alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered December 16, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00450-CR

ANTONIO PATTERSON, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F10-59304-K

ORDER

The Court REINSTATES the appeal.

On September 12, 2013, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding why the 

reporter’s record has not been filed. We ADOPT the findings that: (1) appellant desires to 

pursue the appeal; (2) appellant is indigent and entitled to proceed without payment for the 

record; (3) appellant’s attorney requested preparation of the record on April 15, 2013; and (4) 

Janice Garrett is the court reporter who recorded the proceedings.

This appeal has been pending since April 2, 2013. The reporter’s record was due on July 

24, 2013 and the appeal has been abated since September 12, 2013 for findings regarding the 

reporter’s record. Therefore, we DO NOT ADOPT the finding that Ms. Garrett requires an 

additional sixty days to file the record in this appeal.
We ORDER Janice Garrett, official court reporter of the Criminal District Court No. 4, 

to file the reporter’s record by JANUARY 31, 2014. We further order that Janice Garrett not sit 

as a court reporter until she files the record in this appeal.

We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

Honorable Dominique Collins, Presiding Judge, Criminal District Court No. 4; Janice Garrett, 

official court reporter, Criminal District Court No. 4; the Dallas County Auditor; and to counsel 

for all parties. 

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 10, 2016

No. 04-15-00812-CV

CHRISTUS SPOHN HEALTH SYSTEM CORP. d/b/a Christus Spohn Hospital Kleberg,

Appellant

v.

Melissa HERNANDEZ,

Appellee

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Jim Wells County, Texas

Trial Court No. 13-03-52114-CV

Honorable Richard C. Terrell, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Jason Pulliam, Justice

The panel has considered Appellee’s motion for rehearing; the motion is DENIED. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 49.3.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of June, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 11.0

                            BTU INTERNATIONAL , INC.
        CALCULATION OF NET INCOME PER COMMON AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARE
             (Dollars in thousands, except share and per share data)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                      For the Three Months Ended     For the Six Months Ended  
                                      --------------------------    --------------------------  
                                        June 29,       June 30,       June 29,       June 30,
                                          1997           1996           1997           1996
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                   <C>            <C>            <C>            <C>
Net income                            $      303     $    3,093     $       27     $    3,450
                                                                                  
                                                                                  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net income applicable to                                                          
     common stockholders              $      303     $    3,093     $       27     $    3,450
==============================================================================================
                                                                                  
Weighted average shares and share                                                 
     equivalents outstanding:                                                     
                                                                                  
     Common stock                      7,280,739      7,296,690      7,280,336      7,292,762
     Stock options                        47,803         42,012         40,324         43,924
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  
Weighted average shares and share                                                 
     equivalents outstanding           7,328,542      7,338,702      7,320,660      7,336,686
==============================================================================================
                                                                                  
Net income per common and common                                                  
     equivalent share                 $     0.04     $     0.42     $     0.00     $     0.47
==============================================================================================
</TABLE>                                                        
                                                                                

                                       13
Exhibit 10.13    December 26, 2008  Michael
Barrow 42311 Gold Cup Lane Murrieta, California 92562  Dear
Mike:  Reference
is made to the letter dated March 28, 2008 from International Rectifier
Corporation (the Company) to you regarding your terms of employment
(the Offer Letter).  The
purpose of this letter is to supplement the terms of the Offer Letter to
include terms and conditions designed to make any payments pursuant to the
Offer Letter compliant with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,
as amended (including the Treasury Regulations and other published guidance
related thereto) (Section 409A).  Your
Offer Letter is hereby modified as follows:  1.             International Rectifiers
Executive Relocation Package Benefits. 
..  Notwithstanding anything to the
contrary in your Offer Letter, in order to be eligible for the benefits
pursuant to the International Rectifier Executive Relocation Package, as
supplemented by your Offer Letter, you must be employed by the Company on the
date any reimbursements for eligible expenses are paid.  In addition, any gross-up payment due to you
shall be made by the end of the taxable year following the taxable year in
which you remitted the taxes to which the gross-up relates.  Except
as modified hereby, your Offer Letter remains unmodified.  Please indicate your agreement with the
foregoing by signing where indicated below.  Regards,  INTERNATIONAL
  RECTIFIER CORPORATIONBy:Its:
   Assistant SecretaryAcknowledged
  and agreed:Michael
  BarrowDate:
#### James W. Milner and Wife *v.*James Hatfield, et al.

Bond for Costs — Non-resident Plaintiffs.

Non-residents who are plaintiffs are required to give bond for costs, but where there are two persons who are plaintiffs, one a non-resident and one a resident, no bond can be required from the non-resident.

APPEAL FROM McLEAN CIRCUIT COURT.

November 13, 1875.

Opinion by

Judge Peters :

There were two- plaintiffs to the action, and but one of them a non-resident, according to the facts stated in the affidavit filed. The language of the statute is when a non-resident or any corporation shall institute an action in any court, whether suing in his own right, or as the representative of another, he shall, before the com*537mencement thereof, give bond, evidently meaning that when the non-resident is the only plaintiff in the action, he shall give bond with surety resident in this case, etc. But when there are two plaintiffs, and one of them is a resident of the state, neither the letter nor spirit of the statute requires a bond for cost to■ be executed. And perceiving no error in the judgment the same is *affirmed.*

*J. C.*Jonson, *for appellants. Owen &*Ellis, *for appellees.*
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1875 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1875

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of 
        Representatives, Democratic Caucus for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
           referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for House of 
        Representatives, Democratic Caucus for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR HOUSE OF 
              REPRESENTATIVES, DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for House of Representatives, 
Democratic Caucus for fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $1,776,495.
                                 <all>
```
11584.

#### Thompson *v.*Cordele Motor-Car Company.

Decided January 20, 1921.

Complaint; from Crisp superior court — Judge Gower. April 17, 1920.

*J. T. Hill,*for plaintiff in error.

*Whipple & McKenzie,*contra.

Jenkins, P. J.

1. A plea of total failure of consideration includes a partial failure, and under such a plea a verdict allowing a partial abatement of the purchase price is permissible. *Morgan*v. *Printup Bros. & Pollard,*72 *Ga.*66.

2. Where, in defense to a suit against the maker of a purchase-money note which does not purport to contain the terms of sale, a plea of total failure of consideration is entered, in which a breach of contemporaneous express representations and warranties governing the transaction are set up, and the defendant introduces evidence in support of the plea, it is not improper for the trial judge to charge the law governing breach of express warranties, since an express warranty excludes implied warranties. *Toller*v. *Hewitt,*12 *Ga. App.*496 (77 S. E. 650).

3. The evidence authorized the verdict.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Stephens and Hill, JJ., concur.*
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 20

- 50220 Summary Calendar

**United States of America,**

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Francisco Martinez**

**- Castillo,** 

Defendant

— Appellant **,**

**consolidated with**

**_____________**

**No. 20**

**- 50230** 

**_____________ United States of America,** 

Plaintiff

— Appellee **,**

versus

**Francisco Martinez**

**- Castillo,**  also known as **Francisco Castillo** 

**- Martinez,** 

Defendant

— Appellant

**.** United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED December 15, 2020
Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 20-50220 Document: 00515674330 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/15/2020No. 20

- 50220 c/w No. 20

- 50230

2 Appeal s from the United States Distri ct Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 4:17

- CR

- 181

- 1 USDC No. 4:19

- CR

- 809

- 1

Before **Davis, Stewart,** and **Dennis,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

Francisco Martinez

- Castillo appeals his sentence of sixteen months of imprisonment and three years of supervised release, which the district court imposed following his guilty plea conviction for illegal reentry, in violation of

8 U.S.C. § 1326. He argues that the enhancement of his sentence under § 1326(b)(2) based on his prior conviction, which increased the statutory
maximum terms of imprisonment and supervised release, is unconstitutional because his prior conviction is treated as a sentencing fa ctor rather than an element of the offense that must be alleged in the indictment and found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Martinez

- Castillo concedes that the issue is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998), but he
seek s to preserve the issue for further review. The Government moves for summary affirmance, urging that Martinez

- Castillo’s argument is foreclosed.
The parties are correct that Martinez

- Castillo’s argument is foreclosed by Almendarez

- Torres

. See United States v. Wallace , 759 F.3d 486, 497 (5th Cir. 2014); United States v. Rojas

- Luna , 522 F.3d 502, 505

- 06 (5th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, see Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis , 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 ( 5th
Cir. 1 969), the Government’s alternative motion for an extension of time to
file a brief is DENIED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. Case: 20-50220 Document: 00515674330 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/15/2020
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51587

AVINASH RANGRA; ANNA MONCLOVA

Plaintiffs-Appellants

vs.

FRANK D. BROWN, District Attorney; GREG ABBOTT, Texas Attorney

General

Defendants-Appellees

- - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court for the

Western District of Texas

- - - - -

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING EN BANC

(Opinion April 24, 2009, 5 Cir., 2009, _____F.3d____)

(July 27, 2009)

BEFORE: JONES, Chief Judge, KING, JOLLY, DAVIS, SMITH, WIENER,

BARKSDALE, GARZA, BENAVIDES, STEWART, DENNIS, CLEMENT,

PRADO, OWEN, ELROD, SOUTHWICK and HAYNES, Circuit

Judges.

BY THE COURT:

A member of the court having requested a poll on the

petitions for rehearing en banc, and a majority of the circuit

judges in regular active service and not disqualified having

voted in favor,

It is ordered that this cause shall be reheard by the court

en banc with oral argument on a date hereafter to be fixed. The

Clerk will specify a briefing schedule for the filing of

supplemental briefs.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

July 27, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 16,036.

#### City of Bedford *v.*Green.

Filed February 15, 1893.

From the Lawrence Circuit Court.

*M. F. Dunn*and *R. N. Palmer,*for appellant.

*J. H. Willard, N. Crooke*and *M. Owen,*for appellee.

Olds, J.

This case presents the same question, and none other, than that presented in the case of the *City of Bedford*v. *Willard,*133 Ind. 562, in relation to the statute of limitation, in which case an opinion has been written and handed down, fully considering and deciding the question. On the authority of the opinion in that case the judgment in this case is affirmed.
11680.

#### Stanley *v.*Cowart.

Decided March 8, 1921.

Trover; from Clinch superior court — Judge Summerall. June 12, 1920.

*8. Burhhalter, E. H. Williams,*for plaintiff in error.

*W. T. Diclcerson,*contra.

Luke, J.

Upon conflicting evidence, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff; the verdict has the approval of the trial judge, and, the only assignment of error being that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, it was not error to overrule the motion for a new trial.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, O. J., and Bloodworth, J., concur.*
EXHIBIT 11
                               ALLTEL CORPORATION
                 STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                      (Millions, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
        For the Years Ended December 31,                       2000         1999         1998         1997         1996
        --------------------------------                       ----         ----         ----         ----         ----
        <S>                                                  <C>           <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
        Net income applicable to common shares
           before cumulative effect of
           accounting change                               $1,965.3       $782.7       $601.9       $651.2       $405.4
        Adjustments for convertible securities:
           Preferred stocks                                     0.1          0.2          0.2          0.2          0.2
                                                           --------       ------       ------       ------       ------
        Net income applicable to common shares,
           assuming conversion of above securities         $1,965.4       $782.9       $602.1       $651.4       $405.6
                                                           ========       ======       ======       ======       ======


        Weighted average common shares
           outstanding for the year                           314.4        312.8        305.3        307.9        308.2
        Increase in shares that would result from:
           Exercise of stock options                            2.4          3.6          2.6          1.5          1.3
           Conversion of convertible preferred stocks           0.4          0.4          0.5          0.5          0.6
                                                           --------       ------       ------       ------       ------
        Weighted average common shares,
           assuming conversion of above securities            317.2        316.8        308.4        309.9        310.0
                                                           ========       ======       ======       ======       ======

        Earnings per share of common stock:

             Basic                                            $6.25        $2.50        $1.97        $2.12        $1.32
                                                           ========       ======       ======       ======       ======

             Diluted                                          $6.20        $2.47        $1.95        $2.10        $1.31
                                                           ========       ======       ======       ======       ======

</TABLE>
**Exhibit 21.01**

**LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF KANA SOFTWARE, INC.**

BROADBASE SOFTWARE, INC. (US) 

BROADBASE SOFTWARE GmbH (GERMANY) 

FOUNDATION CV (NETHERLANDS, RESIDENT IN BARBADOS)

KANA COMMUNICATIONS EUROPE LTD (UK) 

KANA COMMUNICATIONS PTY LTD. (AUSTRALIA) 

KANA SOFTWARE AB (SWEDEN) 

KANA SOFTWARE AUSTRIA GmbH (AUSTRIA) 

KANA SOFTWARE B.V. (NETHERLANDS) 

KANA SOFTWARE HONG KONG LIMITED (HONG KONG) 

KANA SOFTWARE BVBA (BELGIUM) 

KANA SOFTWARE CANADA LTD. (CANADA) 

KANA SOFTWARE GmbH (GERMANY) 

KANA SOFTWARE INDIA (INDIA) 

KANA SOFTWARE INTERNATIONAL LTD. (CAYMAN ISLANDS) 

KANA SOFTWARE KK (JAPAN) 

KANA SOFTWARE KOREA LTD. (KOREA) 

KANA SOFTWARE LTD. (UK) 

KANA SOFTWARE PTE LTD. (SINGAPORE) 

KANA SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGY, INC. (US)
Exhibit 10.55






Exhibit 10.55


EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT
Second Amendment
SECOND AMENDMENT, dated as of January 1, 2015 (“Second Amendment”) to the EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT, dated as of January 1, 2012, and previously  amended as of January 1, 2014, between Advance Auto Parts, Inc. (“Advance” or the “Company”), a Delaware corporation, and Jimmie L. Wade (the “Employee”) (the “Agreement”).
The Company and the Employee agree as follows:
1.    Amendment of Section 3(a) of the Agreement.    Effective January 1, 2015, Section 3(a) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following is inserted in lieu thereof:  
3.    Compensation.
(a)    Base Salary.  During the Employment Term, the Company shall pay to the Employee a salary of $185,000 per annum, payable consistent with the Company’s standard payroll practices in effect (“Base Salary”).  
2.    Amendment of Section 3(d) of the Agreement.    Effective January 1, 2015, Section 3(d) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following is inserted in lieu thereof:


3.    Compensation.


(d)    Equity Awards. During the Employment Term, the Employee shall be awarded an annual equity grant under the Company’s 2014 Long-Term Incentive Plan, as amended (“2014 LTIP”), comprised of time-vesting restricted stock or restricted stock units with an estimated value of at least $125,000 at the time of the equity grant.




3.    Full Force and Effect.   Except for those terms and provisions amended herein, all other terms and conditions in the Agreement shall remain unchanged and in full force and effect. 


[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]









IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and Employee have executed this Second Amendment as of the date first written above.
	
	
	Advance Auto Parts, Inc.

	By:___________________________(SEAL)

	

Print Name:__________________________


Title:________________________________


Address:_____________________________


_____________________________________






	
	
	Employee

	

Print Name: Jimmie L. Wade


Signature:____________________________


Address:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                   1.00
<CASH>                                          10,620
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,451
<ALLOWANCES>                                       160
<INVENTORY>                                      9,397
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,700
<PP&E>                                          14,587
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,813
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,789
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,170
<BONDS>                                          5,058
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            77
<OTHER-SE>                                      24,728
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,789
<SALES>                                         49,870
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                49,870
<CGS>                                           30,236
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   30,236
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,448
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 325
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,650
<INCOME-TAX>                                       797
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,853
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,853
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.27
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.27


</TABLE>