alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00253-CV

__________________

IN RE BAYTOWN APARTMENT GROUP LLC, D/B/A PORT ARTHUR 

TOWNHOMES, GURINDA SINGH AKHTAR, AMBERS 

CONSTRUCTION, LLC, AIR AKHTAR, LLC, AND JEFF AKHTAR

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

136th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. D206,018

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relators Baytown Apartment Group LLC, d/b/a Port Arthur Townhomes, 

Gurinda Singh Akhtar, Ambers Construction, LLC, Air Akhtar, LLC, and Jeff 

Akhtar filed a petition for a writ of mandamus and a motion to stay all trial court 

proceedings while we consider the petition. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221(b); 

see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.10(a). Relators argue the trial court abused its discretion 

by denying Relators’ no evidence motion for summary judgment and that they lack 

an adequate remedy by appeal because the case is still pending.
2

Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy that issues only to correct a clear 

abuse of discretion for which the relator has no adequate remedy by appeal. See In 

re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. 

proceeding). “[M]andamus is generally unavailable when a trial court denies 

summary judgment, no matter how meritorious the motion.” In re McAllen Med. 

Ctr., Inc., 275 S.W.3d 458, 465 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding). One exception 

occurs when “the very act of proceeding to trial—regardless of the outcome—would 

defeat the substantive right involved.” In re Academy, Ltd., 625 S.W.3d 19, 32 (Tex. 

2021) (orig. proceeding). 

After considering the mandamus petition and appendix, we conclude that 

Relators have failed to establish that the trial court’s order denying their motion for 

summary judgment constitutes an abuse of discretion from which there is no 

adequate remedy by appeal. We deny the petition for a writ of mandamus and motion 

for temporary relief. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 7, 2024

Opinion Delivered August 8, 2024

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.
#### In the Matter of the Accounting of Norman D. Archer, as Executor of Violet B. Edwards, Deceased, Appellant. Eula Luncheon et al., Respondents.

Motion for reargument and for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals referred to the court that rendered the decision. Beldock, Acting P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Pette, JJ., concur. Motion for reargument denied. Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Brennan, J., not voting.
### §1013a. Benefits extended to Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands; "county" defined; payments to Governor or fiscal agent of county

The provisions of this subchapter shall extend to Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. In the case of Alaska, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, the term "county" as used in this subchapter may be the entire area, or any subdivision thereof as may be determined by the Secretary, and payments under section 1012 of this title shall be made to the Governor or to the fiscal agent of such subdivision.

(July 22, 1937, ch. 517, title III, §35, as added Pub. L. 87–128, title III, §342, Aug. 8, 1961, 75 Stat. 318.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Another section 342 of Pub. L. 87–128 is classified to section 1990a of this title.

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective Oct. 15, 1961, by former section 300.1 of Title 6, Code of Federal Regulations, see Effective Date note set out under section 1921 of this title.
#### In the Matter of Irving V. A. Huie et al., Constituting the Board of Water Supply of the City of New York, Appellants, Relative to Acquiring Title to Real Estate for the City of New York in the County of Sullivan. Calman Klass et al., Respondents.

Appeal from a part of an order of a Special Term, Supreme Court, Ulster County. The Board of Water Supply of the City of New York appeals from a portion of an order at Special Term confirming a report of Commissioners of Appraisal allowing business damage due to changes made by the City of New York affecting the flow of the Neversink River. Four groups of claimants are affected. No real estate owned by such claimants was taken by the city and these claimants had no legal title to riparian rights in the river and no easements. The basis of the awards is that claimants were licensees of the riparian owners and used the water for business purposes in pursuance of permission of the riparian owners; and suffered business loss by virtue of the city’s utilization of the river for water supply purposes. Such a situation comes within the literal language of the condemnation statute which provides that the owner of *“*any established business ■9 9 9 directly or indirectly decreased in value ” because of “ the execution of any plans ” of the city *“*for an additional water supply ” shall have a right of damages. (Administrative Code of City of New York, § K41-44.0.) This language is greatly broader than the usual condemnation statute, and sweeps in the incidental resulting damage to business on land not taken but having permissive rights to water actually exercised for business purposes. If the water has been changed so as to affect the business adversely it is an indirect result under a statute which includes decrease in value “directly or indirectly” caused by the execution of plans. We are of opinion the claims may be asserted and the amounts found by the commissioners and confirmed at Special Term are not so grossly disproportionate as to require interference on appeal. Order unanimously affirmed, with costs to respondents. Present — Bergan, P. J., Coon, Gibson, Herlihy and Reynolds, JJ. [22 Misc 2d 1028.]
### Part E—Human Resources Management
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 26, 2018

No. 04

- 18

- 00365

- CR

Adrian Nicholas PAZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 227th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR8126 Honorable Kevin M. O'Connell, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s court

- appointed attorney has filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California

, 368 U.S. 738 (1967), in which he asserts there are no meritorious issues to raise on appeal. Counsel has informed the appellant of his right to file his own brief and provided appellant with a form motion for requesting the appellate record. See Kelly v. State , 436 S.W.3d 313, 319

- 20 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014); Nichols v. State , 954 S.W.2d 83, 85 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio 1997, no pet.); Bruns v. State , 924 S.W.2d 176, 177 n.1 (Tex. Ap p.

— San Antonio 1996, no pet.).

If the appellant desires to request the app ellate record, he must file the motion requesting the record within ten days from the date of this order. If the appellant desires to file a pro se brief, he must do so within thirty days from the date of this order. See Bruns , 924 S.W.2d at 177

n.1. If the appellant files a pro se brief, the State may file a responsive brief no later than thirty days after the date the appellant’s pro se brief is filed in this court. It is further ORDERED that the motion to withdraw, filed by appellant’s counsel, is HE LD IN ABEYANCE pending further

order of the court.

_________________________________ Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

c ourt on this 26th day of June, 2018

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-16-0000416 27-JUL-2016 07:56 AM
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-31155 

Summary Calendar

PLAQUEMINES PARISH SCHOOL BOARD

Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

NORRIS INSURANCE CONSULTANTS INC; JOHN Z NORRIS

Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 2:06-CV-7213

Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaquemines Parish School Board sued John Norris and Norris Insurance

Consultants Inc. (collectively, “Norris”) after Hurricane Katrina damaged a large

number of Plaquemines Parish schools. The district court granted Norris

summary judgment and entered a final judgment in his favor. We vacate the

judgment. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 9, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-31155

2

The district court granted Norris summary judgment on the merits of the

School Board’s claim after it had already denied a motion to remand by

determining that Norris was not properly joined to this suit. The moment this

case was removed to federal court and a motion to remand was filed, it was clear

that Norris and the School Board were both residents of Louisiana. As a result,

it was also clear that the district court did not have jurisdiction over Norris

because his presence defeated complete diversity, a pre-requisite to diversity

jurisdiction. Either he was properly joined to the suit—in which case the district

court did not have diversity jurisdiction over this suit since there was not

complete diversity and the case would need to be remanded to state court—or he

was improperly joined—in which case the district court needed to dismiss Norris,

so that diversity jurisdiction could be asserted over the rest of the parties. See

Florence v. Crescent Res., LLC, 484 F.3d 1293, 1297 (11th Cir. 2007). Either

way, the district court did not have jurisdiction over Norris and therefore could

not adjudicate the merits of the claim against him. 

Judgment VACATED. Cause REMANDED.
### §1728a. President's Emergency Food Assistance Fund

#### (a) Establishment; authority of President to furnish assistance from Fund

There is hereby established the President's Emergency Food Assistance Fund (hereafter in this subchapter referred to as the "Fund"). Whenever the President determines it to be in the national interest of the United States, he is authorized to furnish, in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter, and on such terms and conditions as he may determine, assistance from the Fund for the purpose of alleviating the human suffering of peoples outside the United States caused by acute food shortages. Such assistance may be provided through such governments or other entities, private or public, including intergovernmental and multilateral organizations, as the President deems appropriate.

#### (b) Types of assistance authorized

Because the effects of severe food shortages will vary with the country or region, assistance to alleviate human suffering may include the provision of food assistance or such activities as the provision of seed, animal fodder, animal vaccines, and transportation (including inland transportation) and distribution services.

#### (c) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to the President $50,000,000 each for fiscal year 1985 and fiscal year 1986 to carry out the purposes of this subchapter, to remain available until expanded.1

#### (d) Authority of President

The President may make loans, advances, and grants to, make and perform agreements and contracts with, or enter into transactions with, any individual, corporation, or other body of persons, government or government agency, whether within or without the United States, and international and intergovernmental organizations in furtherance of the purposes and within the limitations of this subchapter.

(Pub. L. 98–473, title III, §303, Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2194.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section was enacted as part of the President's Emergency Food Assistance Act of 1984, and not as part of the Food for Peace Act which comprises this chapter.

1 So in original. Probably should be "expended."
### §1103. National Transportation Security Center of Excellence

#### (a) Establishment

The Secretary shall establish a National Transportation Security Center of Excellence to conduct research and education activities, and to develop or provide professional security training, including the training of transportation employees and transportation professionals.

#### (b) Designation

The Secretary shall select one of the institutions identified in subsection (c) as the lead institution responsible for coordinating the National Transportation Security Center of Excellence.

#### (c) Member institutions

#### (1) Consortium

The institution of higher education selected under subsection (b) shall execute agreements with the other institutions of higher education identified in this subsection and other institutions designated by the Secretary to develop a consortium to assist in accomplishing the goals of the Center.

#### (2) Members

The National Transportation Security Center of Excellence shall consist of—

(A) Texas Southern University in Houston, Texas;

(B) the National Transit Institute at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey;

(C) Tougaloo College;

(D) the Connecticut Transportation Institute at the University of Connecticut;

(E) the Homeland Security Management Institute, Long Island University;

(F) the Mack-Blackwell National Rural Transportation Study Center at the University of Arkansas; and

(G) any additional institutions or facilities designated by the Secretary.

#### (3) Certain inclusions

To the extent practicable, the Secretary shall ensure that an appropriate number of any additional consortium colleges or universities designated by the Secretary under this subsection are Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Indian Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities.

#### (d) Authorization of appropriations

There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section—

(1) $18,000,000 for fiscal year 2008;

(2) $18,000,000 for fiscal year 2009;

(3) $18,000,000 for fiscal year 2010; and

(4) $18,000,000 for fiscal year 2011.

(Pub. L. 110–53, title XII, §1205, Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 387.)
§ 585.308 How will BOEM conduct an auction for ROW grants and RUE grants? ( a ) If BOEM determines that there is competitive interest, we will: ( 1 ) Publish a notice of each grant auction in the Federal Register describing auction procedures, allowing interested persons 30 days to comment; and
( 2 ) Conduct a competitive auction for issuing the ROW grant or RUE grant. The auction process for ROW grants and RUE grants will be conducted following the same process for leases set forth in §§ 585.210 through 585.226.
( b ) If you are the successful bidder in an auction, you must pay the first year's rent, as provided in § 585.316.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. DEBORAH ANN CLIFTON

No. 133PA97

(Filed 5 December 1997)

On discretionary review pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 7A-31 of a unanimous decision of the Court of Appeals, 125 N.C. App. 471, 481 S.E.2d 393 (1997), finding no error in defendant’s conviction for involuntary manslaughter entered on 30 June 1995 in Superior Court, Franklin County, Hobgood, J., presiding, and remanding for resentencing. Heard in the Supreme Court 17 November 1996.

*Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, by John A. Greenlee, Assistant Attorney General, for the State-appellant.*

*Mark A. Perry and McMillan, Smith & Plyler, by Duncan A. McMillan, for defendant-appellee.*

PER CURIAM.

DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IMPROVIDENTLY ALLOWED.
### §5752. Travel expenses of Senior Executive Service candidates

Employing agencies may pay candidates for Senior Executive Service positions travel expenses incurred incident to preemployment interviews requested by the employing agency.

(Added Pub. L. 95–454, title IV, §409(b), Oct. 13, 1978, 92 Stat. 1173.)

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

#### Effective Date

Section effective 9 months after Oct. 13, 1978, and congressional review of provisions of sections 401 through 412 of Pub. L. 95–454, see section 415(a)(1), (b) of Pub. L. 95–454, set out as an Effective Date note under section 3131 of this title.
§ 1605.55 Disqualification. ( a ) No member of a local board shall act on the case of a registrant who is the member's first cousin or closer relation, either by blood, marriage, or adoption, or who is the member's employer, employee, or fellow employee, or stands in the relationship of superior or subordinate of the member in connection with any employment, or is a partner or close business associate of the member, or a fellow member or employee of the area office.
( b ) A member of the local board must disqualify himself in any matter in which he would be restricted, for any reason, in making an impartial decision.
( c ) Whenever a quorum of a local board cannot act on the case of a registrant, the area office supervisor shall cause such case to be transferred to another board within the area office. In those instances where only one board exists in an area office, the case should be transmitted to the nearest area office for transfer to a board under its jurisdiction.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2008 of Robert Half
International Inc. (the Form 10-K), I, Harold M. Messmer, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of Robert Half International Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that:

1.    The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and

2.    The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Robert Half International Inc.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Robert Half International Inc. and will
be retained by Robert Half International Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.



|                  |  |                                                                              
|----------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|February 19, 2009 |  | /s/ Harold M. Messmer, Jr.                                                   
|                  |  | Harold M. Messmer, Jr. Chief Executive Officer Robert Half International Inc.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>   1,000

<S>                                             <C>                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           Year                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       Jan-31-1999          Jan-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                          Feb-02-1998          Aug-02-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            Jan-31-1999          Oct-31-1999
<CASH>                                       10,423               5,826
<SECURITIES>                                      0                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 3,557               3,648
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0                   0
<INVENTORY>                                 113,225             134,422
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            127,564             144,896
<PP&E>                                       73,967              78,560
<DEPRECIATION>                              (35,340)            (39,181)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              172,474             190,062
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        37,488              51,493
<BONDS>                                           0                   0
<COMMON>                                          1                   1
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0                   0
<PREFERRED>                                       0                   0
<OTHER-SE>                                   86,425              87,219
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                172,474             190,062
<SALES>                                     363,509              87,624
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            363,509              87,624
<CGS>                                       239,442              56,975
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               239,442              56,975
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  0                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            4,234                 915
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              11,502               1,635
<INCOME-TAX>                                  4,287                 621
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           7,215               1,014
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0                   0
<CHANGES>                                      (956)                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                  6,259               1,014
<EPS-BASIC>                                  1.41                 .20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  1.40                 .20


</TABLE>
#### N.C. FARM BUREAU MUT. INS. CO. v. BRILEY

No. 533P97

Case below: 347 N.C. 577

127 N.C.App. 442

Petition by plaintiff to rehear petition for discretionary review pursuant to Rule 31 dismissed 24 February 1998.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

Wniteb ~tates ([ourt of §ppenls 

for !be jf ebernl ([irruit 

HERBERT E. GREGORY, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION, 

Respondent. 

2011-3178 

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection 

Board in case no. DC0731110018-I-1. 

ON MOTION 

ORDER 

Herbert E. Gregory moves for leave to proceed in forma 

paupens. 

Upon consideration thereof, 

IT Is ORDERED THAT: 

The motion is granted. 
GREGORY v. GSA 

JUll 9 2011 

cc: Herbert E. Gregory 

Jeanne E. Davidson, Esq. 

s21 

FOR THE COURT 

lsI Jan Horbaly 

Jan Horbaly 

Clerk 

2 

FILED 

U.s. COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

JUL 1 9 ZOll
COLLECTION

SUMP

WASTE WATER FLOW

FERROUS PARTS MANUFACTURE BATCH

TREATMENT

TANKS GRAVITY

SETTLER

FILTER PRESS (DEWATERING)



## Engine Wastewater Treatment Sludge WASTE WATER
TO COLLECTION SUMP FLOW
EQUALIZATION

TANK LIFT STATION 

## Wastewater to Public Wastewater Treatment Plant

ALUMINUM PARTS MANUFACTURE

WASTE WATER FLOW ANIONIC POLYMER

OZONE 

# ENGINE PLANT INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROCESS (Sites Controlled By Submitter)

OIL DISPERSANT POLYMER
FERRIC CHLORIDE

SODIUM HYDROXIDE

METAL PRECIPITANT POLYMER

SLUDGE TANK


## Engine Wastewater Treatment Sludge 

# A