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

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

PHILLIP FRIAS,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 3

- 00 325

- C R

Appeal from the

171 st District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 20130D03266 )

O R D E R

The Court has considered the Appellant’s motion to accept the previously filed record on

appeal and c oncludes that the motion should be GRANTED. The clerk’s record (1 volume) filed

on February 25, 2014, the reporter’s record (10 volumes) filed on July 9, 2014 and the

supplemental clerk’s record (1 volume) filed on February 4, 2015 , in cause number 08

- 1 4

-

00 014

- CR, will be filed in the above styled and n umbered cause. The Appellant’s brief is now

due on or before April 15, 2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 6 th day of March , 20 1 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., Rodriguez and Palafox , JJ.
Exhibit
31.1
 CERTIFICATION
 
 
 I,
William H. Armstrong III, certify that:
  1.
    I
      have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Stratus Properties
      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 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, or caused such disclosure
      controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an
      annual report) 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 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 over financial reporting which are
      reasonably likely to 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 control
      over financial reporting.
  Date: May
13, 2005
 
 
 /s/
William H. Armstrong III
 William
H. Armstrong III
 Chairman
of the Board, President
 and Chief
Executive Officer
|   | (i)    | the      Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of      Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities      Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 78o(d));  and |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                        |
|   | (ii)   | the      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of      the Issuer.                                  |

| Dated:      February 9, 2010 |                                              |
|------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------|
|                         | /s/      Robert L. Kanode                         |
|                         | Robert      L. KanodeChief      Executive Officer |
Securities and Exchange Commission 

 

RE:	Saturna Investment Trust, File #33-13247

 

April 3, 2007

 

Ladies and Gentlemen:

On behalf of the referenced Trust and pursuant to Rule 497 (j), we wish to  certify that the form of the recently filed Prospectus and Statement of Additional  Information for CIK #0000811860, Saturna Investment Trust, that would have been  filed under Rule 497 paragraph (b) or (c) would not have differed from that  contained in the most recent registration or amendment, and that the text has  been filed electronically.

If you have any questions or comments concerning this filing, kindly contact  me at (360) 594-9900 x303.
#### EAST TENNESSEE TEL. CO. v. MOORE.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 9, 1903.)

No. 1,147.

In Error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Curtin & Haynes, for plaintiff in error. Williams & Bowman, for defendant in error.

Dismissed.
#### In the Matter of George Lamb, Petitioner, v Brian S. Fischer, as Commissioner of Correctional Services, et al., *1120Respondents.

[856 NYS2d 894]

Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a tier III disciplinary determination which found him guilty of counterfeiting and possession of stolen property. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination in issue has been administratively reversed and all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record. Thus, because petitioner has been afforded all of the relief to which he is entitled, this matter is now dismissed as moot *(see Matter of Lewis v Goord,*43 AD3d 1240 [2007]).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Kane and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Eliseo CRUZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-12443

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Dec. 14, 2012.

Timothy M. Cole, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Kathleen Mary Salyer, Anne Ruth Schultz, *895U.S. Attorney’s Office, Miami, FL, for Petitioner-Appellee.

Robert N. Berube, Robin J. Farnsworth, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Fort Lauderdale, FL, Michael Caruso, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Miami, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Elíseo Cruz, Folkston, GA, pro se.

Before HULL, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Robin J. Farnsworth, on behalf of Michael Caruso, Interim Federal Public Defender and appointed counsel for Elíseo Cruz, has filed a motion to withdraw on appeal, supported by a brief prepared pursuant to *Anders v. California,*886 U.S. 788, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Cruz’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

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

**AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO**

## **SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

## ** **

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Great Lakes Dredge & DockCorporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30,2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof(the “Report”), I, Deborah A. Wensel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

 

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

 

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

 

 
| /s/ Deborah A. Wensel        |   |
|------------------------------|--------|
| Deborah A. Wensel            |
| Chief Financial Officer      |
| Date: November 11, 2005 |

 

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appearsin typed form within the electronic version of this written statement requiredby Section 906, has been provided to Great Lakes Dredge & DockCorporation and will be retained by Great Lakes Dredge & DockCorporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

 

1

----
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 11





                          ELITE INFORMATION GROUP, INC.
                        COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)
                                   (Unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                  Three months ended
                                                                March 31,     March 31,
                                                                  2001          2000
                                                                ---------     --------
<S>                                                               <C>          <C>
Net income (loss)                                                 $ (303)      $  437
                                                                  ======       ======

Basic earnings per share:

    Weighted average common shares outstanding                     8,059        8,492
                                                                  ======       ======

    Net income (loss) per common share                            $(0.04)      $ 0.05
                                                                  ======       ======


Diluted earnings per share:

    Weighted average common shares outstanding                     8,059        8,492

    Addition from assumed exercise of stock options                 --            261
                                                                  ------       ------
    Weighted average common and common equivalent
        shares outstanding                                         8,059        8,753
                                                                  ======       ======

    Net income (loss) per common and common equivalent share      $(0.04)      $ 0.05
                                                                  ======       ======
</TABLE>
1 The Honorable G. Thomas Eisele, United St ates District Judge for the Eastern District of Arkansas. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 05-3160

___________ Lillie J. Williams, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Arkansas. Des Arc City Police Department; * Mayhar, Des Arc Police Department; * [UNPUBLISHED] Burnett, Des Arc Police Department, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: July 13, 2006 Filed: July 17, 2006

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

___________ PER CURIAM. Lillie Williams appeals the district court’s 1 dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. After de novo review, seeSpringdale Educ. Ass’ n v. Springdale Sch. Dist. , 133 F.3d 649, 651 (8th Cir. 1998), we conclude that the dismissal was proper. Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
<PAGE>   1
                         Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc.

                                   Exhibit 11


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                 Three Months Ended
                                                          March 31, 1997     March 31, 1996
                                                          --------------     --------------
<S>                                                       <C>                <C>      
Weighted average common shares outstanding                  16,640,887         5,197,072

Effect of preferred stock - assumed converted
   at date of issuance                                              --         5,776,819

Weighted average common stock equivalent shares
   resulting from stock options and warrants                        --                --

Effect of common and common stock equivalent
   shares issued by the Company during the twelve
   month period immediately preceding the Company's
   initial public offering in October 1996 (using the
    treasury stock method)                                          --         3,281,412
                                                           -----------       -----------
Shares used to compute net loss per share                   16,640,887        14,255,303
                                                           ===========       =========== 
Net loss                                                  ($ 3,793,455)     ($ 1,369,623)
                                                           ===========       =========== 
Net loss per share (pro forma in 1996)                        ($  0.23)         ($  0.10)
                                                           ===========       =========== 

</TABLE>
H. Res. 15

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

January 8, 2003.

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it

shall be in order without intervention of any point of order

to consider in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1)

making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

2003, and for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be

considered as read for amendment. The previous question

shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final

passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of

debate on the joint resolution equally divided and controlled

by Representative Young of Florida and Representative Obey

of Wisconsin; and (2) one motion to recommit.

SEC. 2. Upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be

in order without intervention of any point of order to consider

in the House the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 2) making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2003, and

for other purposes. The joint resolution shall be considered

as read for amendment. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint resolution to final passage
2

•HRES 15 EH

without intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate on

the joint resolution equally divided and controlled by Representative Young of Florida and Representative Obey of

Wisconsin; and (2) one motion to recommit.

Attest:

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 993 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 993

       To provide for civil monetary penalties in certain cases.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 2003

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas (for himself, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. Norwood, Mr. 
 McKeon, Mr. Carter, and Mrs. Musgrave) introduced the following bill; 
   which was referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To provide for civil monetary penalties in certain cases.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Labor Management Accountability 
Act''.

SEC. 2. CIVIL MONETARY PENALTIES.

    Title VI of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 
1959 (29 U.S.C. 521) is amended--
            (1) by redesignating section 611 as section 612; and
            (2) by inserting after section 610 the following:

``SEC. 611. CIVIL MONEY PENALTIES.

    ``(a) In General.--The Secretary, upon finding a violation of 
either section 201(a), 201(b), 202, 203, or 301 of this Act, may 
require the person, labor organization, or employer responsible for 
such violation to pay a civil money penalty in an amount determined 
under a schedule of penalties which is established and published by the 
Secretary and which takes into account the nature of the violation 
involved, the revenues of, and the existence of previous violations of 
the Act by, the person, labor organization, or employer involved, and 
such other factors as the Secretary considers appropriate.
    ``(b) Notice.--The Secretary may not make any determination adverse 
to a person, labor organization, or employer under subsection (a) until 
such person or entity has been given written notice and an opportunity 
to be heard before the Secretary or designee. Procedures for such 
notice, opportunity to be heard, decision and review shall be as set 
forth in sections 208 and 606. Requests for review shall be filed in 
Federal district court not later than 30 days of the receipt of an 
adverse determination.''.
                                 <all>
```
**REPORT of****INDEPENDENTCERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

To the Shareowners and Board of Trustees  Idaho Tax-Exempt Fund  We have audited the accompanying statement of assets and liabilities of the  Idaho Tax-Exempt Fund, a series of shares of the Saturna Investment Trust,including  the schedules of investments as of November 30, 2003, and the relatedstatements  of operations for the year then ended, the changes in net assets for each of  the two years then ended, and the financial highlights for the five years then  ended. These financial statements and financial highlights are theresponsibility  of the Trust's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion  on these financial statements and financial highlights based on our audits.  We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generallyaccepted in the United States of America.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtainreasonable  assurance about whether the financial statements and financial highlights are  free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis,  evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements.  Our procedures included confirmation of securities owned as of November 30,  2003, by correspondence with the custodian and broker. Our audit also includesassessing  the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management,  as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe  that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.   In our opinion the financial statements and financial highlights referred to  above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position ofIdaho  Tax-Exempt Fund as of November 30, 2003, the results of its operations for the  year then ended, the changes in net assets for each of the two years thenended,  and the financial highlights for each of the five years then ended, inconformity  with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
 /s/ signature    Tait, Weller & Baker
January 8, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT

DENNIS T. JAMES, AN INDIVIDUAL, ROBIN JAMES, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND DENNIS T. JAMES AND ROBIN JAMES, AS HUSBAND AND WIFE, Petitioners

v. PIER L. CHIARADIA, AN INDIVIDUAL, AND COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, AND PENNSYLVANIA STATE POLICE, Respondents : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : No. 446 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 4th day of February, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED

.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.35

                    AMENDMENT NO. 1 to EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

                                 KEITH B. HALL

         THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1 to EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into
as of the 19th day of February 1998 by and between BROADWAY & SEYMOUR, INC.
("Employer") and KEITH B. HALL ("Employee") and amends and modifies the
Employment Agreement dated May 29, 1997 (the "Agreement") by and among Employer
and Employee. Capitalized terms used herein and not defined shall have the
meanings ascribed to such terms in the Agreement.

1.       Section 2 shall be amended by deleting the phrase "one-year terms" and
         replacing it with the phrase "two-year terms" and by deleting the
         phrase "90 days" and replacing it with the phrase "180 days."

2.       Section 5(c)(i) shall be amended by deleting subsections (A) and (B)
         and replacing them with the following:

         "two times (A) Employee's annual Base Salary as in effect immediately
         prior to the date of such event, and (B) the aggregate amount of cash
         bonuses paid to Employee in respect of the most recent fiscal year (or
         in the event of a termination prior to a bonus being paid for 1998,
         $50,000)."

3.       Section 5(e) shall be amended by adding the following at the end
         thereof:

         "; provided, however, that for a two-year period following such
         termination Employee shall continue as an employee of Employer for all
         purposes (including without limitation Employer's benefits plans and
         Employer's 1996 Stock Option Plan) and Employer shall pay to Employee
         any portion of Employee's Base Salary (as in effect immediately prior
         to such termination) not paid by the disability insurance carrier(s)
         then providing coverage for Employer's executive officers."

4.       Section 7 shall be amended by deleting the colon and adding the
         following to the end of the introductory phrase:

         "and for a period of two years following termination of employment
         hereunder:"

5.       Except as hereby amended, the Agreement shall remain in full force and
         effect.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as the
date first above written.


BROADWAY & SEYMOUR, INC.


By: /s/ Lillian N. Wilson                    /s/ Keith B. Hall
    ------------------------------           -----------------------------
        Lillian N. Wilson                        Keith B. Hall
        Vice President