alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**     I, John Carrozza, Chief Financial Officer of PSB Bancorp, Inc., certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PSB Bancorp, Inc.;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I am responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e) and we have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, 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 financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or isreasonable likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’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 havea significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: November 14, 2006               /s/ John Carrozza   John Carrozza   Chief Financial Officer  
26
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Riley Lewis Kmiecik, 

Defendant.

No. CR-15-50163-PHX-GMS

DETENTION ORDER 

 On February 6, 2019, Defendant appeared before this Court on a petition for 

revocation of supervised release. The issue of detention was submitted to the Court. The 

Court considered the petition and file in determining whether Defendant should be released 

on conditions set by the Court. 

 The Court finds that Defendant, having previously been convicted and placed on 

supervised release, and having appeared before the Court in connection with a petition to 

revoke his supervised release, has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that 

he is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of the community if released pursuant 

to Rule 46(d), and Rule 32.1(a)(6), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, and 18 U.S.C. § 

3143. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant be detained pending further 

proceedings. 

 Dated this 6th day of February, 2019. 

Honorable Eileen S. Willett

United States Magistrate Judge
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Toni R. Ensey,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

C. R. Bard Inc., 

Defendant. 

)

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

MDL Case No. 2:15-md-02641-DGC 

Civil Action No. CV-17-04039-PHX-DGC 

APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL 

To: The clerk of court and all parties of record

I am admitted or otherwise authorized to practice in this court, and I appear in this case as 

counsel for: 

Defendant C. R. Bard, Inc. 

Date: November 10, 2017 /s/ Richard B. North, Jr. 

Attorney’s signature 

Richard B. North, Jr. (Ga. Bar No. 545599) 

Printed Name and bar number 

Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, LLP 

201 17th St., NW, Ste. 1700, Atlantic Station, Atlanta, GA 30363 

Address 

richard.north@nelsonmullins.com 

E-mail address 

(404) 322-6155 

Telephone number 

(404) 322-6050 

FAX number 

Case 2:15-md-02641-DGC Document 8838 Filed 11/10/17 Page 1 of 1
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document
  



 
 

Exhibit 10.25    
  


December 18,
2002 











Re:
Employment and Severance Benefits Agreement between you and Scientific Games International, Inc. (formerly Scientific Games Inc.), dated as of September 6, 2000 






Dear
                        : 


        Your
Employment and Severance Benefits Agreement is scheduled to expire on September 6, 2003. In recognition of your performance and the company's desire to provide you with the
benefit of a continued employment agreement, we wish to extend the term of your employment agreement as described below. 


        Commencing
September 6, 2003 and on each anniversary date thereafter, the term of your employment agreement shall be automatically extended and renewed for an additional one year
period, so long as you remain employed by the company. If your employment is terminated "without cause" or by "constructive termination" (as those terms are described in your employment agreement),
then you will be entitled to receive the benefits described in Section 8 of the agreement for one full year from the date of your termination, together with those other benefits which are
stated to accompany your termination under such circumstances. If your employment is terminated for "Just and Substantial
Cause" or "voluntarily" (as those terms are described in your employment agreement), then you will not be entitled to any of these benefits. All other terms and conditions of your employment agreement
remain in effect. 



        This
letter amends your employment agreement. Upon your agreement with the terms and conditions above, please sign in the space below and return one copy to C. Gray Bethea, Jr. to be
placed with the company's copy of your employment agreement. 


        We
look forward to a long and continued working relationship with you. 



	 	 	Very truly yours,
	

 	
 	

By:	

/s/  A. LORNE WEIL      
 A. Lorne Weil

Chairman of the Board of Directors

and Chief Executive Officer





Agreed
and accepted this              day of
                        , 2002. 






11









QuickLinks



Exhibit 10.25
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

DA 19-0680

CITY OF BOZEMAN,

Petitioner and Appellant,

v.

MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL

RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION,

an agency of the State of Montana, and

UTILITY SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Respondents and Appellees.

FILED

MAR 1 9 2020

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court

State of kilontana

ORDER

Pursuant to the Internal Operating Rules of this Court, this cause is classified for

oral argument before the Court sitting en banc and is hereby set for argument on

Wednesday, June 17, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. in the Courtroom of the Montana Supreme

Court, Joseph P. Mazurek Justice Building, Helena, Montana.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to M. R. App. P. 17(3), oral argument

times in this cause number shall be forty (40) minutes for the Appellant and thirty (30)

minutes for the Appellees.

Counsel should be mindful of the provisions of M. R. App. P. 17(6).

The Clerk is directed to provide a copy hereof to all counsel of record and to the

Honorable Rienne McElyea, District Judge.

DATED this j gi%of March, 2020.

For the Court,

By 

Chief Justice

03/19/2020

Case Number: DA 19-0680
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 10 Filed 12/09/15 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 10 Filed 12/09/15 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:15-cv-01769-SPL Document 10 Filed 12/09/15 Page 3 of 3
#### Barbara J. DUNBAR, Petitioner, v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent.

No. 05-3092.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Feb. 14, 2005.

ORDER

The petitioner having failed to pay the docketing fee required by Federal Circuit Rule 52(a)(1) and to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is

ORDERED that the petition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in accordance with the rules.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

      COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF INCOME TO FIXED CHARGES AND PREFERRED STOCK
                             DIVIDEND REQUIREMENTS

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                             JUNE 30,                               JUNE 30,
                                                                     2001                2000               2001              2000
                                                                  ------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                               <C>                 <C>                 <C>               <C>
Net income                                                        $1,440,060          $1,398,132          $700,999          $713,093
Fixed charges:
Income before fixed charges                                       $1,440,060          $1,398,132          $700,999          $713,093
Fixed charges, as above
Preferred stock dividend requirements                             $  900,450          $  900,450          $450,225          $450,225
Fixed charges including preferred
  stock dividends                                                 $  900,450          $  900,450          $450,225          $450,225
Ratio of income to fixed charges and
  preferred stock dividend requirements                                 1.60                1.55              1.56              1.58
</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CANNA CARE, INC., 

Petitioner-Appellant,

 v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL

REVENUE, 

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 16-70265

Tax Ct. No. 5768-12

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the Decision of the

United States Tax Court

Argued and Submitted July 10, 2017

San Francisco, California

Before: GRABER and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and GUILFORD,**

 District

Judge.

 

Appellant Canna Care, Inc., a marijuana dispensary operating in California,

appeals the Tax Court’s decision upholding the Internal Revenue Service’s

deficiency findings in Appellant’s federal income taxes for the years 2006 through

FILED

JUL 25 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The Honorable Andrew J. Guilford, United States District Judge for the

Central District of California, sitting by designation.
2008. The Internal Revenue Service had determined those tax deficiencies because

it found that Section 280E of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 280E,

disallowed Appellant’s purported business expense deductions. 

Appellant raises three claims on appeal: (1) Section 280E as applied here

violates the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution, (2) Section 280E does not preclude state and local tax deductions,

and (3) Section 280E does not preclude Appellant’s net operating loss carryover

deduction from 2005. 

Appellant did not raise any of these claims in the Tax Court and, thus, the

arguments are all unpreserved for our review. “Absent exceptional circumstances,

this court will not consider an argument that was not first raised in the Tax Court.”

Sparkman v. Comm’r, 509 F.3d 1149, 1158 (9th Cir. 2007). In our discretion, we

decline to consider these claims now. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121

(1976).

AFFIRMED.

2
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"NASA","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nasamigrate\/","title":"NASA Awards Contract for X-59 Community Overflight Operations","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"azHO5nMwDr\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-awards-contract-for-x-59-community-overflight-operations-2\/\">NASA Awards Contract for X-59 Community Overflight Operations<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/news-release\/nasa-awards-contract-for-x-59-community-overflight-operations-2\/embed\/#?secret=azHO5nMwDr\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Awards Contract for X-59 Community Overflight Operations” — NASA\" data-secret=\"azHO5nMwDr\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/09\/x59_plate_002_wip_-_copy.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY  FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
     UNAUDITED  FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS  FOR THE PERIOD  ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 THAT
     WERE WERE FILED WITH THE  COMPANY'S  REPORT ON FORM 10-QSB AND IS QUALIFIED
     IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>         0001047733
<NAME>        Learner's World, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1
<CURRENCY>                                    U.S. Dollars

<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                JAN-1-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                  MAR-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         10,527
<SECURITIES>                                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   8,416
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               18,943
<PP&E>                                      1,001,401
<DEPRECIATION>                                      0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              1,234,047
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         140,198
<BONDS>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                          978
<OTHER-SE>                                    (30,321)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                1,234,047
<SALES>                                       390,185
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              390,185
<CGS>                                         221,380
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 221,380
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              251,612
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (82,807)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (82,807)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (82,807)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.001)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.001)


</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Monika Luabeya","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mluabeya\/","title":"2023 in Review: Artemis II Crew Visits Kennedy","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"rTM1yghyWY\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/2023-in-review-artemis-ii-crew-visits-kennedy\/\">2023 in Review: Artemis II Crew Visits Kennedy<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/image-article\/2023-in-review-artemis-ii-crew-visits-kennedy\/embed\/#?secret=rTM1yghyWY\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2023 in Review: Artemis II Crew Visits Kennedy” — NASA\" data-secret=\"rTM1yghyWY\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/12\/ksc-20230808-ph-kls02-0098orig.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":400}
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00674-CV

Maria Perez-Montes

v.

Live Oak Construction, Inc.

On Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 3 of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2011CCV-61394-3

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 14, 2015
3125348

INDEX OF EXHIBITS 

TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE SECOND AND THIRD 

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

Martha Winkler v. City of Phoenix, et al.

Cause No. CV-15-01786-PHX-PGR

EXHIBIT DESCRIPTION

1 Phoenix Police Department Report, DR Number 2014 01227732, p. 2

2 Phoenix Police Department Report, DR Number 2014 01227732 

(Officer Wright Supplement), p. 2

3 Phoenix Police Department Report, DR Number 2014 01227732 

(Officer Branum Supplement), pp. 1-2

Case 2:15-cv-01786-DLR Document 19-1 Filed 12/04/15 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Mark A. Garcia","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/markagarcia\/","title":"Expedition 71","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"d4Vbs3JM5d\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-71\/\">Expedition 71<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/mission\/expedition-71\/embed\/#?secret=d4Vbs3JM5d\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Expedition 71” — NASA\" data-secret=\"d4Vbs3JM5d\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/iss071-s-002.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":480}
Douglas 

without prejudice to the parties' right to move to reinstate the appeal upon 

conclusion of the bankruptcy proceedings. Accordingly, we deny the 

motion for stay, we deny the motion for an extension, and we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 

Parraguirre 

cc: Hon. Vincent Ochoa, District Judge 

George R. Carter 

Fine Law Group 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A era
Order entered October 6, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00989-CR

ROSICK HILL, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-1171579-K

ORDER

The Court has before it appellee the State of Texas’s October 5, 2016, Second Motion for 

Extension of Time to File Brief. We GRANT the motion and DIRECT the Clerk to file 

appellee’s brief tendered with its Second Motion for Extension of Time.

/s/ ROBERT M. FILLMORE 

PRESIDING JUSTICE