alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

════════════ N O

. 20-0343

════════════ 

### I N RE 

### A LEXANDER 

### G UEVARA AND 

### J OSE 

### A LFREDO 

### G UEVARA 

### , R ELATORS

══════════════════ ═════════════════ ═════════════════ O N P ETITION FOR W RIT OF M ANDAMUS

══════════════════ ═════════════════ ═════════════════

PER CURIAM
In this mandamus proceeding, Relators Alex ander Guevara and Jose Alfredo Guevara ask us to review the trial court’s Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and Motion to Exclude regarding controverting affidavits from Monte Horne, D.C. The counteraffidavits were offered under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code s ection 18.001 to challenge the reasonableness and necessity of Real Party in Interest Agapito Esc obedo’s alleged medical expe nses as set forth in affidavits submitted under section 18.001. Escobedo argued in the trial court that the controverting affidavits do not comply with section 18.001(f) becau se (1) Horne is not qualified to testify in contravention of the reasonableness or necessity of Escobedo’s medical expenses, (2) the opinions expressed in the counteraffidavits are not releva nt or based on a reliable foundation, and (3) the opinions expressed in the counteraffidavits ar e conclusory and l ack the reliability required for the admission of expert testimony under E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Robinson , 923 S.W.2d 549 (Tex. 1995). In addition to asking the trial court to st rike the counteraffida vits, Escobedo’s motion requested that the Guevaras be prohibited fro m “introducing evidence or argument” that the medical expenses incurred by Escobedo are unreas onable or unnecessary. We recently held in Inre Allstate Indemnity Co. that mandamus relief is appropriate when a trial court issues an order under section 18.001 that vitiates or severely compromises a pa rty’s defense by precluding the party that offered the counteraffi davit from otherwise challenging the reasonableness or necessity of the claimant’s medical expe nses at trial. ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (Tex. 2021) (orig. proceeding). The trial court’s order granted Escobedo’s mo tion and thus prohibits the Guevaras from introducing evidence or argument that Escobedo’s medical expenses are unreasonable or
unnecessary. Therefore, pursuant to Texas Rule of Appella te Procedure 52.8(c), without hearing oral argument, we conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus and direct the trial court to vacate its July 8, 2019 Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike and Motion to Exclude, but without prejudice to Escobedo’s ability to re -file a motion to challenge whether Horne’s counteraffidavits comply with sect ion 18.001 in light of our opinion in In re Allstate Indemnity
Co. 1 We are confident the trial court will comply, and the writ will issu e only if the court does

not.

OPINION DELIVERED : June 25, 2021

1 We express no opinion on any other challenge Escobe do may assert to the admissibility of evidence or testimony regarding the reasonableness or necessity of his medical expenses.
47 So 2d 41

#### BIRDWELL v. BIRDWELL.

No. 39023.

May 29, 1950.

See also 214 La. 401, 37 So.2d 850.

James W. Jones, Jr., Natchitoches, for appellant.

Russell E. Gahagan, Natchitoches, for plaintiff-appellee.

FOURNET, Chief Justice.

The appellant having failed to make an appearance in this court or to file a brief in support of his appeal, the appeal will be dismissed. See Grand Lodge of Louisiana Knights of Pythias, v. Natchitoches Lodge, 215 La. 300, 40 So.2d 472.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 15



August 6, 2004



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated August 6, 2004 on our review of  consolidated
interim  financial  information of FirstEnergy  Corp. (the "Company") as of June
30, 2004 and for the three and six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, included
in the  Company's  quarterly  report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2004, is  incorporated by reference in its  Registration  Statements on Form S-3
(Nos.  333-48587,  333-102074  and  333-103865)  and Form S-8  (Nos.  333-48651,
333-56094,  333-58279,  333-67798,  333-72764,  333-72766, 333-72768, 333-75985,
333-81183, 333-89356, 333-101472 and 333-110662).

Very truly yours,



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


<PAGE>


                                                                     EXHIBIT 15



August 6, 2004



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated August 6, 2004 on our review of  consolidated
interim financial  information of Ohio Edison Company (the "Company") as of June
30, 2004 and for the three and six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, included
in the  Company's  quarterly  report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
2004, is  incorporated by reference in its  Registration  Statements on Form S-3
(Nos. 33-49413, 33-51139, 333-01489 and 333-05277).

Very truly yours,



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 15



August 6, 2004



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated August 6, 2004 on our review of  consolidated
interim financial  information of Pennsylvania  Power Company (the "Company") as
of June 30, 2004 and for the three and six months  ended June 30, 2004 and 2003,
included in the  Company's  quarterly  report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2004, is  incorporated by reference in its  Registration  Statements on
Form S-3 (Nos. 33-62450 and 33-65156).

Very truly yours,



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


<PAGE>


                                                                     EXHIBIT 15



August 6, 2004



Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549

Commissioners:

We are aware that our report dated August 6, 2004 on our review of  consolidated
interim financial  information of Pennsylvania  Electric Company (the "Company")
as of June 30,  2004 and for the three and six months  ended  June 30,  2004 and
2003,  included in the Company's  quarterly  report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended June 30, 2004, is incorporated by reference in its Registration Statements
on Form S-3 (Nos. 333-62295, 333-62295-01 and 333-62295-02).

Very truly yours,



PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
401.105-1 Publication and code arrangement. ( a ) The AGAR is codified in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as Chapter 4 of Title 48, Federal Acquisition Regulations System, to implement and supplement Chapter 1 which constitutes the FAR. Parts 400 through 499 have been assigned to USDA by the Office of the Federal Register.
( b ) The AGAR and its subsequent changes are published in: ( 1 ) Daily issues of the Federal Register,
( 2 ) Cumulative form in the CFR, and,
( 3 ) Electronic form on the USDA Departmental Administration Procurement Homepage (see 401.170).
( c ) Section 553(a)(2) of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, provides an exception from the standard public rulemaking procedures to the extent that the rule involves a matter relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts. In 1971, Secretary of Agriculture Hardin announced a voluntary partial waiver from the Administrative Procedure Act exception, and USDA agencies generally are required to provide notice and an opportunity for public comment on proposed rules (36 FR 13804, July 24, 1971). The AGAR has been promulgated and may be revised from time to time in accordance with the rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act. The USDA also is required to publish for public comment procurement regulations in the Federal Register, pursuant to the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act (41 U.S.C. 418b), and FAR 1.301.
[61 FR 53646, Oct. 15, 1996, as amended at 70 FR 44, Jan. 3, 2005]
Exhibit 32-8

Certificate Pursuant to Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 United States Code

The undersigned officer hereby certifies, as to the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PECO Energy Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2008, that (i) the report fully complies with the
requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of PECO Energy
Company.



/s/    Phillip S. BarnettPhillip S. BarnettSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer


Date: October 24, 2008



220
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT
KAREN C. D'ORSI, individually and as ) guardian of JAMES F. D'ORSI, ) ) Appellant, ) v. ) Case No. 2D19-408 ) THERESE SCHULTZ, guardian of the ) property of James F. D'Orsi, KAREN ) COONS D'ORSI, LAURA D'ORSI ) BAUMAN, and JONATHAN D'ORSI, ) ) Appellees. ) ) Opinion filed November 27, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County; Lauren L. Brodie, Judge. Christopher D. Donovan, and Cathy S. Reiman, of Roetzel & Andress, LPA, Naples, for Appellant. Matthew A. Linde and Douglas T. Gould of Linde Law Group, Fort Myers, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
LaROSE, LUCAS, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.
#### In the Matter of Joseph Catalfamo, Appellant, v. Herbert R. Zirk, as Building Inspector of the Town of Babylon, Respondent.

In a proceeding pursuant to article 78 of the CPLR: (a) to direct the building inspector of the Town of Babylon to approve the petitioner’s application for a building permit to erect a one-family dwelling, and (b) to direct the inspector to issue such permit, the petitioner, by permission of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, appeals from so much of an intermediate order of said court, dated April 10, 1964, as declared valid the building inspector’s conditional refusal to approve the application and as sustained his denial of the permit unless petitioner shall construct certain curbs and sidewalks and make other specified street improvements, as required by the local planning board. Order, insofar as appealed from, reversed on the law, with $10 costs and disbursements; petition granted; and the building inspector directed forthwith to approve the petitioner’s application and to issue the permit, such approval and such permit to be granted unconditionally. In our opinion, under the circumstances here, it was an illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of power on the part of the local building inspector to deny conditionally petitioner’s application for the building permit and, as a condition precedent to the issuance of the permit, to compel the petitioner to construct certain curbs and sidewalks and to make other specified street improvements *(Reggs Homes*v. *Dickerson,*16 Misc 2d 732, affd. 8 A D 2d 640). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Christ, Brennan, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.
#### Nellie Sims, appellee, v. Hudson Insurance Company of New York, appellant.

Action upon fire insurance policy. Judgment for plaintiff. Appeal from the City Court of East St. Louis; the Hon. Silas Cook, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the March term, 1926.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed July 9, 1926.

Maurice V. Joyce and Leahy, Saunders & Walther, for appellant.

McCawley Baird, for appellee.

Mr. Justice Barry

delivered the opinion of the court.
EXHIBIT 32.2









CERTIFICATION









Pursuant to Sections 302 and 906 of the Corporate Fraud Accountability Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted), Hai Yun Zhuang, Chief Financial Officer of YaSheng Group, Ltd. (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:




1. the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and




2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









Dated: March 15, 2010










/S/ Hai Yun Zhuang

Hai Yun Zhuang

Chief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. George E. Stowers, Appellant, v. Robert E. Murphy, as Warden of Auburn Prison, Respondent.

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to either party. Appellant specifically waived assignment of counsel upon this appeal. (Appeal from order of Cayuga County Court dismissing, following a hearing, writ of habeas corpus and remanding relator to custody of Warden.) Present — Bastow, J. P., Goldman, Henry, Noonan and Del Veechio, JJ.
§ 1.307 Complaint. ( a ) On or after the date the Department of Justice approves the issuance of a complaint in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3803(b)(1), the reviewing official may serve a complaint on the respondent, as provided in § 1.308 of this part.
( b ) The complaint shall state— ( 1 ) The allegations of liability, including the statutory basis for liability, an identification of the claims or statements that are the basis for the alleged liability, and the reasons that liability allegedly arises from such claims or statements;
( 2 ) The maximum amount of penalties and assessments for which the respondent may be held liable;
( 3 ) Instructions for requesting a hearing, including a specific advice of the respondent's right to request a hearing and to be represented by a representative; and
( 4 ) That failure to file an answer within 30 days of service of the complaint may result in the imposition of the penalty and assessment sought in the complaint without right to appeal.
( c ) At the same time the reviewing official serves the complaint, he or she shall serve the respondent with a copy of these regulations.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

SMALL DUCT, HIGH VELOCITY (SDHV) STANDARDS (EE-RM/STD-02-330)

and

CENTRAL AIR-CONDITIONER TEST PROCEDURE (EE-RM/TP-02-002)

PUBLIC WORKSHOP

General Information

Comment Deadline: January 8, 2003

Address to Submit Comments : CACQ-y,ee.doe.gov

Please reference the appropriate docket number (see header above)

Written Comments: Refer to Federal Register Notice (67 FR 65742, Oct 28, 2002), ADDRESSES

Website: Home page of the Office of Building Technology (previously known as Office of

Codes

and Standards) is

http://wikw.eren.doe. gopv/buildings/codes standards/index.htm

DOE Points of Contact : Michael Raymond (EE-2J), (202) 586-9611

Michael W. Bowers (GC), (202) 586-9140

Crystal Branson, (202) 586-6448

EE-RM-STD-02-330 COMMENT 02CC
#### 9904.420-61 Interpretation. [Reserved]
§ 1006.10 Producer-handler. *Producer-handler* means a person who: ( a ) Operates a dairy farm and a distributing plant from which there is route disposition in the marketing area, and from which total route disposition and packaged sales of fluid milk products to other plants during the month does not exceed 3 million pounds;
( b ) Receives no fluid milk products, and acquires no fluid milk products for route disposition, from sources other than own farm production;
( c ) Disposes of no other source milk as Class I milk except by increasing the nonfat milk solids content of the fluid milk products received from own farm production; and
( d ) Provides proof satisfactory to the market administrator that the care and management of the dairy animals and other resources necessary to produce all Class I milk handled, and the processing and packaging operations, are the producer-handler's own enterprise and are operated at the producer-handler's own risk.
( e ) Any producer-handler with Class I route dispositions and/or transfers of packaged fluid milk products in the marketing area described in § 1131.2 of this chapter shall be subject to payments into the Order 1131 producer settlement fund on such dispositions pursuant to § 1000.76(a) and payments into the Order 1131 administrative fund provided such dispositions are less than three million pounds in the current month and such producer-handler had total Class I route dispositions and/or transfers of packaged fluid milk products from own farm production of three million pounds or more the previous month. If the producer-handler has Class I route dispositions and/or transfers of packaged fluid milk products into the marketing area described in § 1131.2 of this chapter of three million pounds or more during the current month, such producer-handler shall be subject to the provisions described in § 1131.7 of this chapter or § 1000.76(a).
[64 FR 47966, Sept. 1, 1999, as amended at 71 FR 25498, May 1, 2006; 75 FR 21160, Apr. 23, 2010]
932.501-2 Unusual progress payments. ( a ) ( 3 ) For DOE, the Head of the Contracting Activity shall forward all requests which are considered favorable, with supporting information, to the DOE Senior Procurement Executive, who, after coordination with the Chief Financial Officer, Headquarters, will approve or deny the request. For NNSA, the NNSA Senior Procurement Executive will coordinate with the NNSA Chief Financial Officer before approving or denying the request.
( d ) Requests for unusual progress payments will not be considered as a handicap or adverse factor in the award of a contract; provided the bid or proposal is not conditioned on approval of such request.
[49 FR 12011, Mar. 28, 1984, as amended at 59 FR 9106, Feb. 25, 1994; 75 FR 29458, May 26, 2010]
?Â

Iv

Stanton

SRMA

Weaver/

Octave

SCRMA

San Domingo

Wash RMZ

?¿

I}

Iz

Yarnell

Wickenburg

Vulture Mountain

ACEC

Wickenburg

Community RMZ

Vulture Mine RMZ

Constellation / Buckhorn Mine Road

Wickenburg/

Vulture SCRMA

Hassayampa

SRMA

Hummingbird

ngs Wilderness

Hells Canyon

Wilderness

Hassayampa

River Canyon

Wilderness

Bureau of Land Management

Phoenix District Office

Phoenix, AZ

October 2006

Note: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM)

conducts land use planning only in the areas administered

by BLM. BLM has no planning authority under the

municipal or county planning legislation of the State

of Arizona.

No warranty is made by BLM for the use of this map

for purposes not intended by BLM, or to the accuracy,

reliability or completeness of the information shown.

Spatial information may not meet National Map Accuracy

standards. This information may be updated without

notification.

± Note: Land Status legend located on Map 1-1

Map 2-85

Hassayampa

Management Unit

Multiple Resource Allocations &

Special Area Designations

Alternative E

0 1 2 3 4

Miles

BLM Wilderness

Interstate

Major Road

Major River, Streams or Wash

Highway

Bradshaw Harquahala

Planning Area

Management Unit

Resource Allocations

Special Area Designation

Special Recreation

Management Area

Area of Critical

Environmental Concern

(ACEC)

County Boundary

YAVAPAI COUNTY

MARICOPA COUNTY

Recreation Management

Zone (RMZ)

Special Cultural Resource

Management Area

(SCRMA) - Public Use

Back Country Byway
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report
of Duke Energy Ohio, Inc. (Duke Energy Ohio) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James E. Rogers, Chief Executive
Officer of Duke Energy Ohio, 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 Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Duke Energy Ohio.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                       
|---------------------------------------
|                                       
|/s/    JAMES E. ROGERS                 
|James E. Rogers                        
|Chief Executive Officer August 12, 2009
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS 

No. 21-1106V 

UNPUBLISHED 

MELANIE MUHLSTOCK and TODD 

MUHLSTOCK, on behalf of their minor 

child, A.M., 

 Petitioners, 

v. 

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES, 

 Respondent. 

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: November 22, 2021 

Withdrawal of petition; Order 

concluding proceedings 

 

ORDER CONCLUDING PROCEEDINGS1

 On March 2, 2021, Melanie and Todd Muhlstock filed a petition for compensation 

on behalf of their minor child, A.M., under the National Vaccine Injury Compensation 

Program, 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—10 through 34.

2 Petitioners alleged that A.M. suffered 

injuries after receiving a human papillomavirus vaccination on March 27, 2018 and a 

worsening after she had her second vaccination on September 2, 2018. ECF no. 1. 

 Because a decision had not been issued within the time specified in Vaccine 

Rule 10(b), a notice issued advising that “that the petitioner may withdraw the petition 

under section 300aa—21(b) of this title or the petitioner may choose under section 

300aa—21(b) of this title to have the petition remain before the special master.” 42 

U.S.C. § 300aa—12(g). On November 19, 2021, Petitioners timely filed a notice to 

withdraw the petition pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa—21(b). 

In light of Petitioners’ election to withdraw the petition pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

300aa—21(b) (promulgated as Vaccine Rule 10(d)), Petitioners’ request to withdraw the 

petition is GRANTED. Accordingly, this Order hereby notifies the Clerk of Court that 

proceedings “on the merits” of this petition are now concluded, but no judgment 

“on the merits” should be entered by the Clerk’s Office. 

1 Although I have not formally designated this Order for publication, I am required to post it on the United 

States Court of Federal Claims' website because it contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this 

case, in accordance with the E-Government Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal 

Management and Promotion of Electronic Government Services). This means the Order will be available 

to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to 

identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, 

I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. 
2

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

 s/Brian H. Corcoran 

 Brian H. Corcoran 

 Chief Special Master