alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued September 25, 2018

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-18-00678-CV

———————————

IN RE YOGURT CULTURE, INC., Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON REHEARING

Relator, Yogurt Culture, Inc., filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

challenging the county court’s judgment awarding Houston House Limited 

Partnership possession of the leased premises at issue in the underlying forcible 

detainer action.1 After our Court denied the petition on August 16, 2018, Yogurt 

 

1 The underlying case is Houston House Limited Partnership v. Yogurt Culture, Inc., 

and All Occupants, cause number 1110605, pending in the County Civil Court at 

Law No. 4 of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Sharolyn Wood presiding.
2

Culture filed a motion for rehearing. We deny the motion for rehearing but issue this 

supplemental opinion explaining our basis for denying the mandamus petition.

Yogurt Culture leased a commercial space from Houston House Limited 

Partnership. Alleging violations of the lease, Houston House filed an original 

petition for eviction in the justice court. The jury rendered a verdict in favor of 

Houston House. Yogurt Culture appealed the justice court verdict. On de novo 

appeal, the county court issued a final judgment likewise awarding possession of the 

premises to Houston House. Yogurt Culture subsequently filed its petition for writ 

of mandamus challenging the judgment.

Section 24.007 of the Texas Property Code provides that “A final judgment 

of a county court in an eviction suit may not be appealed on the issue of possession 

unless the premises in question are being used for residential purposes only.” TEX.

PROP. CODE § 24.007. Because the premises leased by Yogurt Culture were used for 

commercial purposes, we lack jurisdiction over an appeal as it relates to the issue of 

possession. A party to an eviction suit in a county court cannot use a writ of 

mandamus to accomplish an appeal prohibited by Section 24.007. Mullins v. 

Coussons, 745 S.W.2d 50, 51 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1987, orig. 

proceeding); Cavazos v. Hancock, 686 S.W.2d 284, 287 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 

1985, no writ); see also Chang v. Resolution Tr. Corp., 814 S.W.2d 543, 545 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1991, orig. proceeding) (denying writ of 
3

prohibition/injunction in connection with attempted appeal of eviction action, noting 

that “We have we have no jurisdiction to review the issue of possession in a forcible 

detainer action where the premises are used for commercial purposes.”). Allowing 

the use of a writ of mandamus to control the county court’s non-appealable exercise 

of discretion would permit the very appeal Section 24.007 was enacted to prohibit. 

Mullins, 745 S.W.2d at 51. 

Accordingly, Yogurt Culture’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Jane Bland

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Lloyd.
SYMETRA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY
                 Symetra Deferred Variable Annuity Account

                        Supplement to Prospectus
                      Supplement dated May 24, 2006
            to Prospectus dated May 1, 1998 as supplemented






Effective May 24, 2006, Pioneer Small Cap Value II VCT Portfolio - Class I
shares merged into Pioneer Small Cap Value VCT Portfolio - Class I shares.
Accordingly, any reference to Pioneer Small Cap Value II VCT Portfolio - Class
I shares in this prospectus is replaced with Pioneer Small Cap Value VCT
Portfolio - Class I shares.

The following Portfolio Operating Expenses replaces the Portfolio Operating
Expense information for Pioneer Small Cap Value II VCT Portfolio - Class I
shares found in the Prospectus.
<table>

<c><c>

													   Net Total
                											   Annual
	 				                  Distribution	          Total			   Portfolio
  			                       Management   Service 	 Other	  Annual    Contractual	   Operating
	       		                         Fees     (12b-1) Fees	Expenses  Portfolio Expense Waiver  Expenses
									          Operating       or	   (After any
									          Expenses  Reimbursement  reimbursement
													   and waiver
													   agreements)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pioneer Small Cap Value VCT Portfolio - 	0.75%	 	None	  0.40%	    1.15%	--	      1.15%
Class I Shares


</table>
IIB 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 323 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 16, 2005 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural 

Resources 

AN ACT 

To redesignate the Ellis Island Library on the third floor 

of the Ellis Island Immigration Museum, located on Ellis 

Island in New York Harbor, as the ‘‘Bob Hope Memorial 

Library’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

HR 323 RFS 

1 SECTION 1. REDESIGNATION. 

2 The Ellis Island Library on the third floor of the Ellis 

3 Island Immigration Museum, located on Ellis Island in 

4 New York Harbor, shall be known and redesignated as 

5 the ‘‘Bob Hope Memorial Library’’. 

6 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

7 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

8 paper, or other record of the United States to the Ellis 

9 Island Library on the third floor of the Ellis Island Immi10 gration Museum referred to in section 1 shall be deemed 

11 to be a reference to the ‘‘Bob Hope Memorial Library’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 15, 

2005. 

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL, 

Clerk.
#### § 964.145 Conflict of interest.

Resident council officers can not serve as contractors or employees if they are in policy making or supervisory positions at the HA.
#### Nancy L. Hockert et al., Respondents, v Sun and Surf Beach Club, Inc., Appellant, et al., Defendant.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendant Sun and Surf Beach Club, Inc., appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, entered March 22, 1977, which, upon a jury verdict, is in favor of plaintiff Nancy Hockert in the sum of $200,000 and plaintiff Jenkin Hockert in thé sum of $50,000. Judgment insofar as it is in favor of plaintiff Nancy Hockert, affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Judgment insofar as it is in favor of plaintiff Jenkin Hockert, reversed, on the law, and as between said plaintiff and appellant, action severed and new trial granted with respect to the issue of damages only, with costs to abide the event, unless within 20 days after entry of the order to be made hereon, the said plaintiff shall serve and file in the office of the clerk of the trial court, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in his favor to $10,000, and to the entry of an amended judgment accordingly, in which event, the judgment in his favor, as so reduced and amended, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The verdict in favor of plaintiff Jenkin Hockert was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Hopkins, J. P., Martuscello, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-7544
JOHN FOGG, Petitioner - Appellant, versus BOBBY SHEARIN, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Chief District Judge. (CA-01-2479-S) Submitted: January 17, 2002 Decided: January 29, 2002 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Fogg, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John Fogg appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (1994) petition. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Fogg v. Shearin , No. CA-01-2479-S (D. Md. Aug. 29, 2001). 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
§ 35.82 Scope and applicability. This subpart applies to all transactions to sell or lease target housing, including subleases, with the exception of the following: ( a ) Sales of target housing at foreclosure.
( b ) Leases of target housing that have been found to be lead-based paint free by an inspector certified under the Federal certification program or under a federally accredited State or tribal certification program. Until a Federal certification program or federally accredited State certification program is in place within the State, inspectors shall be considered qualified to conduct an inspection for this purpose if they have received certification under any existing State or tribal inspector certification program. The lessor has the option of using the results of additional test(s) by a certified inspector to confirm or refute a prior finding.
( c ) Short-term leases of 100 days or less, where no lease renewal or extension can occur.
( d ) Renewals of existing leases in target housing in which the lessor has previously disclosed all information required under § 35.88 and where no new information described in § 35.88 has come into the possession of the lessor. For the purposes of this paragraph, renewal shall include both renegotiation of existing lease terms and/or ratification of a new lease.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-000517-CV

Travis County Sheriff Greg Hamilton, Travis County Sheriffs Office Major Darren Long,

and Travis County, Appellants

v.

Justin Thelen, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 201ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-13-001258, HONORABLE PAUL R. DAVIS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellants have filed an unopposed motion to abate this appeal. Appellants state that

an abatement should be granted so that the district court may correct a procedural issue that would

potentially preclude this Court from addressing the merits of this appeal. In the interest of

conserving judicial resources, we grant the motion and abate the appeal. All appellate deadlines will

be tolled during the period of abatement. Absent further order of this Court, the appeal will

automatically reinstate on January 21, 2014. The parties are directed to file either a status report or

a motion to dismiss by that date.
____________________________________

Scott K. Field, Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Pemberton and Field

Abated

Filed: November 21, 2013

2
### §856. Repealed. Pub. L. 103–429, §7(a)(1), Oct. 31, 1994, 108 Stat. 4388

Section, Pub. L. 94–210, title VII, §708, as added Pub. L. 102–533, §4(a), Oct. 27, 1992, 106 Stat. 3516, directed Secretary to develop and report to Congress within one year after Oct. 27, 1992, on a program master plan for improvements in passenger service between Boston and New York.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of Repeal

Pub. L. 103–429, §7(a)(1), Oct. 31, 1994, 108 Stat. 4388, provided that the repeal by section 7(a)(1) is effective July 5, 1994.
§ 583.140 Technical assistance. ( a ) *General.* HUD may set aside funds annually to provide technical assistance, either directly by HUD staff or indirectly through third-party providers, for any supportive housing project. This technical assistance is for the purpose of promoting the development of supportive housing and supportive services as part of a continuum of care approach, including innovative approaches to assist homeless persons in the transition from homelessness, and promoting the provision of supportive housing to homeless persons to enable them to live as independently as possible.
( b ) *Uses of technical assistance.* HUD may use these funds to provide technical assistance to prospective applicants, applicants, recipients, or other providers of supportive housing or services for homeless persons, for supportive housing projects. The assistance may include, but is not limited to, written information such as papers, monographs, manuals, guides, and brochures; person-to-person exchanges; and training and related costs.
( c ) *Selection of providers.* From time to time, as HUD determines the need, HUD may advertise and competitively select providers to deliver technical assistance. HUD may enter into contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements, when necessary, to implement the technical assistance.
[59 FR 36892, July 19, 1994]
(May 21, 1962)

#### (A) In the Matter of Rebecca Shifman, an Alleged Incompetent. Ruth Kahn, Appellant; Selma Grill, Respondent. (B) Angelo Ruggiero, Respondent, v. John Parrinello, Appellant.

[In each action] Motion by appellant for a stay of the trial, pending appeal, denied. Beldock, P. J., Brennan, Hill, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3340 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Phenmedipham. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 19, 2005 

Mr. JEFFERSON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Phenmedipham. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PHENMEDIPHAM. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.09.75 3- 

methylcarbonylaminophenyl3-methyl-carbanilate (CAS 

No. 13684–63–4) (provided 

for in subheadings 

2924.29.47 and 3808.30.15) Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2008 ’’. 
2 

•HR 3340 IH 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ
#### § 203.386 Coverage of title evidence.

Evidence of title shall be executed as of a date to include the recordation of the deed to the Commissioner. The evidence of title shall show that according to the public records, there are not, at such date, any outstanding prior liens, including any past-due and unpaid ground rents, general taxes or special assessments.
§ 902.9 PHAS scoring. ( a ) *Indicators and subindicators.* Each PHA will receive an overall PHAS score, rounded to the nearest whole number, based on the four indicators: Physical condition, financial condition, management operations, and the Capital Fund program. Each of these indicators contains subindicators, and the scores for the subindicators are used to determine a single score for each of these PHAS indicators. Individual project scores are used to determine a single score for the physical condition, financial condition, and management operations indicators. The Capital Fund program indicator score is entity-wide.
( b ) *Overall PHAS score and indicators.* The overall PHAS score is derived from a weighted average of score values for the four indicators, as follows: ( 1 ) The physical condition indicator is weighted 40 percent (40 points) of the overall PHAS score. The score for this indicator is obtained as indicated in subpart B of this part.
( 2 ) The financial condition indicator is weighted 25 percent (25 points) of the overall PHAS score. The score for this indicator is obtained as indicated in subpart C of this part.
( 3 ) The management operations indicator is weighted 25 percent (25 points) of the overall PHAS score. The score for this indicator is obtained as indicated in subpart D of this part.
( 4 ) The Capital Fund program indicator is weighted 10 percent (10 points) of the overall PHAS score for all Capital Fund program grants for which fund balances remain during the assessed fiscal year. The score for this indicator is obtained as indicated in subpart E of this part.
### §58103. Employing another person as managing or operating agent

(a) Prohibition.—Except with the written consent of the Secretary of Transportation, a contractor holding a contract under the operating-differential subsidy program or under chapter 575 of this title may not—

(1) employ another person as the managing or operating agent of the operator; or

(2) charter a vessel, on which an operating-differential subsidy is to be paid, for operation by another person.

(b) Applicability of Provisions to Charterer.—If a charter prohibited by this section is made, the person operating the chartered vessel is subject to all the provisions of this subtitle and the operating-differential subsidy program, including limitations of profits and salaries.

(Pub. L. 109–304, §8(c), Oct. 6, 2006, 120 Stat. 1671.)

| Revised Section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 58103 | 46 App.:1223(d). | June 29, 1936, ch. 858, title VIII, §805(d), 49 Stat. 2013; June 23, 1938, ch. 600, §§36, 37, 52 Stat. 963; Pub. L. 91–603, §4(e), Dec. 31, 1970, 84 Stat. 1675; Pub. L. 97–31, §12(122), Aug. 6, 1981, 95 Stat. 164; Pub. L. 104–239, §4(b)(2), Oct. 8, 1996, 110 Stat. 3131. |

Section

In subsection (a), the words "contractor holding a contract under the operating-differential subsidy program or under chapter 575 of this title" are substituted for "contractor holding a contract authorized under part A of subchapter VI or VII of this chapter" for the reasons explained under section 58101.
**Exhibit      99.1**

**NAVISTAR      FINALIZES AMENDMENT TO**

**ITS      $1.5 BILLION CREDIT AGREEMENT**

***Navistar      to borrow remaining funds available under its credit      facility***

***Forward      Looking Statements***

*Information      provided and statements contained in the presentation that are not purely      historical are forward -looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A      of      the Securities Act and Section 21E of the Exchange Act, and the Private      Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward-looking statements only      speak as of the date of the presentation and the company assumes no obligation      to update the information included in the presentation. Such forward-looking      statements include information concerning our possible or assumed future results      of operations, including descriptions of our business strategy. These statements      often include words such as “believe,” “expect,” “anticipate,” “intend,” “plan,”“estimate” or similar expressions. These statements are not guarantees of      performance or results and they involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions      ,      including the risk of continued delay in the completion of our financial      statements and the consequences thereof, the availability of funds, either      through cash on hand or the company’s other liquidity sources, to repay any      amounts due should any of the company’s debt become accelerated, and decisions      by suppliers and other vendors to restrict or eliminate customary trade and      other credit terms for the company’s future orders and other services, which      would require the company to pay cash and which could have a material adverse      effect on the company’s liquidity position and financial condition. Although we      believe that these forward-looking statements are based on reasonable      assumptions, there are many factors that could affect our actual financial      results or results of operations and could cause actual results to differ      materially from those in the forward-looking statements. For a further      description of these factors, see Exhibit 99.1 to our Form 8-K filed      on April 12, 2006.*
#### HORSTMAN v. HORSTMAN.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

March 8, 1905.)

Action by Marie L. Horstman against Charles F. Horstman. No opinion. Order affirmed, • with $10 costs and disbursements.
Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following
Registration Statements:



|(1) | Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-130480) of Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc.,
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) | Registration Statement (Form S-3 No. 333-129258) of Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc., and
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(3) | Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-122088) pertaining to the securities to be offered to employees under the Long Term Incentive Plan of Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc.;
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

of our reports dated February 5, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. and the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of Sunstone Hotel Investors, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2007.

/s/ ERNST & YOUNG
LLP

Irvine, California

February 19, 2008
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 10**  **- 7191** 

HENRY BURGESS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

LYNN MARTIN; JAMES B. ELLISOR; JIM HODGES; CARROLL A. CAMPBELL, JR.; WILLIAM DOUG CATOE , Defendants

- Appellees

.

A ppeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. R. Bryan Harwell , District Judge. ( 4:09

- cv
- 01247

- RBH )

Submitted : November 18, 2010 Decided: December 2, 2010

Before SHEDD and AGEE , Circuit Judges, and H AMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Henry Burgess, Appellant Pro Se. Barbara Murcier Bowens, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina; Steven Barry Johnson, LEE ERTER WILSON HOLLER & SMITH, LLC , Sumter, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
Henry Burgess appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his civil c omplaint. We have reviewed the record and
find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the
reasons stated by the district court. Burgess v. Martin , No.

4:09

- cv
- 01247

- RBH (D.S.C. July 14, 2010) . We dispense with oral
argument because the facts a nd legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED