alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

Honorable T. Id. First Amlatsnt hastIn, Texarn



### aer8tion 8aa opbion g2wt1y 

### 6ppreul8taa.'Honorable T. 1. Trlmble, page 2

and 

### thmshea, it Is put in 8 warehouse, either at D-be-, Llverpoo1. Alvin, or Pearlaad, ana held until1 the Buyellsmaketheir rounds. Hearly 811 of the 1942 orop Is being held ln the Warehouse for better primes. “Heneed this moneyfor our Sohool Budget, and I amquite murm there 

### was more than

~‘?~~;OWA~~vorth of z%oein the Uvip ware-

. Hay~I ask that you get a ruling IZYSIthmAttorney General, and ii It Is mmmemsable, the Board oan so lnmtruot the Ammommor. t?7gzrLgou8 

### andwith 

### verybest 

### vlmhem, kg

You ask for advloe am to who-r or not the Alaa Independent Sahool Dimt~lct map legally ammemm for sob01 plwpommm mn ad ralorem tax on rlee 

### mt0na ln vmnho\umm lwated therein. Seotlon 19 of the atat Constitution adopted in 1879 

### reads am follovst

"Fara produotm in the hrnds oi 

### t& producaer, ,andfmily supplies for homeaad farm ~~ use, are exempttram all taxatloa until other

### viseaireotea 

### by a 

### tvo-thlrdm vote 

### of all thm mambmrm l

leot to both ~opmom of the Leglmlature. & seo. lg. Art. 8, aaopted l 3o otlen

first ~IOSr in Be tember, lW9; proola8atlon Omtobmr 14, 18’rg.p” Thm Leglmlatuxw ham never br tvo-thirds vote of all membersof both hournealiaposed a tax on iala pmauoh In the l.wxSm of the producer. 

### ThisprOlrlmion or the 

### &ximtitution 18 still in full forae 

### ma offeot.

You are, therefore, Pmmpeothlly mavised 

### that rloe, ovned w the producers thereof, stonil 

### in varmhmumem In the Alvin Independent Sahool Distplet 

### Is still ‘3.8 the hands of the proaueer,’ vlthin the me- of the above quoted seation OS the Conmtltutlon, and not mubject to taxation. This conmtltutlonal exemption horn taxation 

### would not apply to rlae that ha8 pa8sea out OS the ha8 o? the produoer by male or othervlme, for It fmexemptonly in the hands of the protlwer.Eottoxublr 2. Y. Trlmblo, ?w. S
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 ofBig Cat
Energy Corporation(the "Company") on Form
10-Q/A1 for the period end of October 31, 2008as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the
"report"), I, Timothy
Barritt, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





Dated
this 4th day of
May, 2009.








TIMOTHY
BARRITT


Timothy
Barritt


President
and Chief Executive Officer
### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN

NO. 03-0 7 -00 670 -CR NO. 03-07-00671- CR

Cha r le s Le ona r d M ye r s , A ppe lla nt

v . The State of Texas, App ellee

FR OM T HE C OU N T Y C OU R T A T L A W N O. 4 OF T R A V IS C OU N T Y NOS . 7257 84 & 72578 6 , HO NORAB LE MIK E DENTON , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D UMO P I N I O N
On Octobe r 22, 2007, the Clerk rec eived Charles L eonar d My ers’ s pro se “ motions to appea l” convictions in ca use numbers 725784 a

n d 7 2 5 7 8 6 . Treating the motions as notices of ap p eal, the Cler

k notified the trial cour

t clerk. SeeT e x. R. Ap p . P. 2 5
. 2 ( c ) ( 1 )
. We h av e been informed by

the cler k that in cause number 725784, Myers wa s convicted of violating a

protec tive order followinga plea o f no conte st. Sentence of 180 day s in jail was imposed on November

13, 2006. Cause number 725786 was di s m i s s ed on the State’ s motion on November

13, 2006. Mye rs ’s no tic e of

a pp e a l f ro m th e c onvic tio n in

c a us e numbe r 725 78 4 wa s n ot t ime ly filed. SeeTex. R. App. P . 26.2(a) (1). We lac k jurisdiction to dis pose of the purported appea l in any
manner other than by

dismiss ing i t fo r wa nt of jurisdiction. Sla ton v . S tate , 981 S.W .2d 2082

(T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 98 ); Ol iv o v. Sta te , 91 8 S.W. 2d 51 9, 52 2- 23 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 96 ). Th e re is nothing to appe al in cause number 725786. Ac cording ly , the appe als are dismiss ed.

__________________________________________ David Pury ear , J ustice Be fore J ustices Patterson, Pury ear and Pember

ton Dismissed for Want of J urisdiction Filed: January

9, 2008 Do No t Pu

bli sh
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-10565

Conference Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Phouphet Sayasane, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 2:18-CR-95-1

Before Jones, Clement, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Phouphet Sayasane has 

moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders 

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 

(5th Cir. 2011). Sayasane has filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 12, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-10565 Document: 00515778060 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/12/2021
No. 20-10565

2

brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein, as well as 

Sayasane’s response. 

Sayasane alleges, among other things, that his counsel was ineffective. 

We have previously determined that such claims “should not be litigated on 

direct appeal, unless they were previously presented to the trial court. It is 

only in rare cases in which the record allows a reviewing court to fairly 

evaluate the merits of the claim that we will consider such a claim.” United 

States v. Isgar, 739 F.3d 829, 841 (5th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks 

and footnotes omitted). We conclude that this is not such a “rare” case, so 

we offer no opinion on whether such a claim would be successful on collateral 

review.

We concur with counsel’s remaining assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for direct appellate review. Accordingly, 

counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused 

from further responsibilities herein, and the appeal is DISMISSED. See

5th Cir. R. 42.2. Sayasane’s pro se motion for appointment of new 

counsel is DENIED as untimely. See United States v. Wagner, 158 F.3d 901, 

902-03 (5th Cir. 1998).

Case: 20-10565 Document: 00515778060 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/12/2021
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jonathan J. Connolly, Appellant.

[988 NYS2d 791]

Appeal from an order of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), dated April 4, 2013. The order determined that the Erie Insurance Company is entitled to restitution of $31,796.69 from defendant.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order of restitution that was entered following a hearing. On a prior appeal, we concluded that County Court erred in delegating its responsibility to conduct the restitution hearing to a judicial hearing officer (JHO) *(People v Connolly,*100 AD3d 1419, 1419 [2012]). We therefore modified the order by vacating the amount of restitution ordered, and we remitted the matter to County Court for a new hearing to determine the amount of restitution *{id.).*Defendant contends for the first time on this appeal that the court was divested of jurisdiction in this matter on remittal as a result of the delay in imposing restitution and thus failed to preserve that contention for our review *(see People v Marshall,*228 AD2d 15, 17-18 [1997], *lv denied*89 NY2d 1013 [1997]). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice *(see*CPL 470.15 [3] [c]). Defendant further contends that the hearing on remittal was inadequate because the only evidence presented by the People consisted of the transcript and exhibits from the hearing previously conducted by the JHO in December 2009. We reject that contention. “Despite the court’s error in delegating its responsibility to the [JHO] in [December 2009], we nevertheless conclude that the transcript of the sworn testimony of the [witnesses] taken [over three] years earlier, which was subject to cross-examination, [together with the exhibits admitted during that hearing,] constitutes ‘relevant evidence’ . . . [that] may be received ‘regardless of its admissibility under the exclusionary rules of evidence’ ” *(People v Williams,*114 AD3d 1140, 1140 [2014], quoting CPL 400.30 [4]). We further conclude that, contrary to defendant’s contention, the court properly relied upon that evidence in determining that the People established the out-of-pocket losses of the insurance company by the requisite *1450preponderance of the evidence *(see id.; see generally People v Tzitzikalakis,*8 NY3d 217, 221-222 [2007]).

Present—Scudder, EJ., Fahey, Carni, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2426

ROBERT EDWARD THORNTON, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versusSUSAN KING MARTIN, Social Security Administration; JANE L. WARREN, Social Security Administration; D. F. BILLETT, Administrative Law Judge, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (CA-01-2388-6-22BC) Submitted: January 28, 2002 Decided: February 7, 2002 Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Edward Thornton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Robert Edward Thornton, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his civil action alleging that the Appellees improperly handled his social security case. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We find that the action is most properly construed as oneunder Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971). As noted by the district court, Thornton does not specify any claim against the Appellees other than that they improperly handled his application for socialsecurity benefits and improperly evaluated him. Even if we liberally construe his complaint to allege due process violations, we find that Thornton fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Bivens . See Schweiker v. Chilicky , 487 U.S. 412, 428-29 (1988).Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TE XAS

N O

. P D

- 0 2 5 8

- 1 1

M I C H A E L A N G E L O B E R B E R , A p p e l l a n t

v .

T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S

O N R E H E A R I N G O F A P P E L L A N T ’ S P E T I T I O N F O R D I S C R E T I O N A R Y R E V I E W F R O M T H E T W E L F T H C O U R T O F A P P E A L S

T R I N I T Y C O U N T Y

P e r c u r i a m .

O P I N I O N

A p p e l l a n t w a s c o n v i c t e d o f m u r d e r a n d s e n t e n c e d t o c o n f i n e m e n t f

o r l i f e

. T h e

C o u r t o f A p p e a l s a f

f i r m e d t h e c o n v i c t i o n

. B e r b e r v

. S t a t e , ( T e x

. A p p

. — T y l e r , N o

. 1 2

-

1 0

- 0 0 0 4 1

- C R , d e l i v e r e d J a n u a r y 1 2 , 2 0 1 1 )

. A p p e l l a n t ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w

w a s d i s m i s s e d a s u n t i m e l y f i l e d o n J u n e 2 2 , 2 0 1 1

. A p p e l l a n t h a s f i l e d a m o t i o n f

o r

r e h e a r i n g r e q u e s t i n g r e i n s t a t e m e n t o f h i s p e t i t i o n s o t h a t i t w i l l b e c o n s i d e r e d b y t h i sBe rber - 2

C o u r t

. A p p e l l a n t ’ s m o t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g i s g r a n t e d

. H i s p e t i t i o n f i l e d i n t h i s C o u r t o n

J u n e 1 5 , 2 0 1 1 , i s r e i n s t a t e d a s o f A u g u s t 2 4 , 2 0 1 1 , a n d w i l l b e c o n s i d e r e d i n a c c o r d w i t h

T e x

. R

. A p p

. P

. 6 8

. A p p e l l a n t m u s t f i l e c o p i e s o f h i s p e t i t i o n f o r d i s c r e t i o n a r y r e v i e w w i t h

t h i s C o u r t w i t h i n 1 4 d a y s o f t h e d a t e o f t h i s o p i n i o n

. S e e T e x

. R

. A p p

. P

. 9

. 3 ( b )

.

D e l i v e r e d A u g u s t 2 4 , 2 0 1 1 D o n o t p u b l i s h
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

I, Harley L. Rollins, III, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Annual Report of eLandia International Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2009, 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 Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of eLandia International Inc.



|                     |  |     |  |                           
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | --------------------------
|Date: April 15, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ Harley L. Rollins, III
|                     |  |     |  | Harley L. Rollins, III    
|                     |  |     |  | Chief Financial Officer
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 Big Cat Energy Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Qfor the period end of October 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date here of (the "report"), I, Richard G. Stifel, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Dated this 11th day of December, 2009.





RICHARD G. STIFELRichard G. StifelChief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of CurrencySharesSMCanadian Dollar Trust (the Trust) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Kevin Farragher, Chief Executive Officer of Rydex Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Trust, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and

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

Date: January 14, 2009



|                             
|-----------------------------
|/s/ KEVIN FARRAGHER          
|Kevin Farragher*             
|Chief Executive Officer      
|(principal executive officer)



|* | The Registrant is a trust and Kevin Farragher is signing in his capacity as the principal executive officer of Rydex
Specialized Products LLC, the Sponsor of the Registrant.
|- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 18

- 00614

- CV Dennis BUXTON and Son Chu Buxton, Appellants

v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and Reed Whiting, Appellees From the 224th Judicial District Court , Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2016

- CI

- 20679 Honorable Rosie Alvarado , Judge Presiding Opinion by: Beth Watkins , Justice Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Beth Watkins , Justice Delivered and Filed: Augu st 26, 2020 MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; APPEAL DISMISSED On August 29, 20 18, appellants Dennis and Son Chu Buxton filed a notice of appeal, seeking to appeal the trial court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of appellee United Services Automobile Association. On March 4, 2019, we abated the appeal pending the Texas Supreme Court’s decision in Ortiz v. State Farm Lloyds , Cause Number 17

- 1048. After the supreme court issued opinions in Ortiz and Barbara Technologies Corp. v. State Farm Lloyds , Cause Number 17

- 0640, on June 28, 2019, and denied rehearing in both causes on December 13, 2019, we reinstated the appeal . B oth parties submitted supplemental briefing on the impact of the04

- 18

- 00614

- CV

- 2

- supreme court’s opinions , and this case wa s formally set for submission on briefs on March 25,
2020. On August 10, 2020, the Buxtons filed a voluntary motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 42.1(a)(1) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. After consideration, we grant the motion and order all costs to be borne by the Buxtons. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(a)(1), (d) (stating absent agreement of parties, court will tax costs against appellant). Beth Watkins , Justice
---

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERAND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350

In connection with the accompanying quarterly report on Form
  10-Q of EWRX Internet Systems for the quarter ending June 30, 2009, I, Jessica
  Q. Wang, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of EWRX Internet
  Systems hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
  to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge
  and belief, that:

|1. | Such quarterly report of Form 10-Q for the quarter ending
        June 30, 2009, 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 such quarterly report of Form
        10-Q for the quarter ending June 30, 2009, fairly represents in all material
        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of EWRX Internet
        Systems.

Date: August 14, 2009

EWRX Internet Systems

By:    /s/ Jessica Q. Wang
         Jessica Q. Wang
         Chief Executive Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer

---
JOHN HOLLAND

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 0134

____________ _____________/

Opinion filed July 2, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County

. Ross Goodman , Judge

.

John Holland, pro se

, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Lauren L. Brudnicki, Assistant Attorney

General, Tallahassee

, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

THOMAS, RAY, and OSTERHAUS, JJ., CONCUR.
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3587 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to reduce the interval for 

the issuance of benefits. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 16, 2009 

Mr. SCHAUER (for himself, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. HARE, Mr. KILDEE, Ms. 

DEGETTE, Mr. SPRATT, Mr. COURTNEY, Mr. GUTIERREZ, and Mr. 

LEWIS of Georgia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Agriculture 

A BILL 

To amend the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 to reduce 

the interval for the issuance of benefits. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Nutritious Food for 

5 Health Families Act of 2009’’. 

6 SEC. 2. AMENDMENT. 

7 Section 7(g)(2)(A)(ii) of the Food and Nutrition Act 

8 of 2008 (7 U.S.C. 2016(g)(2)(A)(ii)) is amended by strik9 ing ‘‘40’’ and inserting ‘‘17’’. 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 3587 IH

1 SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT. 

2 (a) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Except as provided in sub3 section (b), this Act and the amendments made by this 

4 Act shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enact5 ment of this Act. 

6 (b) APPLICATION OF AMENDMENT.—The amendment 

7 made by this Act shall not apply with respect to certifi8 cation periods that begin before the effective date of this 

9 Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
Unassociated Document


    
      


      PROMISSORY
        NOTE

      TO

      MRS.
        PHYLLIS L. BELL

      


      


      
        	
                $40,000.00

              	
                March
                  17, 2005

              


      

      


      


      For
        value
        received, STAF*TEK SERVICES, INC., of Tulsa, Oklahoma, (herein referred to
        as
‘maker’) promises to pay to the order of PHYLLIS L. BELL, (herein referred to as
        ‘payee’) on or before April 1, 2005. the principal sum of Forty Thousand and
        No/100 Dollars ($40,000.00) plus $250.00.

      


      Payment
        of this note shall be as follows: One lump sum payment of $40,000.00 plus
        $250.00 interest.

      


      Maker
        may
        prepay this note in whole or in part without penalty or surcharge at any
        time
        prior to the maturity date.

      


      The
        maker
        hereby severally waives presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment, protest
        and notice to protest, and aggress that extensions of the time for payment
        may
        be granted without notice. In case of legal proceedings to collect this note,
        maker agrees to pay all court costs including reasonable attorneys’ fees to
        payee as prevailing parties in the suit.

      


      IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is signed the 17th
        day of
        March, 2005.

      


      


      
        	
                /s/
                  Shelia Hobens

              	 	
                /s/
                  John H. Simmons

              
	
                [notary
                  stamp]

              	 	
                John
                  H. Simmons, President, C.E.O.

              
	 	 	
                Staf*Tek
                  Services, Inc.

              
	 	 	
                4870
                  S. Lewis St., Ste. 250

              
	 	 	
                Tulsa,
                  Oklahoma 74105