alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Statement of Chairman Richard A. Lidinsky, Jr. Regarding Consolidated Chassis Management Pool Agreement Amendment","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"4SMGPyTkA1\"><a href=\"\/statement-of-chairman-richard-a-lidinsky-jr-regarding-consolidated-chassis-management-pool-agreement-amendment\/\">Statement of Chairman Richard A. Lidinsky, Jr. Regarding Consolidated Chassis Management Pool Agreement Amendment<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/statement-of-chairman-richard-a-lidinsky-jr-regarding-consolidated-chassis-management-pool-agreement-amendment\/embed\/#?secret=4SMGPyTkA1\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Statement of Chairman Richard A. Lidinsky, Jr. Regarding Consolidated Chassis Management Pool Agreement Amendment” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"4SMGPyTkA1\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
770 S.E.2d 398

#### Re DESIGNATION OF INTERIM CHIEF MAGISTRATE IN CHESTER COUNTY.

Supreme Court of South Carolina.

March 26, 2015.

ORDER

I FIND THAT Chester County Chief Magistrate Dianne H. Moore retired on February 28, 2015, requiring the interim appointment of a Chief Magistrate in that county. Therefore, pursuant to the provisions of Section 4, Article V, South Carolina Constitution,

IT IS ORDERED that Judge Yale Zamore be designated as Interim Chief Judge for Administrative Purposes of the Summary Courts for Chester County and his authority shall include, but not be limited to, the administrative purposes and acts set forth in my Order dated December 22, 2014, designating Chief Judges statewide.

The authority conferred on the Interim Chief Judge for Administrative Purposes of the Summary Courts for Chester County by this Order shall become effective immediately and shall continue through June 30, 2015, unless changed or revoked by Order of the Chief Justice.

/s/Jean H. Toal, C.J.

FOR THE COURT
# U n i t e d S t a t e s C o u r t o f A pp e a l s For the Eig hth Circu it

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No . 1 9 -1 3 86

_ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ceci l W . Pro ct o r ll l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l lPl a in t i

f f - Ap p el l an t
v . Dr. St ev en Fo l t z, M i ll er Co u n t y Det en ti o n Cen ter; Nu rs e Ki n g, HeadNu rs e, M i l l er Co u nt y Det en t i on Cen t er l l l l l l ll l l l l l l l l l l l l lDef

en d a n t s - Ap p el l ees

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Ap p eal fro m

Un i t edSt at es Di s t ri ctCo u rt fo r t h e W es t ern Di s t ri cto f Ark an s as - Tex ark an a

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Subm i t t ed : No v em

b er 7 , 2 0 1 9 Fi l ed : No v em

b er 1 3 , 2 01 9 [Unpub l is h ed ]

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ Befo re GRUENDER, W OLLM AN, an d KOBES, Ci rcu i tJ u dg es .

_ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ PER CURIAM
.I n t h i s 4 2 U.S.C. § 1 98 3 act i o n , in m at e Ceci l W
. Pro ct o r ap p eal s t h e d i s t ri ct

co u rt ’ s 1 ad v ers e g ran t o f s u m m ary ju d g m en t
. Vi ewi n g t h e ev i d en ce an d d rawi n g al l reas on ab l e i n ferenc e s in Pro ct o r’ s fav o r, s ee Fau l kn er v. Do u g l as Ct y ., Neb ., 9 0 6 F.3 d 7 2 8 , 7 3 2 (8 t h Ci r. 2 01 8 ) (d e n o v o rev i ew), we ag ree wi t h t h e d i s t r i c t co u rt t h at d efen d an t s were en t i t l ed t o s u m m ary ju d g m en t
. Th e ju dg m en t i s affi rm ed
. See 8 th Ci r. R. 4 7 B.

__ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _

1 Th e Ho n o rab l e Su s an O
. Hi ck ey , Ch i ef J u dg e, Un i t ed St at es Di s t ri ct Co u rt fo r t h e W es t ern Di s t ri cto f Ark an s as . -2
-
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AUGUST 25, 2022

NO. 03

- 21

- 00086

- CV

Texas Mutual Insurance Company , Appellant

v.

Hofer Builders, Inc. and Hartford Underwriters Insurance Company , Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 353R D DIS TRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND SMITH
REVERSED AND RENDERED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the t r i a l court on January 22, 2021. Having

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error in

the court’s judgment . Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s judgment and renders

judgment declar ing th at T exas Mutual Insurance Company is not l iable t o Hof er B uilders, Inc. or

Hartfor d Underwriters Insurance Company for the Lou isiana w orkers ’ c ompen sat ion ben efits

paid to David Hope

. The appell ee s sha ll pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court

and in the court below.
{"id":5270,"date":"2020-12-07T10:10:55","date_gmt":"2020-12-07T14:10:55","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=5270"},"modified":"2020-12-07T10:24:35","modified_gmt":"2020-12-07T14:24:35","slug":"user-fees","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"\/user-fees\/","title":{"rendered":"FMC User Fees Scheduled to Be Revised in January"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The Federal Maritime Commission is <a href=\"https:\/\/www2.fmc.gov\/readingroom\/proceeding\/20-18\/\">updating the fees it charges for services<\/a>, effective January 27, 2021 barring further action or significant adverse comments.<\/p>\n<p>Comments regarding this rule must be filed with the Commission by December 14, 2020.<\/p>\n<p>This change is pursuant to Office of Management and Budget directives applying to all Executive Branch agencies and was published by the Commission as a Direct Final Rule on November 13, 2020.<\/p>\n<p>A list of the fees can be found on the Commission\u2019s website and will be updated on January 27, 2021.\u00a0 Fees can be paid electronically through the Commission\u2019s website or by check.<\/p>\n<p>The Commission is required to review, and adjust accordingly, its fees on a biennial basis.\u00a0 Fees were last adjusted in 2018.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Federal Maritime Commission is updating the fees it charges for services, effective January 27, 2021 barring further action or significant adverse comments. Comments regarding this rule must be filed with the Commission by December 14, 2020. This change is pursuant to Office of Management and Budget directives applying to... <a class=\"read-more\" href=\"\/user-fees\/\">Read More »<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":14,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[4],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5270"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/14"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5270"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5270\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":5274,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5270\/revisions\/5274"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5270"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5270"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5270"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, B. Michael Adler, President and Chief Executive Officer of WorldQuestNetworks, Inc. certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form10-QSB of WorldQuest Networks, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;and 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of,and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Iare responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
a. Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared; b. Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report basedon such evaluation; and c. Disclosed in this report any change inthe registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscalquarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and
5. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and Ihave disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditorsand the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent function):
a. All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and b. Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting.       Date: May 14, 2004      By: /s/ B. Michael Adler      B. Michael Adler
#### Nicholas B. GARCIA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert K. WONG, Acting Warden of California State Prison-Solano, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 09-15221.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Nov. 16, 2010.*

Filed Nov. 22, 2010.

*183James V. Weixel, Jr., Weixel Law Office, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.

Andrew R. Woodrow, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Before: TASHIMA, BERZON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Nicholas B. Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition as untimely. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253,1 and we affirm.

Garcia contends that he is entitled to equitable or statutory tolling because prison officials withheld his legal documents from him. Even assuming this alleged deprivation was an “extraordinary circumstance,” Garcia is not entitled to equitable tolling because he failed to demonstrate that this circumstance caused the untimely filing of his petition. *See Bryant v. Schriro,*499 F.3d 1056, 1061 (9th Cir.2007). Lack of causation also defeats his entitlement to statutory tolling. *Id.*at 1060.

Because the facts alleged by Garcia do not warrant equitable tolling, the district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Garcia an evidentiary hearing. *See Tapia v. Roe,*189 F.3d 1052, 1058 (9th Cir.1999).

Garcia’s motion for change of venue upon remand is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

1

. After this court's decision in *Hayward v. Marshall,*603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir.2010) (en banc), Garcia moved the court for issuance of a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the district court properly dismissed his habeas petition as untimely. We grant Garcia's motion and certify this issue for appeal. We also certify for appeal the issue of whether the district court abused its discretion by declining to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding Garcia's entitlement to equitable tolling.
**EXHIBIT      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO 18 USC, SECTION 1350, **

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906**

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

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

| (b) | Information                contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,                the                financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                  |                                   |                                  |
|---------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
| Dated:                August 21, 2006 |                                   | /s/                Shannon T. Squyres |
|                                  | By:                Shannon T. Squyres  |
|                                  | Chief                Executive Officer |

----
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Federal Maritime Commission","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov","author_name":"Catie-Megan Moran","author_url":"https:\/\/www.fmc.gov\/author\/cmoranfmc-gov\/","title":"Applicants April 10, 2023","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"lukOZtTcPy\"><a href=\"\/oti\/applicants-april-10-2023\/\">Applicants April 10, 2023<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"\/oti\/applicants-april-10-2023\/embed\/#?secret=lukOZtTcPy\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Applicants April 10, 2023” — Federal Maritime Commission\" data-secret=\"lukOZtTcPy\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(c,l){\"use strict\";var e=!1,o=!1;if(l.querySelector)if(c.addEventListener)e=!0;if(c.wp=c.wp||{},c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage);else if(c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if(!t);else if(!(t.secret||t.message||t.value));else if(\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret));else{for(var r,s,a,i=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),n=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=0;o<n.length;o++)n[o].style.display=\"none\";for(o=0;o<i.length;o++)if(r=i[o],e.source!==r.contentWindow);else{if(r.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message){if(1e3<(s=parseInt(t.value,10)))s=1e3;else if(~~s<200)s=200;r.height=s}if(\"link\"===t.message)if(s=l.createElement(\"a\"),a=l.createElement(\"a\"),s.href=r.getAttribute(\"src\"),a.href=t.value,a.host===s.host)if(l.activeElement===r)c.top.location.href=t.value}}},e)c.addEventListener(\"message\",c.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",t,!1),c.addEventListener(\"load\",t,!1);function t(){if(o);else{o=!0;for(var e,t,r,s=-1!==navigator.appVersion.indexOf(\"MSIE 10\"),a=!!navigator.userAgent.match(\/Trident.*rv:11\\.\/),i=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),n=0;n<i.length;n++){if(!(r=(t=i[n]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\")))r=Math.random().toString(36).substr(2,10),t.src+=\"#?secret=\"+r,t.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",r);if(s||a)(e=t.cloneNode(!0)).removeAttribute(\"security\"),t.parentNode.replaceChild(e,t);t.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:r},\"*\")}}}}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
M A N D A T E

THE STATE OF TEXAS

TO THE 131ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of Texas on May 1, 2013, the cause upon appeal to revise or

reverse your judgment between

Construction Financial Services, Inc., Appellant

V.

Chicago Title Insurance Company, Appellee

No. 04-12-00375-CV and Tr. Ct. No. 2010-CI-11173

was determined, and therein our said Court of Appeals made its order in these words:

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s

summary judgment in favor of Chicago Title Insurance Company is

AFFIRMED as to Construction Financial Services Inc.’s claims for breach of

fiduciary duty and breach of contract; the trial court’s summary judgment in

favor of Chicago Title Insurance Company is REVERSED as to Construction

Financial Services Inc.’s claims for negligence and violation of the Texas

Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and those claims are REMANDED for further

proceedings consistent with this court’s opinion.

It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals for the Fourth

District of Texas, in this behalf and in all things have the order duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS the Hon. Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth District of

Texas, with the seal of the Court affixed and the City of San Antonio on October 19, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
BILL OF COSTS

TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, FOURTH DISTRICT, AT SAN ANTONIO

No. 04-12-00375-CV

Construction Financial Services, Inc.

v.

Chicago Title Insurance Company

(NO. 2010-CI-11173 IN 131ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF BEXAR COUNTY)

TYPE OF FEE CHARGES PAID BY

FEES FOR SHIPPING CASES TO

S.C. OR CCA

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

MOTION FEE

SUPREME COURT CHAPTER 51

FEE

FILING

INDIGENT

$25.00

$15.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$10.00

$50.00

$100.00

$25.00

PAID

E-PAID

E-PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

PAID

FIDELITY NATIONAL LAW GROUP

FEDELITY NATIONAL TITLE

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE

GOLDEN LAW

ROCKY MOUNTAIN SUPPORT SERVICES

GOLDEN LAW

GOLDEN LAW

GOLDEN LAW

GOLDEN LAW

Balance of costs owing to the Fourth Court of Appeals, San Antonio, Texas: 0.00

Court costs in this cause shall be paid as per the Judgment issued by this Court.

I, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK OF THE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF

TEXAS, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct copy of the cost bill of

THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS, showing the charges and

payments, in the above numbered and styled cause, as the same appears of record in this office.

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, witness my hand and the Seal of the COURT OF APPEALS for

the Fourth District of Texas, this October 19, 2015.

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
#### Kathryn Paige JAGGERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 06-2324.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Feb. 20, 2008.

Decided: May 7, 2008.

Chalmers C. Johnson, Chalmers Johnson Law Firm, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin P. Glass, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kathryn Paige Jaggers appeals the district court’s order denying relief in this action alleging wrongful termination in violation of public policy, a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and other claims related to her employment with Odyssey Healthcare, Inc. We have reviewed the materials before us and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Jaggers v. Odyssey Healthcare, Inc.,*No. 2:05-cv-03385-DCN (D.S.C. Nov. 15, 2006). 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.*
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-15-00070-CR

Jose Barbontin Salas

v.

The State Of Texas

On Appeal from the

24th District Court of De Witt County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 14-05-11,997

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

August 31, 2015