alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-14-00303-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

RICHARD BIANCHI, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

On Appeal from the 343rd District Court

of Aransas County, Texas.

NUMBER 13-14-00311-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE RICHARD BIANCHI

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus and

Petition for Writ of Prohibition and 
2

Emergency Motion for Relief.

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Perkes and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

On June 6, 2014, in cause number 13-14-00303-CV, the State of Texas, acting by 

and through Michael Welborn, the Aransas County District Attorney, filed its “State’s 

Response to Emergency Motions,” in which it requests that this Court lift, partially, lift, or 

clarify the stay currently in effect in this case. The State contends in part, that Richard 

Bianchi “may be replaced with a successor at any time the Aransas County 

Commissioner’s Court may choose to appoint one,” and thus the State requests that “to 

the extent that the present stay may arguably prevent or discourage such action, the State 

would request that this Court partially lift, or clarify, its order to allow for that possibility.”

This Court has issued two orders of stay concerning the underlying proceedings: 

an order issued on June 2, 2014 in appellate cause number 13-14-00303-CV, and an 

order issued on June 4, 2014 in appellate cause number 13-14-00311-CV. 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the State’s request, is of the 

opinion that it should be granted in part and carried with the case in part as stated herein. 

We GRANT the State’s request insofar as we issue this order of clarification in both 

appellate causes. The stay orders previously issued in these causes do not affect or 

impair the ability or duty of the Aransas County Commissioner’s Court with regard to any 

actions that would be encompassed in its normal course of business, including, but not 

limited to, any potential appointments. All other relief sought by the State is CARRIED 

WITH THE CASE. 
3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the

11th day of June, 2014.
#### Presidential Realty Corporation et al., Respondents, v Michael Square West, Ltd., et al., Appellants.

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, defendants appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated October 8, 1976, as amended by an order *920of the same court, dated October 20, 1976, which denied their motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction and (2) as limited by their brief, from so much of a further order of the same court, entered November 1, 1976, as, upon reargument, adhered to the prior determination. Appeal from the order dated October 8, 1976, as amended by the order dated October 20, 1976, dismissed as academic. That amended order was superseded by the order made on reargument. Order entered November 1, 1976 reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law, and, upon reargument, motion granted and complaint dismissed. Defendants-appellants are awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements to cover all appeals. Reversal is mandated upon the authority of *Aero-Bocker Knitting Mills v Allied Fabrics Corp.*(54 AD2d 647). Upon the argument of this appeal counsel for plaintiffs-respondents conceded that the determination made at Special Term cannot be sustained upon the theory that the defendants have an agent doing business for them in this State. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.
Subpart 522.1 - Basic Labor Policies 	  **Parent topic:** Part 522 - Application of Labor Laws to Government Acquisitions522.101 Labor relations. 	  522.101-1 General. 		    The Office of General Counsel (OGC) and the agency labor advisor shall— 			       				         					          (a)  Serve as the GSA points of contact on all contractor labor relations matters; 				         				         					          (b)  Initiate contact on contractor labor relations matters with national offices of labor organizations, Government departments, agencies or other governmental organizations. Contracting offices shall notify OGC and the agency labor advisor when they are contacted by such external organizations; 				         				         					          (c)  Serve as a clearinghouse for information on labor laws applicable to Government acquisitions; and 				         				         					          (d) Respond to questions involving FAR 22, Application of Labor Laws to Government Acquisitions, or other contractor labor relations matters concerning GSA acquisition programs. OGC determines the agency’s legal position.522.101-3 Reporting labor disputes. 		    Written reports of contractor labor disputes shall be submitted to the agency labor advisor as soon as the circumstances surrounding a labor dispute are identified. Include in the report a description of the following: the nature of the labor dispute; location of the dispute and contracts affected; the potential or actual impact of the dispute on GSA operations or programs; and any actions taken to reduce the impact. The agency labor advisor will notify other GSA contracting offices that may be affected, and will determine further actions to be taken.522.103 Overtime. 	  522.103-4 Approvals. 		    The contracting officer is the “agency approving official” under FAR 22.103-4.522.103-5 Contract clauses. 		    Insert the FAR clause at 52.222-1 in solicitations and contracts for DX rated orders under the Defense Priorities and Allocations System (see FAR subpart 11.6)
#### § 1508.360 What happens if I fail to disclose the information required under § 1508.355?

If we later determine that you failed to tell the person at the higher tier that you were excluded or disqualified at the time you entered into the covered transaction with that person, we may pursue any available remedies, including suspension and debarment.
#### Foreign Products Company, Inc., v. C. C. Mengel & Bro. Company.

Motion for stay pending appeal granted. Settle order on notice. Present Clarke, P. J., Laughlin, Dowling, Page and Merrell, JJ.
§ 242.818 Core Principle 1—Compliance with core principles. ( a ) *In general.* To be registered, and maintain registration, as a security-based swap execution facility, the security-based swap execution facility shall comply with the core principles described in section 3D of the Act, and any requirement that the Commission may impose by rule or regulation.
( b ) *Reasonable discretion of security-based swap execution facility.* Unless otherwise determined by the Commission, by rule or regulation, a security-based swap execution facility described in paragraph (a) of this section shall have reasonable discretion in establishing the manner in which it complies with the core principles described in section 3D of the Act.
#### ALT et al., Respondents, v. DOSCHER, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

March 24, 1905.)

Action by Charles Ait and Alexander S. Drescher against Claus Doscher. No opinion. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals granted.
§ 1006.615 How does the Inter-American Foundation notify a person of a suspension or debarment action? ( a ) The suspending or debarring official sends a written notice to the last known street address, facsimile number, or e-mail address of— ( 1 ) You or your identified counsel; or
( 2 ) Your agent for service of process, or any of your partners, officers, directors, owners, or joint venturers.
( b ) The notice is effective if sent to any of these persons.
###### Editorial Note on Part 201

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 201 appear at 62 FR 38027, July 16, 1997.

#### § 201.30 Purpose.

This subpart establishes the responsibilities of suppliers who furnish commodities and/or commodity-related services.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONATHAN W. GRIGSBY, 

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

ROBERT HOREL, et al., 

Defendant(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 08-1475 CRB (PR)

ORDER 

(Docket # 29)

On April 28, 2010, defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that plaintiff's complaint fails to state a

claim and that defendants are entitled to qualified immunity. They attached a

proposed order granting the motion, as required by the local rules.

On April 30, 2010, the clerk inadvertently stamp signed the proposed

order and filed it. The order (docket # 29) is VACATED and the clerk is

instructed to reopen this case.

Defendants' motion to dismiss is still pending. Plaintiff shall file an

opposition by no later than June 11, 2010, and defendants shall file a reply to any

opposition within 15 days of plaintiff's filing it.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 11, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

G:\PRO-SE\CRB\CR.08\Grigsby, J2.or1.wpd

Case 3:08-cv-01475-CRB Document 30 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 1
[File No. 6479.]

#### JOHN SOUTHALL, Appellant, v. O. B. QUAM, Respondent.

(277 N. W. 604.)

Opinion filed *February 7,*1938.

*196
      *Hugo P.*Remington, for appellant.

*F: J.*Graham, for respondent.

Pejr Curiam.

Action in claim and delivery to recover possession of a Horse sold by one Martin Mickelson to tbe defendant. Plaintiff claims title under the contract involved in the case of Southall v. Mickelson, just decided by this court, ante, 191, 277 N. W. 601. Upon the trial in District Court the two cases were consolidated but separate judgments were entered. The animal in this case is involved in the accounting action of Southall v. Mickelson, and, since it was there held that Mr. Mickelson was the owner of the horses described, the decision in that case is decisive of this.

Judgment of the District Court should be affirmed.

Christianson, Ch. J., and Nuessle and Burr, JJ., and Miller and Jansonius, Dist. JJ., concur.

Morris, J., disqualified, and Burke, J., being detained by illness did not participate, Hon. Harvey J. Miller, Judge of Sixth Judicial District, and Hon. Fred Jansonius, Judge of Fourth Judicial District, sitting in their stead.
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 19-10011

State of Texas; State of Alabama; State of Arizona; 

State of Florida; State of Georgia; State of Indiana; 

State of Kansas; State of Louisiana; State of 

Mississippi, by and through Governor Phil Bryant; State of 

Missouri; State of Nebraska; State of North Dakota; 

State of South Carolina; State of South Dakota; State 

of Tennessee; State of Utah; State of West Virginia; 

State of Arkansas; Neill Hurley; John Nantz, 

Plaintiffs—Appellees,

versus

United States of America; United States Department of

Health and Human Services; Alex Azar, II, Secretary, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services; United States 

Department of Internal Revenue; Charles P. Rettig, in 

his Official Capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 

Defendants—Appellants,

State of California; State of Connecticut; District of

Columbia; State of Delaware; State of Hawaii; State of 

Illinois; Andy Beshear, Governor, State of Kentucky; State of 

Massachusetts; State of New Jersey; State of New

York; State of North Carolina; State of Oregon; State 

of Rhode Island; State of Vermont; State of Virginia; 

State of Washington; State of Minnesota, 

Intervenor Defendants—Appellants.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 22, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk
No. 19-10011

2

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CV-167

ON REMAND FROM

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before King, Elrod, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:

In an opinion issued on June 17, 2021, the Supreme Court of the 

United States vacated this court’s judgment and remanded the case to us 

with instructions to dismiss. California v. Texas, 141 S. Ct. 2104, 2120 (2021). 

In accordance with that decision, we now VACATE the judgment of the 

district court in its entirety and REMAND the case to the district court with 

instructions to dismiss the case. The Clerk is directed to issue the mandate 

forthwith.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           3,032
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  337,882
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               340,914
<PP&E>                                       9,618,435
<DEPRECIATION>                                (333,343) 
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,626,006
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,412
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,626,006
<SALES>                                        572,191
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               572,570
<CGS>                                          423,107
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  423,107
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                60,626
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 88,837
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             88,837
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    88,837
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Case 3:08-cv-00240-MEJ Document 76 Filed 02/26/10 Page 1 of 3
26

Case 3:08-cv-00240-MEJ Document 76 Filed 02/26/10 Page 2 of 3
Case 3:08-cv-00240-MEJ Document 76 Filed 02/26/10 Page 3 of 3
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>      THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
              EXTRACTED FROM THE AMMONIA HOLD, INC. FINANCIAL
              STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2000 AND
              IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
              FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>  1

<S>                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JUL-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                           5,384
<SECURITIES>                                 1,017,800
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,082,190
<ALLOWANCES>                                    25,275
<INVENTORY>                                    794,673
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,171,657
<PP&E>                                       1,900,665
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,341,096
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          480,560
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         7,638
<OTHER-SE>                                   9,648,591
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,341,096
<SALES>                                      2,129,104
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              2,29,104
<CGS>                                        1,185,478
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 1,983487
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (216,400)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (216,400)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (216,400)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.27)


</TABLE>
#### Jacob Kloppinger et al., Respondents, v. State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 29973.)

*692Present — Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ.
§ 270.32a-1 Exemption of certain companies from affiliation provisions of section 32(a). A registered investment company shall be exempt from the provisions of paragraph (1) of section 32(a) of the Act (54 Stat. 838; 15 U.S.C. 80a-31), insofar as said paragraph requires that independent public accountants for such company be selected by a majority of certain members of the board of directors, if: ( a ) Such company meets the conditions of paragraphs (1) to (8), inclusive, of section 10(d) of the Act (54 Stat. 807; 15 U.S.C. 80a-10); and
( b ) Such accountants are selected by a majority of all the members of the board of directors.
[Rule N-32A-1, 6 FR 6631, Dec. 23, 1941, as amended at 87 FR 22446, Apr. 15, 2022]
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 12**  **- 1059** 

In re: RANDY L. THOMAS ,

Petitioner

.

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition ( 3:07

- cv - 00130

- GCM )

Submitted : April 19, 2012 Decided: April 25, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by un published per curiam opinion

.

Randy L. Thomas , Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Randy L. Thomas petitions for a writ of mandamus and a writ of prohibition, seeking an order vacating the district court’s February 13, 2008 , order imposing a prefiling injunction, enjoining state officials and employees from certain conduct, compelling the state c ourt to vacate a child custody order, addressing claims raised in prior actions, and imposing monetary sanctions. We conclude that Thomas is not entitled to mandamus or prohibition relief. Mandamus relief is a drastic remedy and should be used only in ex traordinary circumstances. Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); United States v. Moussaoui , 333 F.3d 509, 516

- 17 (4th Cir. 2003). Further, mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Likewise, “a writ of prohibition is a drastic and extraordinary remedy which should be granted only when the petitioner has shown his right to the writ to be clear and undisputable and that the actions of the court were a clear abuse of discretion.” In re Vargas , 723 F.2d 1461, 1468 (10th Cir. 1983). Neither a writ of mandamus nor a writ of prohibition may be used as a substitute for appeal. Id. (prohibition); In re Lockheed Martin Corp. , 503 F.3d 351, 353 (4th Cir. 2007) (mandamus).3 The relief sought by Thomas is not available by way of mandamus or prohibition . Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, w e deny the petition . We dispense with oral argument becau se the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
§ 1508.625 What is the scope of a suspension or debarment? If you are suspended or debarred, the suspension or debarment is effective as follows: ( a ) Your suspension or debarment constitutes suspension or debarment of all of your divisions and other organizational elements from all covered transactions, unless the suspension or debarment decision is limited— ( 1 ) By its terms to one or more specifically identified individuals, divisions, or other organizational elements; or
( 2 ) To specific types of transactions.
( b ) Any affiliate of a participant may be included in a suspension or debarment action if the suspending or debarring official— ( 1 ) Officially names the affiliate in the notice; and
( 2 ) Gives the affiliate an opportunity to contest the action.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<LEGEND>                 THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
                         EXTRACTED FROM THE COASTAL CORPORATION FORM 10-Q
                         QUARTERLY REPORT FOR THE PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,
                         1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
                         SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>             1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>            9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                      DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                           SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                              65
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,187
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        796
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,278
<PP&E>                                          10,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,584
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  10,469
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,298
<BONDS>                                          3,516
<COMMON>                                            36
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                1
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<OTHER-SE>                                       2,537
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    10,469
<SALES>                                          7,778
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 7,814
<CGS>                                            5,640
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,257
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    41
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 315
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    201
<INCOME-TAX>                                        42
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                159
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       159
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.39
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.38
        

</TABLE>
#### U.S. Dental, Inc., et al., Respondents, v Hart Armonk Associates, L. L. C., et al., Appellants.

[716 NYS2d 868]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of a commercial lease, the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (DiBlasi, J.), entered November 30, *2221999, which denied their motion for leave to vacate an order of the same court, dated October 6, 1999, granting the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter a judgment against them upon their default in appearing or answering.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendants’ motion to vacate an order granting the plaintiffs’ motion for leave to enter a judgment against them upon their default in appearing or answering. The defendants failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for their default *(see, Bravo v New York City Hous. Auth.,*253 AD2d 510; *Swedish v Bourie,*233 AD2d 495; *Miles v Blue Label Trucking,*232 AD2d 382). Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.