alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-23-00472-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

IN RE PRESTON J. DUGAS III AND 

DUGAS & CIRCELLI, PLLC F/K/A PJD LAW FIRM, PLLC

 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Silva and Peña

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Silva1

Relators Preston J. Dugas III and Dugas & Circelli, PLLC f/k/a PJD Law Firm, 

PLLC, filed a petition for writ of mandamus through which they seek to compel the trial 

court to vacate an October 19, 2023 order which enforced a rule 11 agreement, and “if 

necessary,” or alternatively, vacate one portion of a December 3, 2020 order which 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 

47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

required the interpleader of contested funds. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 11, 43.

Mandamus is an extraordinary and discretionary remedy. See In re Allstate Indem. 

Co., 622 S.W.3d 870, 883 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re Garza, 544 S.W.3d 836, 

840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 

S.W.3d 124, 138 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). The relator must show that (1) the trial 

court abused its discretion, and (2) the relator lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. In re 

USAA Gen. Indem. Co., 624 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding); In re 

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 135–36; Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Mandamus relief is also appropriate when a trial 

court issues an order “beyond its jurisdiction” because the order is void ab initio. In re 

Panchakarla, 602 S.W.3d 536, 539 (Tex. 2020) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (quoting 

In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam)).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, 

the response filed by South Wind Public Adjusters Inc., and the applicable law, is of the 

opinion that relators have not met their burden to obtain relief. Accordingly, we deny the 

petition for writ of mandamus.

CLARISSA SILVA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

30th day of November, 2023.
# Official Journal C 118/26 M

| | ISSN 1725-2423 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 118 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5026 May 2007 |

ISSN 1725-2423

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 118

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5026 May 2007

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | IV   Notices |
| | NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES |
| 2007/C 118/01 | Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 97/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 May 1997 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning pressure equipment
  (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive)
   (1) | 1 |

Notice No

Contents

page

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM MEMBER STATES

2007/C 118/01

Commission communication in the framework of the implementation of the Directive 97/23/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 May 1997 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States concerning pressure equipment
  (Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive)
   (1)

(Publication of titles and references of harmonised standards under the Directive)

1

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
§ 630.104 Applicability. ( a ) This subpart is applicable to all Federal-aid projects unless specifically exempted.
( b ) Other projects which involve special procedures are to be approved, or authorized as set out in the implementing instructions or regulations for those projects.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: NOMINATION

PETITION OF: WILLIAM PARKER AS

CANDIDATE FOR THE DEMOCRATIC

NOMINATION FOR UNITED STATES

SENATOR OBJECTION OF: JUDITH ANN GOLDING BAKER, ELAINE PETROSSIAN,

AND ALEXANDER ROSE

APPEAL OF: WILLIAM PARKER :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 7 WAP 2024

Appeal from the Order entered March 4, 2023 of the Commonwealth

Court at No. 109 MD 2024

O RDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW

, this 1 8th day of March , 2024

, the order of the Commonwealth Court is

AFFIRMED

.

The Appellant’s Re ply B rief, filed on March 14, 2024 without leave of this court,

was not considered in deciding this appeal. Appellant’s Motion for Leave to Amend

Appellant’s Reply Brief, filed March 15, 2024, is DENIED AS MOOT

.
Order entered April 2 2 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05 - 15 - 01393 - CV DOUGLAS B. CLARK III , ET AL., Appellant s

V. DEBORAH NEWMAN, ET A L., Appellee s On Appeal from the 162nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 15 - 00924



### O RDER We GRANT the parties’ April 19, 2016 joint motion to extend briefing deadlines and ORDER appellants’ brief be filed by May 30, 2016 and appellees’ brief be filed by June 29, 2016

. /s/ CRAIG STODDART JUSTIC E
§ 752.11 Federal participation. ( a ) Federal-aid highway funds, but generally excluding Interstate construction funds, are available for landscape development; for the acquisition and development of safety rest areas, scenic overlooks, and scenic lands; for the development of information centers and systems; and for the removal of abandoned motor vehicles.
( b ) Federal-aid highway funds may participate in any landscaping project undertaken pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section provided that at least one-quarter of one percent of funds expended for such landscaping project is used to plant native wildflower seeds or seedlings or both. The Administrator may, upon the request of a State highway agency, grant a waiver to this requirement provided the State certifies that: ( 1 ) Native wildflowers or seedlings cannot be grown satisfactorily; or
( 2 ) There is a scarcity of available planting areas; or
( 3 ) The available planting areas will be used for agricultural purposes.
( c ) Subject to the requirement of paragraph (b) of this section, Federal-aid highway funds may participate in plant establishment periods in or associated with landscape development.
( d ) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b) of this section, Federal-aid highway funds may participate in the planting of flowering materials, including native wildflowers, donated by garden clubs and other organizations or individuals.
( e ) The value of donated plant materials shall not count toward the one-quarter of one percent minimum expenditure required by paragraph (b) of this section.
( f ) Federal-aid funds may not be used for assemblage, printing, or distribution of information materials; for temporary or portable information facilities; or for installation, operation, or maintenance of vending machines.
[52 FR 34638, Sept. 14, 1987]
§ 33.10 Default upon failure to file an answer. ( a ) If the defendant does not file an answer within the time prescribed in § 33.9(a), the reviewing official may refer the complaint to the ALJ.
( b ) Upon the referral of the complaint, the ALJ shall promptly serve on defendant in the manner prescribed in § 33.8, a notice that an initial decision will be issued under this section.
( c ) The ALJ shall assume the facts alleged in the complaint to be true and, if those facts establish liability under § 33.3, the ALJ shall issue an initial decision imposing the maximum amount of penalties and assessments allowed under the statute.
( d ) Except as otherwise provided in this section, by failing to file a timely answer the defendant waives any right to further review of the penalties and assessments imposed under paragraph (c) of this section, and the initial decision becomes final and binding upon the parties 30 days after it is issued.
( e ) If, before such an initial decision becomes final, the defendant files a motion with the ALJ seeking to reopen on the grounds that extraordinary circumstances prevented the defendant from filing an answer, the initial decision must be stayed pending the ALJ's decision on the motion.
( f ) If, on such a motion, the defendant can demonstrate extraordinary circumstances excusing the failure to file a timely answer, the ALJ shall withdraw the initial decision under paragraph (c) of this section, if such a decision has been issued, and shall grant the defendant an opportunity to answer the complaint.
( g ) A decision of the ALJ denying a defendant's motion under paragraph (e) of this section is not subject to reconsideration under § 33.38.
( h ) The defendant may appeal to the Department head the decision denying a motion to reopen by filing a notice of appeal with the Department head within 15 days after the ALJ denies the motion. The timely filing of a notice of appeal stays the initial decision until the Department head decides the issue.
( i ) If the defendant files a timely notice of appeal with the Department head, the ALJ shall forward the record of the proceeding to the Department head.
( j ) The Department head decides expeditiously whether extraordinary circumstances excuse the defendant's failure to file a timely answer based solely on the record before the ALJ.
( k ) If the Department head decides that extraordinary circumstances excuse the defendant's failure to file a timely answer, the Department head remands the case to the ALJ with instructions to grant the defendant an opportunity to answer.
( l ) If the Department head decides that the defendant's failure to file a timely answer is not excused, the Department head reinstates the initial decision of the ALJ, which becomes final and binding upon the parties 30 days after the Department head issues that decision.
(Authority: 31 U.S.C. 3809)
§ 700.15 Records in exempt systems of records. ( a ) *Law-enforcement records exempted under subsections (j)(2) and (k)(2).* Before denying a request by an individual for access to a law-enforcement record that has been exempted from access pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2), the Office must review the requested record to determine whether information in the record has been used or is being used to deny the individual any right, privilege, or benefit for which he would otherwise be eligible or to which he would otherwise be entitled under federal law. If so, the Office shall notify the requester of the existence of the record and disclose such information to the requester, except to the extent that the information would identify a confidential source. In cases when disclosure of information in a law-enforcement record could reasonably be expected to identify a confidential source, the record shall not be disclosed to the requester unless the Office is able to delete from such information all material that would identify the confidential source.
( b ) *Employee background investigations.* When a requester requests access to a record pertaining to a background investigation and the record has been exempted from access pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(5), the record shall not be disclosed to the requester unless the Office is able to delete from such record all information that would identify a confidential source.
___________________________________

Janet M. Meiburger, VA Bar No. 31842

The Meiburger Law Firm, P.C.

1493 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 201

McLean, VA 22101

(703) 556-7871

Proposed Counsel for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

__________________________________________

IN RE: )

)

LINDA MARIE CARTER ) Case No. 18-10427-BFK

) Chapter 7

)

Debtor )

__________________________________________)

)

JANET M. MEIBURGER, Trustee, )

)

Plaintiff )

)

v. ) Adv. Pro. No. 18-01054-BFK

)

RONALD B. CARTER )

)

Defendant )

_________________________________________ )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FOR SUMMONS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that I caused a true and correct copy of the Summons and Notice in 

an Adversary Proceeding, Complaint, Instructions for Preparing Exhibit List, and Initial 

Scheduling Order to be sent on May 7, 2018, by first-class mail, postage prepaid to:

Ronald B. Carter

43336 Vestals Place

Leesburg, VA 20176

Under penalty of perjury, I declare that the foregoing is true and correct.

Respectfully submitted,

THE MEIBURGER LAW FIRM, P.C.

Dated: May 7, 2018 By: /s/ Janet M. Meiburger

Janet M. Meiburger, VSB No. 31842 

The Meiburger Law Firm, P.C.

1493 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 201

McLean, VA 22101

Case 18-01054-BFK Doc 6 Filed 05/07/18 Entered 05/07/18 15:47:14 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 3
2

(703) 556-7871

Proposed Counsel for Plaintiff

Case 18-01054-BFK Doc 6 Filed 05/07/18 Entered 05/07/18 15:47:14 Desc Main

 Document Page 2 of 3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 7th day of May, 2018, a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

Certificate of Service for Summons and Related Documents will be served by ECF e-mail 

pursuant to the applicable Standing Order of the Court and by first-class mail, postage prepaid on 

the following:

Ronald B. Carter

43336 Vestals Place

Leesburg, VA 20176

/s/ Janet M. Meiburger

Janet M. Meiburger

J:\Trustee\Carter, Linda Marie (18-10427)\Adversary Proceeding\Pleadings\Certificate Regarding Summons.1.doc

Case 18-01054-BFK Doc 6 Filed 05/07/18 Entered 05/07/18 15:47:14 Desc Main

 Document Page 3 of 3
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****PEDSAFE: pedestrian safetyguide and countermeasure selection system /**
 
Cover
Tableof Contents
Chapters:01020304050607
Appendices
References
 
SuDoc Number:TD 2.30/13:04-003
Item Number:0982-G-11 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000815853
 
August 7, 2019
Exhibit 32.2
                            College Partnership, Inc.
                                  Certification


     In connection with the periodic report of College Partnership, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended October 31, 2003, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
John J. Grace, 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, to the best of my knowledge:

     (3) the Report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
     15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

     (4)  the  information  contained  in the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

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


Date: December 23, 2003             /s/ John J. Grace
                                    ---------------------------
                                    John J. Grace
                                    Chief Financial Officer
#### Fred C. Matteson, Trustee, et al., appellees, v. William B. Smith et al., appellants.

Filed May 22, 1901.

No. 9,625.

1. Deed: Delivery. A deed or other similar instrument placed in the hands of a third person for delivery to the grantee when he shall perform some condition, is not legally effective, but is *762a mere nullity, if delivered by the depositary, or obtained from him in any way, without full eomplanee with the condition specified.

2. Evidence: Escrow. Evidence examined, and found to warrant a judgment enjoining the registration of a mortgage-release claimed to have been delivered as an escrow.

Appeal from the district court for Olay county. Heard below before Hastings, J.

*Affirmed.*

*Hurd & Spanogle, Leslie 0-. Hurd*and *8. W. Christy,*for appellants.

*Thomas H. Matters, contra.*

Sullivan, J.

This action was instituted in the district court of Olay county by Fred 0. Matteson, trustee, and the Sutton National Bank to prevent the registration of a formal certificate acknowledging satisfaction of a real estate mortgage and for other relief. The plaintiffs obtained judgment below in accordance with the prayer of their petition and the case was then brought here for review by appeal. The one controlling question in the case is whether the delivery by Matteson to Schaeffle of a mortgage release was absolute or only conditional. This is a question of fact and not of law. The trial court found that the instrument was delivered as an escroAv and the finding is, in our opinion, fully sustained by the evidence. Authorities need not be cited to show that a deed placed in the hands of a third person for delivery to the grantee when he shall perform some condition, is not • legally effective, but is a mere nullity, if delivered by the depositary, or obtained from him in any way, without full compliance with the condition specified. The release in question was still-born and its registration was properly enjoined. The judgment is

Affirmed.
### Bedrock geology of the Penn Yan and Keuka Park quadrangles, New York

By: M.J. Bergin

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1161G

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf) 
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
§ 263.1 What is the Professional Development program? ( a ) The Professional Development program provides grants to eligible entities to— ( 1 ) Increase the number of qualified Indian individuals in professions that serve Indian students;
( 2 ) Provide pre- and in-service training and support to qualified Indian individuals to become effective teachers, principals, other school leaders, administrators, teacher aides, paraprofessionals, counselors, social workers, and specialized instructional support personnel;
( 3 ) Improve the skills of qualified Indian individuals who serve in the education field; and
( 4 ) Develop and implement initiatives to promote retention of effective teachers, principals, and school leaders who have a record of success in helping low-achieving Indian students improve their academic achievement, outcomes, and preparation for postsecondary education or employment.
( b ) The Professional Development program requires individuals who receive training to— ( 1 ) Perform work related to the training received under the program and that benefits Indian students in an LEA that serves a high proportion of Indian students, or to repay all or a prorated part of the assistance received under the program; and
( 2 ) Periodically report to the Secretary on the individual's compliance with the work requirement until work-related payback is complete or the individual has been referred for cash payback.
[80 FR 22412, Apr. 22, 2015, as amended at 85 FR 41376, July 10, 2020]
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 548

 538

 538

 535

 552

 560

 568

 564

 573

 579

 587

 583

 581

 572

 560

 568

 562

 549

 554

 557

 561

 571

 605

 568

 704

 659

 598

 679

 591

 623

 616

 448

 445

 452

 490

 497

 506

 520

 532

 534

 545

 549

 537

 527

 541

 535

 518

 515

 518

 520

 521

 515

 517

 534

 533

 534

 533

 521

 543

 524

 514

 514

 490

 491

 498

 515

 530

 539

 550

 546

 560

 566

 563

 557

 556

 555

 549

 545

 541

 536

 541

 540

 542

 546

 555

 545

 586

 582

 552

 596

 551

 556

 564

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

OCTOBER 2004 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: November 4, 2004

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

TDS

 319

 319

 324

 334

 344

 349

 356

 353

 362

 366

 364

 360

 360

 359

 355

 353

 350

 347

 350

 350

 351

 353

 359

 353

 378

 376

 357

 384

 357

 360

 365

TOTAL 16,943

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

DELTA MENDOTA CANAL AT CHECK 20