alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
N OTICE OF A PPEARANCE OF C OUNSEL FOR A PPELLEE P AGE 1 NO. 03-15-00656-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF TEXAS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

FRANCES GRAHAM,

APPELLANT ,

v.

LNV CORPORATION,

APPELLEE

.

Appeal from the Justice Court, Precinct 3, Place 1

Travis County, Texas Trial Court Case No. C-1-CV-15-005910 Hon. Eric Shepperd, presiding

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:

Please take notice that the undersigned and the law firm of Mackie Wolf

Zientz & Mann, P.C., hereby appear as counsel for Appellee LNV

CORPORATION and request all notices given or required to be given in this case,

and all papers served or required to be served in this case, including, without

limitation, notices and any orders, applications, complaints, demands, hearings,

motions, petitions, pleadings or requests, and any other documents brought before ACCEPTED 03-15-00656-CV 7512336 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS 10/23/2015 11:03:30 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERKN OTICE OF A PPEARANCE OF C OUNSEL FOR A PPELLEE P AGE 2

this Court in this case, whether formal or informal , whether written or oral, and

whether transmitted or conveyed by mail, telephone, facsimile or otherwise be

served upon the undersigned attorney at the followi ng address:

Mark D. Cronenwett MACKIE WOLF ZIENTZ & MANN, P.C. 14160 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 900 Dallas, Texas 75254 Telephone: (214) 635-2650 Facsimile: (214) 635-2686 mcronenwett@mwzmlaw.com

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Mark D. Cronenwett MARK D. CRONENWETT Texas Bar No. 00787303 mcronenwett@mwzmlaw.com
MACKIE WOLF ZIENTZ & MANN, PC 14160 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 900 Dallas, Texas 75254 (214) 635-2650 (214) 635-2686 (Fax)

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE LNV CORPORATIONN OTICE OF A PPEARANCE OF C OUNSEL FOR A PPELLEE P AGE 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 23 rd day of October, 2015, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via U.S. mail to the pa rty listed below:

Frances Graham 2405 Crownspoint Drive Austin, Texas 78748

/s/ Mark D. Cronenwett________ MARK D. CRONENWETT
Economic reasons ................................................................................ 8,874 2,245 6,629 8,744 2,183 6,561

 Slack work or business conditions ...................................................... 6,174 2,004 4,170 6,087 1,962 4,126

 Could only find part-time work ............................................................ 2,375 – 2,375 2,358 – 2,358

 Seasonal work .................................................................................... 207 123 84 184 107 77

 Job started or ended during week ...................................................... 118 118 – 115 115 –

Noneconomic reasons .......................................................................... 26,223 7,972 18,251 25,761 7,850 17,911

 Child-care problems ........................................................................... 800 61 739 793 61 732

 Other family or personal obligations ................................................... 4,634 623 4,010 4,562 613 3,949

 Health or medical limitations ............................................................... 737 – 737 722 – 722

 In school or training ............................................................................ 5,470 70 5,400 5,412 70 5,342

 Retired or Social Security limit on earnings ........................................ 2,184 – 2,184 2,074 – 2,074

 Vacation or personal day .................................................................... 3,395 3,395 – 3,351 3,351 –

 Holiday, legal or religious ................................................................... 854 854 – 849 849 –

 Weather-related curtailment ............................................................... 656 656 – 627 627 –

 All other reasons ................................................................................. 7,493 2,312 5,180 7,370 2,280 5,091

Average hours:

Economic reasons .............................................................................. 22.5 23.5 22.1 22.5 23.5 22.1

Other reasons ..................................................................................... 21.3 24.9 19.7 21.4 25.0 19.8

 NOTE: Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data. Dash indicates no data or data that do not meet publication

criteria.

36
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of Newcourt Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, McIvan Jarrett, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(1) The Annual Report fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and



(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.



|                           
|---------------------------
|/s/ McIvan Jarrett         
|McIvan Jarrett             
|Chief Executive Officer and
|Chief Financial Officer    



May 12, 2004
Ex 10.55 Form of Notice of Grant of Restricted Stock Under 2012 Stock Plan






Exhibit 10.55


ZELTIQ AESTHETICS, INC.
NOTICE OF GRANT OF RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD




ZELTIQ Aesthetics, Inc. (the “Company”) has granted to the Participant an award (the “Award”) of certain shares pursuant to the ZELTIQ Aesthetics, Inc. 2012 Stock Plan (the “Plan”), each of which represents the right to receive on the applicable Settlement Date one (1) share of Stock, as follows:


	
					
	Participant:
	 
	Employee ID:
	 

	Date of Grant:
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Total Number of Shares:
	 
	, subject to adjustment as provided by the Restricted Stock Award Agreement.

	Fair Market Value Per Share:
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Vesting Commencement Date:
	 
	 
	 
	 

	Vested Shares:
	Except as provided in the Restricted Stock Award Agreement and provided that the Participant's Service has not terminated prior to the applicable date, the number of Vested Shares (disregarding any resulting fractional shares) as of any date is determined by multiplying the Total Number of Shares by the “Vested Ratio” determined as of such date, as follows:

	 
	 
	Vested Ratio

	 
	Prior to first anniversary of Vesting Commencement Date
	—

	 
	On first anniversary of Vesting Commencement Date (the “Initial Vesting Date”) 
	 

	 
	Plus
	 

	 
	For each additional full year of the Participant's Service from the Initial Vesting Date until the Vested Ratio equals 1/1, an additional
	




	Superseding Agreement:
	[None] [Title and Date of Employment Agreement]

	 
	The terms and conditions of the Superseding Agreement shall, notwithstanding any provision of the Restricted Stock Award Agreement to the contrary, supersede any inconsistent term or condition set forth in the Restricted Stock Award Agreement to the extent intended by such Superseding Agreement.




By their signatures below or by electronic acceptance or authentication in a form authorized by the Company, the Company and the Participant agree that the Award is governed by this Grant Notice and by the provisions of the Plan and the Restricted Stock Award Agreement, both of which are made a part of this document.  The Participant represents that the Participant has read and is familiar with the provisions of the Plan and Restricted Stock Award Agreement, and hereby accepts the Award subject to all of their terms and conditions.


	
				
	ZELTIQ AESTHETICS, INC.
	 
	PARTICIPANT

	 
	 
	 

	By:
	 
	 

	Mark.J Foley
President and Chief Executive Officer
	 
	Signature

	By:
	 
	 

	 Sergio Garcia
 Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary
	 
	Address

	 
	 
	 
	 

	 
	 
	 
	Date
**EXHIBIT        32.1**

**CERTIFICATION        PURSUANT TO**

**18        U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS        ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION        906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

| (1)   | The                  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or                  15(d) of                  the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                  and |
|-----------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (2)   | The                  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                  respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the                  Company. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                    |                                     |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                    | /s/ Dennis                C. Cossey |
|   | Dennis C. Cossey, Chairman and Chief                  Executive Officer |

----
#### Katherine Wylie et al., Appellants, v Brooks/Eckerd Pharmacy et al., Respondents.

[855 NYS2d 180]

*534The plaintiff Katherine Wylie (hereinafter the plaintiff) allegedly was injured when she slipped and fell on ice on a sidewalk adjacent to the premises leased and operated by the defendant Brooks/Eckerd Pharmacy (hereinafter Eckerd) and owned by the defendant Mid-State Management Corp. (hereinafter Mid-State). The plaintiff and her husband commenced this action against Eckerd and Mid-State. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted those branches of Eckerd' s motion and Mid-State’s cross motion which were for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them. We affirm the order insofar as appealed from.

Eckerd and Mid-State established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by demonstrating that they neither created nor had actual or constructive notice of the alleged icy condition that caused the plaintiffs fall *(see Voss v D&C Parking,*299 AD2d 346 [2002]; *Carricato v Jefferson Val. Mall Ltd. Partnership,*299 AD2d 444 [2002]; *DeVivo v Sparago,*287 AD2d 535 [2001]). The evidence showed, among other things, that the subject accident occurred at 9:15 a.m., approximately one hour after the store opened, and that the store manager had not previously observed any ice on the sidewalk. Moreover, the defendants tendered meteorological evidence showing that, on the day before the accident, the weather had been rainy and mild. In fact, the temperature remained above freezing until approximately 6:00 a.m. on the morning of the accident. Consequently, Eckerd and Mid-State established, prima facie, that the alleged icy condition had not existed for a sufficient length of time such that they should be charged with notice of it.

In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Their contention that the ice was a long-standing condition that should have been readily observed by the store’s employees *535prior to opening was purely speculative and, therefore, insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact (see *Bonney v City of New York,*41 AD3d 404 [2007]; *Katz v Pathmark Stores, Inc.,*19 AD3d 371, 372 [2005]; *Carricato v Jefferson Val. Mall Ltd. Partnership,*299 AD2d at 444-445). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the defendants.

In light of our determination, we need not address the defendants’ remaining contentions. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Covello and Eng, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the quarterly report of ThermoEnergy Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report"), I,
Arthur S. Reynolds, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best
of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date:  November
16, 2009




By:
                  /s/ Arthur S. ReynoldsName:
      Arthur S. ReynoldsTitle:
      Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1


                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Bruce  Caldwell,  certify to the best of my knowledge,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002,  that the Annual Report of ESSXsport Corp. a Nevada  corporation,  on Form
10-KSB for the year ended August 31, 2001 fully  complies with the  requirements
of  Section  13(a)  or  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and that
information  contained  in such Annual  Report  fairly  presents in all material
respects the financial condition and results of operations of ESSXsport Corp.

The  undersigned  further  certifies that all previous  filings are accurate and
fairly represent the company's financial picture and fully comply.


July 28, 2003               By: /s/ Bruce Caldwell
                                ----------------------------------
                            Name:  Bruce Caldwell
                            Title: President, Chief Executive Officer
                                   and Chief Financial Officer
Deny Writ and Opinion Filed June 28, 2013 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00782-CV 

IN RE CHARLES JONES, Relator 

On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court 

Grayson County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CV-12-2015 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, Francis, and Lewis 

Opinion by Justice Francis 

Relator contends the trial judge erred in granting a petition for bill of review. The facts 

and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. Based on the 

record before us, we conclude relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief requested. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. 

proceeding). Accordingly, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

130782F.P05 

/Molly Francis/ 

MOLLY FRANCIS 

JUSTICE
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Keith T. Armstrong, Appellant.

[853 NYS2d 219]

Lathinen, J.

Defendant was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated as a felony and violating the terms of his probation. During the subsequent proceedings, County Court ordered— upon request of defense counsel and with the consent of the People—that defendant undergo a competency examination *(see*CPL art 730). Following the completion of one psychiatric examination in which defendant was found competent, defendant entered into a deal whereby he admitted that he violated his probation, pleaded guilty to the crime of driving while intoxicated as a felony and was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant initially argues that it was error not to have him examined by two psychiatric examiners as required by the relevant statute *(see*CPL 730.20 [1]). It is well established that a defendant is presumed competent, a court is under no obligation to order a competency examination absent reasonable cause to believe a defendant may be an incapacitated person, and the decision whether to order such an examination rests within the court’s discretion *(see People v Morgan,*87 NY2d 878, 879-880 [1995]; *People v Williams, 35*AD3d 1273, 1274 [2006], *lv denied 8*NY3d 928 [2007]). However, once a court directs a competency examination, the two-examination requirement must be fulfilled and an intervening plea does not provide a ground to waive that requirement *(see People v Armlin,*37 NY2d 167, 171-172 [1975]; *People v Mulholland,*129 AD2d 857, 858 [1987]). In some situations where the two-examination requirement is not satisfied but one contemporaneous examination occurred, a reconstruction hearing as to defendant’s mental capacity has been found to be feasible *(see People v Armlin,*37 NY2d at 172-173; *People v*
      *961
      *Mulholland,*129 AD2d at 858; *People v Graham,*127 AD2d 443, 445-446 [1987]; *but cf. People v Hasenflue,*48 AD3d 888 [2008] [holding that where no contemporaneous psychiatric examination or evaluation has been conducted reconstruction is not possible and thus reversal required]). In this case, however, the report of the one examination that was conducted is cursory and wholly conclusory, and the record fails to otherwise reveal that a meaningful reconstruction hearing could be conducted *(cf. People v Mulholland,*129 AD2d at 859). Reversal is thus required.

The remaining arguments are academic.

Cardona, P.J., Carpinello, Kane and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgments are reversed, on the law, plea vacated and matter remitted to the County Court of Essex County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.
Chart 6-7. Families allocated about one-third of their total 

spending to housing and about one-fifth to transportation in 

2004

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics

9.9

11.6

5.2

5.8

18.5

4.3

31.2

13.5

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Other expenditures

Personal insurance and pensions

Entertainment

Health care

Transportation

Apparel and services

Housing

Food

Percent of total expenditures

Expenditure category

Chart 6-7. Families allocated about one-third of their total 

spending to housing and about one-fifth to transportation in 

2004

• Families are defined here as consumer units of two or more persons. These 

consumer units are traditionally-defined families or unrelated individuals who 

make joint expenditure decisions.

• Food was the third largest component in total spending. About 14 cents of 

every expenditure dollar was allocated to food.

• In 2004, the largest over-the-year increase among the major components of 

spending occurred in personal insurance and pensions.
907 A.2d 1010

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. TYRONE BROWN, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

September 21, 2006.

ORDERED that the petition for certification is granted, limited solely to the sentencing issue raised by defendant, and the matter is summarily remanded to the trial court for resentencing in light of *State v. Natale,*184 *N.J.*458, 878 A.2d 724 (2005).
# 18SNR06_00

# image1.png
EXHIBIT 32.2
                        COLLECTIBLE CONCEPTS GROUP, INC.
      CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
                TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Collectible  Concepts  Group,  Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-KSB for the period ended February 28, 2005 as filed with the
Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  Report),  I, Paul
Lipschutz,  Principal Financial Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

      (1) The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2) The  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to Collectible Concepts Group, Inc. and will be retained by Collectible
Concepts Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or
its staff upon request.

Date:  December 16, 2005


 /s/ Paul Lipschutz
---------------------------
Paul Lipschutz
Principal Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices 

# Order

March 8, 2011

140735(100) 140738(100)

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff/ Counter-Defendant/Appellee,

v SC: 140735 COA: 277574 Mason CC: 05-000436-CZ FERWERDA ENTERPRISE S, INC., d/b/a HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS LUDINGTON, Defendant/ Counter-Plaintiff/Appellant,

and

DARYL BRONKEMA, Next Friend of JACKSON THOMAS BRONKEMA, CALEB ANDREW BRONKEMA and SAVANNAH JOY BRONKEMA, and DARYL BRONKEMA, Individually, and MELISSA BRONKEMA, Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff/ Counter-Defendant/Appellee,

v SC: 140738 COA: 277574 Mason CC: 05-000436-CZ FERWERDA ENTERPRISE S, INC., d/b/a HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS LUDINGTON, Defendant/ Counter-Plaintiff/Appellee,

and

DARYL BRONKEMA, Next Friend of JACKSON THOMAS BRONKEMA, CALEB ANDREW BRONKEMA andI, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk March 8, 2011

d0228 2

SAVANNAH JOY BRONKEMA, and DARYL BRONKEMA, Individually, and MELISSA BRONKEMA, Defendants-Appellants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the motion for re consideration of this Court’s October 27, 2010 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was entered erroneously.