alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00486-CR

EARNEST DWAYNE GRAY APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

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

FROM THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

----------

We have considered appellant’s “Motion To Dismiss Appeal.” The motion 

complies with rule 42.2(a) of the rules of appellate procedure. Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a). No decision of this court having been delivered before we received this 

motion, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a), 43.2(f).

PER CURIAM

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: November 8, 2012.
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 6 -00 445 -CV
Lanc e G . A dam s , A ppe lla nt

v. Letitia C. Ve rdugo-Engelh ardt and Eric H. En gelhardt , Appellees
F ROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF B ELL COUNTY , 146TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT NO. 215, 313- B , HO NORAB LE RICKMO RRIS , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

ME MO R

A ND UMO P I N I O N Appellant’s br ief is past due. This Court’s clerk se nt notice that the brie f is overdue to appellant’s last known a ddress. The noti ce warne d that this appea l would be dismissed if no brief or motion for extension of time to file a brief was filed. T he notice w as re turned to sende r, as wa s a sepa rate reque st for pay

ment of filingfee s. We dismi ss this appeal for want of pr osecution.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore J ustices Puryear , Pemberton and Waldrop Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: May

2, 2007
Exhibit 31.3


                        Independent Accountant's Report


Lehman ABS Corporation, as Depositor
745 Seventh Avenue
New York, New York 10019

U.S. Bank Trust National Association, as Trustee
Corporate Trust Department
100 Wall Street
New York, NY 10005

Re:  Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, Goldman Sachs Capital I
     Securities-Backed Series 2004-7 Trust (the "Trust")
     ------------------------------------------------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

We have examined assertions of Lehman ABS Corporation (the "Depositor") and
U.S. Bank National Association, (the "Trustee" and, together with the
Depositor, the "Management") that the Depositor and the Trustee have complied,
in all material respects, with the provisions of the Standard Terms for Trust
Agreements dated as of January 16, 2001, as supplemented by a series
supplement dated as of April 30, 2004 (together, the "Trust Agreement") in
respect of the Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, Goldman Sachs Capital I
Securities-Backed Series 2004-7 Trust (the "Trust"), during the period covered
by the annual report on Form 10-K filed by the Depositor on behalf of the
Trust for the year ended December 31, 2005 (the "Annual Report"). Management
is responsible for compliance with the Trust Agreement. Our responsibility is
to express an opinion on Management's assertions based on our examination.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Depositor's and the Trustee's
compliance with the Trust Agreement and performing such other procedures as
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, the Depositor and the Trustee have complied, in all material
respects, with the Trust Agreement during the period covered by the Annual
Report and Management's assertions with respect to such compliance are fairly
stated, in all material respects, for the year ended December 31, 2005.


/s/ Aston Bell, CPA


New York, New York
March 17, 2006




                               ASTON BELL, CPA
1 The Honorable Carol E. Jackson, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 03-1968

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the Eastern v. * District of Missouri. * Maurice Thomas Poindexter, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: November 7, 2003 Filed: December 1, 2003

___________ Before BYE, BOWMAN, and MELLOY, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. After a bench trial, Maurice Poindexter was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). Poindexter requested that his federal sentence be ordered to run concurrently with his undischarged state probation-revocation sentence. Rejecting that request, the district court 1 imposed a-2- 120-month prison term to run consecutively to his state sentence, plus 3 years supervised release. Poindexter appeals. Upon de novo review, see United States v. Ashley , 342 F.3d 850, 852 (8th Cir. 2003), we affirm the sentence imposed by the district court, see United States v. Smith , 282 F.3d 1045, 1047-48 (8th Cir. 2002) (U.S.S.G. § 5G1.3, comment. (n.6) is binding on federal sentencing courts and mandates that sentence imposed on defendant for crime committed during probation must run consecutively to any resulting sentence for probation revocation).

______________________________
#### David Handwerker, Respondent, *v.*John Steinhardt, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

December 3, 1925.

Summary proceedings to dispossess — landlord demanded premises for own use and occupancy — direction of verdict against tenant error, where there was evidence raising issue of good faith of landlord — exclusion of evidence showing acceptance of rent check sent by tenant, error.

A directed verdict in favor of the landlord in summary proceedings for the possession of premises for said landlord’s own personal use and occupancy was error, since the landlord’s good faith was put in issue by evidence that there was a variance between the thirty-day notice served upon the tenant and the petition as to which of the two record owners of the premises desired the apartment, that there were other apartments of similar size and character which had become vacant at or about the time of the service of said notice, and that a request for an increase in rent had been made.

It was error for the court to strike out testimony of the tenant concerning the mailing of a check covering rent of the apartment, following the service of the precept and petition, since it was material to the tenant’s case to know whether the check had been accepted by the landlord.

Appeal by defendant tenant from a final order of the Municipal Court, Borough of The Bronx, Second District, based upon a directed verdict for the landlord.

*Godfrey*& *Marx [Aaron H. Marx*of counsel], for the appellant.

*Julius D. Tobias,*for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

In a summary proceeding for possession of premises for the landlord’s own use several elements tending to put in issue the landlord’s good faith appeared during the trial. In the first place, a request for an increase in rent had been made; other apartments of similar size and character had become vacant at or about the time of the service of the thirty-day notice, and furthermore, there was a variance between the thirty-day notice and the petition as to which one of the two record owners desired the apartment. Under these circumstances the direction of a verdict was error.

The defendant tenant testified that following the service of the precept and petition early in June he sent by registered mail a check for the June rent. The thirty-day notice had terminated the lease on May thirtieth. Consequently it is of vital importance *108to the tenant's case to know whether this check was accepted. Answers to questions tending to bring out this fact were struck out by the trial court, and this was also clearly erroneous.

Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with thirty dollars costs to appellant to abide the event.

Guy and Bijur, JJ., concur; Mullan, J., concurs upon the second ground stated.
**Exhibit 10.142**

 

Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.

2006 Incentive Compensation Plan Award

As Amended February 1, 2007

 

Value-sharing concept was approved for the 2006 Incentive Compensation Plan with an amendment to adjust the pretax profit margin for the impact of SFAS No. 133.  This provided for a fixed percentage of profit, the incentive pool (12.75% of pretax profit), to be shared if results equal or exceed a threshold level of performance (5% of pretax margin).  The incentive pool created by the sharing percentage is allocated to participants based on individual target award levels.

 

Incentive Pool & Sharing Rate

 

 

| Executive         |   | 3.50%  |
|-------------------|--------|--------|
| Middle Management |   | 1.50%  |
| Field             |   | 3.50%  |
| Profit Sharing    |   | 4.25%  |
| Incentive Pool    |   | 12.75% |

 

 

2006 Results

 

| Pre-tax profit          |   | $  97,784,000 |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------|
| Pre-tax profit margin   |   | 5.9%          |
| Incentive pool (12.75%) |   | $  12,467,460 |

 

 

Allocation of Incentive Pool

 

 

| Executive         |   | 3.50%  |   | 3,422,440      |
|-------------------|--------|--------|--------|----------------|
| Middle Management |   | 1.50%  |   | 1,466,760      |
| Field             |   | 3.50%  |   | 3,422,440      |
| Profit Sharing    |   | 4.25%  |   | 4,155,820      |
| Incentive Pool    |   | 12.75% |   | $   12,467,460 |
I

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 829

To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949

to prohibit executive agencies from awarding contracts that contain a

provision allowing for the acquisition by the contractor, at Government

expense, of certain equipment or facilities to carry out the contract,

if the principal purpose of such provision is to increase competition

by establishing an alternative source of supply for property or services.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 25, 1997

Mr. OLVER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services

Act of 1949 to prohibit executive agencies from awarding

contracts that contain a provision allowing for the acquisition by the contractor, at Government expense, of certain equipment or facilities to carry out the contract,

if the principal purpose of such provision is to increase

competition by establishing an alternative source of supply for property or services.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•HR 829 IH

1 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN CONTRACT PROVI2 SION FOR PURPOSE OF INCREASING COM3 PETITION BY ESTABLISHING ALTERNATIVE

4 SOURCE OF SUPPLY.

5 Section 303 of the Federal Property and Administra6 tive Services Act of 1949 (41 U.S.C. 253) is amended by

7 adding at the end the following new subsection:

8 ‘‘(j) In conducting a procurement of property or serv9 ices covered by this section, an executive agency may not

10 award a contract that contains a provision allowing for

11 the contractor to acquire, at Government expense, produc12 tion, construction, or technical equipment or facilities to

13 carry out the contract, if the principal purpose of such

14 provision is to increase competition by establishing an al15 ternative source of supply for that property or service.’’.

Æ
##### 



EXHIBIT (31.1)
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
RULE 13A-14 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of PeopleSupport, 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(s) 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)) for the
registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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)
    
    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(c)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent 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 over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
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 which could 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.
EXHIBIT  15.28

 

 

 

August 7, 2007

 

Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc.

5330 East 31st Street

Tulsa, Oklahoma 74135

 

We have reviewed, in accordance with the standards of thePublic Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial information of Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group,Inc. and subsidiaries for the periods ended June 30, 2007 and 2006, as indicated in our report dated August 7, 2007; because we did not performan audit, we expressed no opinion on that information.

 

We are aware that our report referred to above, whichis included in your Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, is incorporated by reference in RegistrationStatements No. 333-79603, No. 333-89189, No. 333-33144, No. 333-33146, No. 333-50800 and No. 333-128714 on Form S-8.

 

We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuantto Rule 436(c) under the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by anaccountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

 

/s/  Deloitte & Touche LLP

 

Tulsa, Oklahoma
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 216 (Friday, November 7, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66369-66370]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26497]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK

[Public Notice 2014-6011]


Agency Information Collection Activities: Final Collection; 
Comment Request

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the U.S.

ACTION: Submission for OMB review and comments request.

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

SUMMARY: The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), as a 
part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to 
comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
    This form will enable Ex-Im Bank to identify the specific details 
of the proposed co-financing transaction between a U.S. exporter, Ex-Im 
Bank, and a foreign export credit agency; the information collected 
includes vital facts such as the amount of U.S.-made content in the 
export, the amount of financing requested from Ex-Im Bank, and the 
proposed financing amount from the foreign export credit agency. These 
details are necessary for approving this unique transaction structure 
and coordinating our support with that of the foreign export credit 
agency to ultimately complete the transaction and support U.S. 
exports--and U.S. jobs. The form can be viewed at: http://www.exim.gov/pub/pending/eib11-04.pdf.

DATES: Comments should be received on or before January 6, 2015, 2014 
to be assured of consideration.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted electronically on http://www.regulations.gov (EIB:11-04) or by

[[Page 66370]]

mail to Ms. Michele Kuester, Export-Import Bank of the United States, 
811 Vermont Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20571.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Titles and Form Number: EIB11-04, Co-Financing with Foreign Export 
Credit Agency.
    OMB Number: 3048-0037.
    Type of Review: Regular.
    Need and Use: The information collected will provide information 
needed to determine compliance and creditworthiness for transaction 
requests submitted to the Export Import Bank under its insurance, 
guarantee, and direct loan programs.
    Affected Public:
    This form affects entities involved in the export of U.S. goods and 
services.
    Annual Number of Respondents: 60.
    Estimated Time per Respondent: 15 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 15 hours.
    Frequency of Reporting or Use: As needed.
    Government Expenses:
    Reviewing Time per Year: 15 hours.
    Average Wages per Hour: $42.50.
    Average Cost per Year: $637.50 (time*wages).
    Benefits and Overhead: 20%.
    Total Government Cost: $765.

Toya Woods,
 Office of the Chief Information Officer, Records Management Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-26497 Filed 11-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
This memorandum opinion was not selected for pub lication in the New Mexico Reports. Please 1 see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. 2 Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain computer-generated 3 errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of Appeals and does 4 not include the filing date. 5 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 6 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 7 Plaintiff-Appellee, 8 v. NO. 29,313 9 LESLIE AAGESEN, 10 Defendant-Appellant. 11 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SAN JUAN COUNTY 12 Thomas J. Hynes, District Judge 13 Gary K. King, Attorney General 14 Santa Fe, NM 15 Ralph E. Trujillo, Assistant Attorney General 16 Albuquerque, NM 17 for Appellee 18 Hugh W. Dangler, Chief Public Defender 19 Nancy M. Hewitt, Appellate Public Defender 20 Santa Fe, NM 21 for Appellant 22 MEMORANDUM OPINION 23 KENNEDY, Judge. 242 Defendant appeals the district court’s finding it lacked jurisdiction to review 1 Defendant’s conditions of probation. This Court issued a calendar notice assigning 2 the case to the summary calendar and proposing summary reversal on April 2, 2009. 3 The State has filed a response to our calendar notice and states it will not submit a 4 memorandum in opposition to our proposed summary reversal. 5 Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the district court for the reasons stated 6 in our calendar notice. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8

___________________________________ 9 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 10 WE CONCUR : 11

___________________________ 12 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge 13

___________________________ 14 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge 15
#### A. D. Grohegan *v.*Dorsey Buler's Admr.

Wills — Construction—Life Estate or In Trust.

The devise is, of the estate to her “her lifetime or as long as she remains unmarried, for the support of my children.”

Held, that the devise was to the wife in trust for the testator’s children.

APPEAL PROM LEWIS CIRCUIT COURT.

June 19, 1871.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

The only material question to be decided on this appeal is, whether by the second clause of the will of Dorsey Buler, Sr., his widow, Eleanor Buler, was vested with a life estate in the testator’s property for her own use and benefit in the event of her remaining unmarried, charged with the support of his children, or only took the estate in trust for them?

The devise is, of the estate to her, “her lifetime or as long as she remains unmarried, for the support of my children.”

This court construes this provision as simply a devise of the estate to Mrs. Buler in trust for the testator’s children, consequently we are of the opinion that the estate reported in this case as assets in the hands of W. W. Buler, as administrator of Eleanor Buler, but which we conclude is but the accumulation of the devised property, belonged to the devisees of Dorsey Buler, Sr., and Dorsey Buler, Jr., had a vested interest in it which his mortgage to Grohagen operated to assign to him as security for his debt; and the judgment is erroneous in so far as it fails to conform to this view and so determine the rights of the parties.

*646
      *Cofer & Montgomery, for appellant.*

*Johnson, for appellee.*

This conclusion renders it immaterial whether the advancements charged were made by Dorsey Buler, Sr., or by Mrs. Buler out of the estate in her hands, as in either case it was right to charge them. For. the error indicated the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for a judgment in conformity with this opinion.
#### C. Rogers, Administratrix, *v.*John H. McHenry.

Bill and Notes — Assignment—Assignee Must Sue in First Court.

Where the circuit and quarterly courts of the same county have concurrent jurisdiction, the assignee of a note must sue in the one holding its regular term first qfter the assignment.

APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

September 20, 1871.

*256
      *Swope, James, for appellant.*

*McHenry, for appellee.*,

Opinion by

Judge Pryor:

The agreed facts in this case show that after the note was assigned to the appellee (it being then due) the regular term of the Daviess Quarterly Court began and was held on the second Monday in February, 1869, and that the regular term of the circuit court for the county began and was held on the third Monday in February, 1869. The judgment was obtained on the note in the circuit court on the 19th of March, 1869, and no execution issued until the 30th day of the same month. This court in the case of *Carter vs. O’Bryen*(M. S. opinion) decided that when the circuit and quarterly courts of the same county have concurrent jurisdiction in a case like this that the assignee must institute his action in the court holding its regular session first after the assignment is made.

The regular term of the quarterly court beginning first after the appellee became entitled to the note by the assignment, it was his duty to have instituted suit in that court, and having failed to do so his action cannot be maintained against the appellant. The judgment of the court below should be set aside and a new trial granted appellant and for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.