.

In re Benjamin, Aaron; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Iberia, 16th Judicial District Court Div. E, No. 9999-CR-507511; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 11-01193.

Denied.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 148 

To require the Surface Transportation Board to consider certain issues when 

deciding whether to authorize the construction of a railroad line. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To require the Surface Transportation Board to consider 

certain issues when deciding whether to authorize the 

construction of a railroad line. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Neighborhood Rail Ac5 countability Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

7 Section 10901 of title 49, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following new sub9 sections: 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•HR 148 IH

1 ‘‘(e) In determining whether to issue a certificate au2 thorizing the construction of an additional railroad line, 

3 or the construction of an extension to any railroad line, 

4 the Board shall give greater weight to local official state5 ments and public comments in opposition to the proposed 

6 construction, especially with respect to construction in a 

7 residential area, if there is an unusually high level of such 

8 public opposition. 

9 ‘‘(f) Before issuing a certificate under this section au10 thorizing the construction of an additional railroad line, 

11 or the construction of an extension to any railroad line, 

12 the Board shall identify any disproportionate negative im13 pacts on any socioeconomic population, and shall include 

14 a discussion of alternatives that were considered that 

15 would have avoided such disproportionate negative im16 pacts. 

17 ‘‘(g) If the Board receives information indicating that 

18 an applicant for a certificate under this section has pro19 vided to the Board false information that could materially 

20 affect the Board’s determination, the process of consid21 ering the application shall be halted until the Board has 

22 determined whether such information has been provided, 

23 and whether the information was knowingly provided. If 

24 the Board determines that such information has been pro25 vided unknowingly, the Board shall require the applicant 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
3 

•HR 148 IH

1 to provide correct information before the process may re2 sume. If the Board determines that such information has 

3 been provided knowingly, the Board shall not issue a cer4 tificate pursuant to that application.’’. 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
II 

Calendar No. 314 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1384 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 31, 2007 

Received 

AUGUST 1, 2007 

Read twice and placed on the calendar 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 118 Minner Avenue in Bakersfield, California, 

as the ‘‘Buck Owens Post Office’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. BUCK OWENS POST OFFICE. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 118 Minner Avenue in Bakers6 field, California, shall be known and designated as the 

7 ‘‘Buck Owens Post Office’’. 

8 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg9 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

HR 1384 PCS

1 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

2 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Buck Owens Post 

3 Office’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 30, 2007. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS

bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Calendar No. 314 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1384 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States PostOffice’’. kersfield, California, as the ‘‘Buck Owens Post al Service located at 118 Minner Avenue in BaAUGUST 1, 2007 

Read twice and placed on the calendar 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
#### Margaret M. Sherman v. William Peterson, Highway Commissioner, and Louis G. Fischer, Clerk, of the Township of Springwells.

*Highways*— Proceedings *to establish*— Notice.

Proceedings to lay out a highway are void as against one not-made a party thereto, nor served with notice, which was not waived by an appearance at the hearing,

*Certiorari*to review proceedings for laying out a highway.

Argued April 20, 1892.

Proceedings quashed May 6, 1892.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Sloman, Moore & Duffie,*for plaintiff in *certiorari.*

Grant, J.

This is a *certiorari*to review the proceedings of the respondent commissioner in laying out and opening, a highway over the petitioner’s lands. Several objections are raised to the regularity of the proceedings. Petitioner was not made a party to the proceedings, was-not served with notice, and did not appear at the hearing, and waive her right to notice. For this reason the-proceedings are void.

It is unnecessary to consider the othér objections.

Proceedings must be quashed, with costs to the petitioner.

*481Long and Montgomery, JJ., concurred. Morse, C. J., did not sit. McGrath, J., took no part in the decision.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Fisher Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-K/A), I William W. Krippaehne Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) |  | The Form 10-K/A fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the  Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) |  | The information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the  financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: September 12, 2003



/s/    WILLIAM W. KRIPPAEHNE
JR.William W. Krippaehne Jr.President and Chief Executive Officer
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

Consent of Independent Accountants 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-32103) of Fisher Communications, Inc. (formerly Fisher CompaniesInc.) of our report dated February 21, 2003, except for the restatements described in Note 2 as to which the date is August 26, 2003, appearing in this Form 10-K/A. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report on the FinancialStatement Schedules, which appears in this Form 10-K/A. 

 

/s/    PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

Seattle, Washington 

 

September 12, 2003
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

MICHAEL BUNCE

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 22

- 95

LT Case No. 2021

- CF

- 017943

- AX

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. ________________________________/

Decision filed August 2, 2022

Appeal from the Circuit Court for

Br evard County

, Tesha Scolaro Ballou , Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, and Andrew

Mich, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach,

for Appellant.

Michael Bunc e , Cocoa, pro se.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee,

and Robin A. Compton, Assistant Attorney

General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT

, C.J.

, WALLIS and EISNAUGLE , JJ., concur.
#### St. Louis, Ark. & Tex. R’y Co. v. W. M. Ticer.

(No. 2980.)

Appeal from Hopkins County.

Perkins, Gilbert & Perkins, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee:

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 402. *Parties plaintiff; husband may sue alone for damages for injury to wife’s separate property; children of wij'e by former husband not necessary parties in such suit.*Appellee brought this suit in his own name and right to recover of appellant damages for property destroyed by fire through the negligence of appellant’s employees in operating its trains. Some of the damages claimed were for the destruction of portions of the realty, as a fence, house, trees, etc. He recovered judgment. On the trial the evidence developed that the realty injured was the property of his wife and her children by a former husband, and that the same was occupied by appellee and said wife and children as a homestead at the time of said fire. Appellant claims that said wife and children are necessary parties plaintiff in this suit, and that because of their non-joinder the judgment is erroneous. *Held:*The wife and children are not necessary parties. A contrary doctrine was at one time held by this court. [2 App. C. C. § 780.] But that decision was subsequently overruled, this court following the doctrine laid down by the supreme court in R’y Co. v. Zimmerman, 61 Tex. 660 [ante, § 15]. A surviving widow is entitled during her life-time to the exclusive possession and enjoyment of the homestead [Const. art. 16, sec. *47652; R. S. art. 2004]; and the children could not, during said time, enforce a partition of the homestead while she occupied it. [Foreman v. Meroney, 62 Tex. 723.] Her interest in the homestead is the same as if it were her separate property, except as to its absolute sale and alienation in derogation of the rights and interests of the children. The husband may sue for the recovery of the wife’s separate property and recover damages occasioned by an injury to such property. [R. S. art. 1204; R’y Co. v. Medaris, 64 Tex. 92.] He has the sole management of her separate property during the marriage. [R. S. art. 2851.] No reason is perceived why he cannot maintain an action in his own name for injuries done to the homestead, the property of his wife, during the marriage and while she occupies the same as a homestead.

November 21, 1888.

§ 403, *Illegal evidence; admission of, not reversible error when cause is tried by the judge.*When a cause is tried by the judge without a jury, the rule is well settled that, where there is sufficient competent evidence, the judgment will not be reversed on account of the erroneous admission of incompetent evidence. [Melton v. Cobb, 21 Tex. 539; Beaty v. Whittaker, 23 Tex. 526; Smith v. Hughes, id. 248; Clayton v. McKinnon, 54 Tex. 206; 1 App. C. C. §§ 718, 967, 1062, 1195, 1219, 1336.]

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.29




                                 March 5, 2003


Larry Spanley


Dear Larry:

         The full year 2002 results ended with a pre-tax profit of $4,109,882.
Unfortunately, this was well below the lowest level where bonus is paid in our
2002 bonus program. I have adjusted the bonus levels as follows for 2003 in
accordance with our new plans.

         The bonus period will be the fiscal months of January 2003 through
December 2003. You must be an employee of Bakers Footwear Group for the full
year to earn your bonus. Your maximum bonus will be 50% of your cumulative
salary for this time period. Your bonus will be earned based on the pre-tax
profit (adding back depreciation and bonus) as follows:

<Table>
<S>       <C>                                                                    <C>
    5%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $4,000,000
   10%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $4,250,000
   15%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $4,500,000
   20%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $5,000,000
   25%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $5,500,000
 33.3%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $7,500,000
 41.7%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $8,500,000
   50%    of your cumulative salary if the company achieves a pre-tax profit of   $9,500,000
</Table>

         Needless to say, we are looking for a strong rebound in profits and
bonus for everyone. Thank you for all your hard work and commitment.


                                                    Sincerely,



                                                    Peter Edison


ss
Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION

|I, Christopher C. Duignan, certify that:
|----------------------------------------
|                                        
|1                                       
|                                        
|2                                       
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|3                                       
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|4                                       
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|5                                       
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        
|                                        

|Dated: May 10,
        2007 | By: | /s/ CHRISTOPHER C. DUIGNAN | 
|--------------------------- | --- | -------------------------- | 
|                            |     | Christopher C. Duignan     | 
|                            |     | Chief Financial Officer    | 

---
News United States Air Force
 Kadena fuels flight powers through to earn API awardPublished June 8, 2016
                        
                        By Chief Master Sgt. Shayne Somavia
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS)  --**
                The 18th Logistics Readiness Squadron at Kadena Air Base, Japan, recently won the prestigious American Petroleum Institute award.The annual API award, which has been around for 50 years, honors the top active-duty, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve fuels management flight in recognition of their outstanding contributions, commitment to excellence and dedication to the warfighter mission.Everything within the fuels management flight was examined closely and evaluators and personnel evaluations were the foundation of the site visits, which gave units the ability to personally demonstrate their mettle during the API evaluation as the team witnessed firsthand the significant accomplishments and support of and by each fuels Airmen.Today, the determination and persistence to be named the Air Force's API award winner is as significant and relevant as it was a half century ago. This year's finalists were identified after their award packages were evaluated by the API board. Besides the 18th LRS, the other two finalists were fuels management flights from the 96th Logistics Readiness Squadron at Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, and the 52nd Logistics Readiness Squadron at Spangdahlem AB, Germany. These units met API's virtual evaluation board in April to articulate and demonstrate their achievements, contributions to the Air Force mission and their technical knowledge. While all competitors performed remarkably well, it was the fuels management flight from Kadena AB that captured the title of API's "golden anniversary" recipient.Fuels 



award 



Kadena AB 



Japan 



FM 



PACAF
#### STATE ex rel. Mark A. CROSS v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-0152.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Cross, Mark A.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caldwell, 37th Judicial *21District Court Div. 0, No. 75,194; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-254-KH.

Denied.
#### Gregory F. BROWN, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D10-1962.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 22, 2010.

Gregory F. Brown, in proper person.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before GERSTEN, WELLS, and LAGOA, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. *See Rangel v. State,*937 So.2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); *Macaluso v. State,*912 So.2d 694 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND THE CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATION OF UNIFIED FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. FILED AS A
PART OF THE COMPANY'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-KSB AND IS QUALIFIED IN
ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH REPORT.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         538,030
<SECURITIES>                                 1,183,925
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,061,562
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,041
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,109,360
<PP&E>                                       1,439,575
<DEPRECIATION>                                 890,351
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,927,109
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,010,371
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         5,649
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     17,069
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,927,109
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,266,652
<CGS>                                        1,879,101
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,879,101
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,379,736
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,993
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                861,198
<INCOME-TAX>                                    30,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            831,198
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   831,198
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.68


</TABLE>