alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-17-00358-CV

CITY OF WHITE SETTLEMENT, TEXAS,

AND THE WHITE SETTLEMENT 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

CORPORATION, Appellants

V.

BENJAMIN S. EMMONS, AND SOURCE 

CAPITAL, LLC, Appellees

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 48th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (048-288516-16)

September 27, 2018

Opinion by Justice Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was error in part of the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the trial court’s 

judgment is reversed in part and affirmed in part. We reverse the trial court’s special 

appearance order as to the City Claimants’ claims against Source Capital and as to 

their fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims against Emmons. We affirm the 

trial court’s order granting Emmons’s special appearance on the breach of contract, 

promissory estoppel, conversion, and TTLA-violation claims.
It is further ordered that all parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal, for 

which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By __/s/ Wade Birdwell_______________

 Justice Wade Birdwell
Exhibit 99.2

         Certification of Chief Financial Officer of FirstBank NW Corp.
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002




The undersigned hereby certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and in connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB, that:

     o   The report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) and
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and


     o   The information contained in the report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the company's financial condition and results of
         operations.






/s/ LARRY K. MOXLEY
-----------------------
Chief Financial Officer


Dated: June 5, 2003
EXHIBIT 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the  Registration  Statement on
Form S-8 of  Lafayette  Bancorporation  (No.  333-89851),  of our report,  dated
January  25,  2001,  on  the  consolidated  financial  statements  of  Lafayette
Bancorporation  as of December 31, 2000 and 1999 and for each of the three years
in the period ended December 31, 2000, which report is incorporated by reference
in this Form 10-K.

                                       /s/ Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP
                                           Crowe, Chizek and Company LLP


March 27, 2001
Indianapolis, Indiana

<PAGE>
<PAGE>

                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in this annual report on Form 10-K
of our report dated March 7, 1997 except for Note 9 as to which the date is May
27, 1997 and Note 21 as to which the date is June 23, 1997, on our audit of the
consolidated financial statements of Centennial HealthCare Corporation as of
December 31, 1995 and 1996, and for the seven months ended December 31, 1995 and
the years ended December 31, 1995 and 1996, appearing in the registration
statement on Form S-1 (SEC File No. 333-24267) of Centennial HealthCare
Corporation filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the
Securities Act of 1933.


                                             /s/ COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


Atlanta, Georgia
March 31, 1998
#### Anthony L. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 1D11-0090.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 3, 2011.

Anthony L. Johnson, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The appellant has sought review of a final order rendered in the lower tribunal on November 17, 2010. Because the notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days of rendition, the appeal is untimely. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

LEWIS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           2,661
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   45,331
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                47,992
<PP&E>                                       7,115,383
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,785,722
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,377,653
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           25,970
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,377,653
<SALES>                                         81,841
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,326
<CGS>                                           42,899
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  102,282
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (18,956)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (18,956)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (18,956)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Terry Lee SMITH v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-2859.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 16, 2011.

In re Smith, Terry Lee; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of St. Mary, 16th Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 06-171383; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 0572.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., recused.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q FOR THE QUARTER ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           2,438
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           6,050
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                83,597
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     37,133
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        244,636
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,334
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 392,061
<DEPOSITS>                                     262,553
<SHORT-TERM>                                    33,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              1,790
<LONG-TERM>                                     44,764
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            26
<OTHER-SE>                                      49,928
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 392,061
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,871
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,074
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   369
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,314
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,308
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 721
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            4,029
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                        0
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  2,331
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    336
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         186
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       186
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .08
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.46
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,140
<LOANS-PAST>                                     4,140
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                    854
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,424
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       92
<RECOVERIES>                                         2
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,334
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,334
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Consolidated Balance Sheets at September 30, 1999 (unaudited) and Consolidated
Statements of Income for the three months ended September 30, 1999 (unaudited)
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                    <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       4,693,000
<SECURITIES>                                 1,967,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                7,663,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (795,000)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,573,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            15,947,000
<PP&E>                                       5,959,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              (2,584,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              25,941,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,877,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     7,903,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,854,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                25,941,000
<SALES>                                     10,979,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            10,979,000
<CGS>                                        6,419,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,419,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,771,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               7,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,968,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                   733,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,235,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,235,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24



</TABLE>
ex10-3.htm


    EXHIBIT
10.3

    


     

    


     

    WAIVER

     

    In consideration for the benefits I
will receive as a result of my employer’s participation in the United States
Department of the Treasury’s TARP Capital Purchase Program, I hereby voluntarily
waive any claim against the United States or my employer for any changes to my
compensation or benefits that are required to comply with the regulation issued
by the Department of the Treasury as published in the Federal Register on
October 20, 2008.

     

    I acknowledge that this regulation may
require modification of the compensation, bonus, incentive and other benefit
plans, arrangements, policies and agreements (including so-called “golden
parachute” agreements) that I have with my employer or in which I participate as
they relate to the period the United States holds any equity or debt securities
of my employer acquired through the TARP Capital Purchase Program.

     

    This waiver includes all claims I may
have under the laws of the United States or any state related to the
requirements imposed by the aforementioned regulation, including without
limitation a claim for any compensation or other payments I would otherwise
receive, any challenge to the process by which this regulation was adopted and
any tort or constitutional claim about the effect of these regulations on my
employment relationship.

     

    IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto
signed my name this 23rd day of December, 2008.

     

    
      
        
          
            
              
                	 
      	
                        /s/ Robert S. Vuono

                      
	 
      	
                        Robert
      S. Vuono
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1640 

To provide liability protection for individuals who report suspicious behavior 

to law enforcement agencies. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 22, 2007 

Mr. PEARCE (for himself, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. KLINE of 

Minnesota, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mr. WOLF, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, 

Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. MCCOTTER, and Mr. 

MCKEON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide liability protection for individuals who report 

suspicious behavior to law enforcement agencies. 

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 ‘‘Protecting Americans 

5 Fighting Terrorism Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO RE7 PORT SUSPICIOUS BEHAVIOR. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—An individual shall not be liable 

9 for any injury or damages relating to such individual’s 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with DIGEST
2 

•HR 1640 IH

1 qualified disclosure of suspicious behavior. A civil action 

2 for damages related to such disclosure may not be brought 

3 in any State or Federal court. 

4 (b) QUALIFIED DISCLOSURE OF SUSPICIOUS BEHAV5 IOR.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘qualified 

6 disclosure of suspicious behavior’’ means any disclosure of 

7 the allegedly suspicious behavior of another individual or 

8 individuals to a Federal, State, or local law enforcement 

9 agency or other security personnel that is made in good 

10 faith and with the reasonable belief that such behavior is 

11 suspicious. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with DIGEST
#### S. E. Masterton, Adm’x, etc., v. F. E. Conrad.

(No. 3451.)

Error from Shackelford County.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 7 53. *New trial; motion for, in justice's court, not necessary tó appeal.*Conrad recovered judgment in justice’s court against Mrs. Masterton as administratrix of the community estate of her deceased husband and herself. She made no motion for a new trial, and appealed to the county court without giving an appeal bond, and her ap*661peal was dismissed upon motion of Conrad, and she prosecutes this writ of error. *Held:*Under the law as it now is, a motion for new trial in the justice’s court is not essential to confer jurisdiction upon the county court on appeal. [W. & W. Con. Eep. §§ 68, 1097; Acts 18th Leg. p. 91.]

June 10, 1885.

§ 754. *Administrator, etc., not required to give bond on appeal, etc., tuhen,*“Executors, administrators and guardians appointed by the courts of this state shall not be required to give bond on any appeal or writ of error taken by them in their fiduciary capacity.” [E. S. art. 1408.] This provision extends to appeals from justices’ courts. [E. S. art. 1644; *W. &*W. Con. Eep. § 810.] In this case the appeal was from a judgment rendered against an administratrix of an estate in her fiduciary capacity, who had been appointed such administratrix by a proper court of this state, and as such had given bond. She was therefore within the exemption of the statute, and was not required to give an appeal bond. *[Ante,*§ 311; Buttlar v. Davis, 52 Tex. 74.]

Beveled and remanded.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 60090]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24432]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Membership of the Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Missile Defense Agency (MDA), DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the appointment of the members of the 
Performance Review Board (PRB) of the Missile Defense Agency (MDA). The 
publication of PRB membership is required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(C)(4).

DATES: Effective September 3, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jovey Martir, MDA SES Program 
Management, Missile Defense Agency, Arlington, Virginia, (703) 693-
1568.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Performance Review Board (PRB) provides 
fair and impartial review of Senior Executive Service performance 
appraisals and makes recommendations regarding performance ratings and 
performance scores to the Director, MDA.
    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(C)(4), the following executives 
are appointed to the Missile Defense Agency PRB:

RDML Randall M. Hendrickson, USN (Chair),
RADM Joseph A. Horn, USN,
Brig Gen Terrence A. Feehan, USAF,
Mr. David Altwegg,
Ms. Nancy Morgan,
Mr. Richard Matlock.

    Executives listed will serve a one-year term, effective September 
3, 2010.

    Dated: September 24, 2010.
Mitchell S. Bryman,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2010-24432 Filed 9-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. George LEWIS.

No. 2011-KK-0223.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 16, 2011.

In re Department of Children and Family Services; State of Louisiana; —Other(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. A, No. 469-823; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2010-K-1620.

Denied. Motion to seal granted.
**EXHIBIT31.2**

 

**Certification of Principal Financial OfficerPursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

I,Howard Sampson, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewedthis annual report on Form 10-K of iVOW, Inc.

 

2.               Based on myknowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.               Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

a.               Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

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

 

c.               Disclosed inthis report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):

 

a.               All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b.              Any fraud,whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:March 31, 2005

 

|   | /s/ Howard Sampson          |
|--------|-----------------------------|
|   | **Howard  Sampson**         |
|   | **Chief Financial Officer** |

 

----
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-81,872-01

EX PARTE GEORGE WAYNE SMITH, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. C-19,057-A IN THE 173RD DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY

PRICE, J., filed a concurring statement.

CONCURRING STATEMENT

I agree that the applicant’s second claim, complaining of the erroneous assessment of

attorney fees, is not cognizable by way of an application for writ of habeas corpus. It should

be dismissed. I write separately simply to note that the applicant may obtain relief from those

fees by raising this claim in an application for writ of mandamus, as we have previously held

that “questions of the validity of orders entered under [Article 26.05(g), Code of Criminal

Procedure] . . . constitute ‘criminal law matters’ for purposes of our mandamus
SMITH — 2

jurisdiction[.]”

1

FILED: SEPTEMBER 17, 2014

DO NOT PUBLISH

1

In re Daniel, 396 S.W.3d 545, 548 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013); see also TEX. CODE CRIM.

PROC. art. 26.05(g) (detailing the circumstances under which a defendant may be ordered to pay the

“cost of the legal services provided” to him by his appointed counsel).