alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-22-00594-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

IN RE BAYSHORE ENERGY TX LLC 

AND ATLAS OPERATING LLC

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Silva

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria1

Relators Bayshore Energy TX LLC and Atlas Operating LLC filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus through which they assert that the trial court abused its discretion in 

granting a motion to expunge a lis pendens filed by real party in interest, VDA Solar Texas 

1 LLC (VDA). 

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

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

47.1 (requiring the appellate courts to “hand down a written opinion that is as brief as practicable but that 

addresses every issue raised and necessary to final disposition”); id. R. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and 

memorandum opinions).
2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). “The relator bears the burden of proving these two 

requirements.” In re H.E.B. Grocery Co., 492 S.W.3d 300, 302 (Tex. 2016) (orig. 

proceeding) (per curiam); Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 840.

Mandamus may be appropriate to consider rulings regarding lis pendens. See

Flores v. Haberman, 915 S.W.2d 477, 478 (Tex. 1995) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); 

see, e.g., In re Gaudet, 625 S.W.3d 887, 891 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2021, orig. proceeding

[mand. denied]) (“It is well settled that mandamus is the appropriate remedy when issues 

arise concerning the propriety of a notice of lis pendens.”); In re I-10 Poorman Invs., Inc., 

549 S.W.3d 614, 616 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding) (“In disputes 

concerning notices of lis pendens, mandamus is the appropriate remedy and a showing 

of adequate remedy by appeal is unnecessary.”).

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

the response filed by VDA, the reply thereto filed by relators, and the applicable law, is of 
3

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

the petition for writ of mandamus.

NORA L. LONGORIA

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

26th day of January, 2023.
Exhibit 31.1

 Certification pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) of the Securities Exchange
                                  Act of 1934

I, Teong C. Lim, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this annual report for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2005 of ELECTRONIC SENSOR TECHNOLOGY, INC. (the "Company");

2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of,
and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.   The Company's other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:

(a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the Company's internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent fiscal
quarter (the Company's fourth fiscal quarter) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control over
financial reporting; and

5.   The Company's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
Company's auditors and the audit committee of Company's board of directors (or
persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize
and report financial information; and

(b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal control over
financial reporting.


Date: October 19, 2006                     /s/ Teong C. Lim
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Teong C. Lim
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
Featured Grant OpportunitySchool Emergency Response to Violence (Project SERV) (Funding Opportunity) 

Featured Grant OpportunityShare with Youth: NOAA Student Opportunities Database

Featured Grant OpportunityShort Courses in Social Determinants of Health for Research Education in Nursing Research (Funding...

Featured Grant OpportunityComprehensive Partnerships to Advance Cancer Health Equity (CPACHE) Program (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityRisk and Protective Factors of Family Health and Family Level Interventions (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityPersonnel Development to Improve Services and Results for Children with Disabilities--Doctoral...

Featured Grant OpportunityStanding Announcement for Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityProviding Research Education Experiences to Enhance Inclusivity for a Diverse Substance Use and...

Featured Grant OpportunityFY 2024 Research on School-Based Hate Crimes (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityChallenge America (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityResearch and Evaluation on Firearm Violence and Mass Shootings (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityNational Juvenile Court Data Archive (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityGraduate Research Fellowship (Funding Opportunity)

Featured Grant OpportunityCommunity Programs for Outreach and Intervention with Youth and Young Adults at Clinical High Risk...

Featured Grant OpportunityPrint and Disseminate Child Victims and Witnesses Support Materials (Funding Opportunity)

## Breadcrumb

            -           Healthy Youth - Childhood Obesity      

# Healthy Youth - Childhood Obesity

The prevalence of overweight among children aged 6 to 11 more than doubled in the past 20 years, going from 7% in 1980 to 18.8% in 2004. The rate among adolescents aged 12 to 19 more than tripled, increasing from 5% to 17.1%. This fact sheet provides information about the problem of overweight in children.

http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/overweight/index.htm
**Exhibit 15.1**

**Letter re: Unaudited Interim Financial Information**

Board of Directors and Stockholders 

Chaparral Steel Company 

We are aware ofthe incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement Numbers 333-126992 and 333-137146 on Form S-8 and in the related Prospectuses of our report dated April 10, 2007 relating to the unaudited consolidated interim financial statements ofChaparral Steel Company which are included in its Form 10-Q for the quarter ended February 28, 2007. 

Pursuant to Rule 436(c) of theSecurities Act of 1933 our report is not part of the Registration Statement prepared or certified by accountants within the meaning of Section 7 or 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

 

April 10, 2007 

Dallas, Texas
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                        REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

To the Stockholders of VIASYS Healthcare Inc.:

We have audited in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the
United States, the consolidated financial statements included in VIASYS
Healthcare Inc.'s Annual Report to Stockholders incorporated by reference in
this Form 10-K, and have issued our report thereon dated February 6, 2002
(except with respect to the matter discussed in paragraph 3 to Note 8, as to
which the date is March 15, 2002). Our audits were made for the purpose of
forming an opinion on those statements taken as a whole. The schedule listed in
Item 14 is the responsibility of the Company's management and is presented for
purposes of complying with the Securities and Exchange Commission's rules and is
not part of the basic consolidated financial statements. This schedule has been
subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audits of the basic
consolidated financial statements and, in our opinion, fairly states in all
material respects the consolidated financial data required to be set forth
therein in relation to the basic consolidated financial statements taken as a
whole.


                                          Arthur Andersen LLP


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
February 6, 2002 (except with
respect to the matter discussed
in paragraph 3 of Note 8, as to
which the date is March 15, 2002)
EX-10.5(b)



 Exhibit 10.5(b) 
 June 1, 2012 
 Graham Capital Management, L.P. 

Rock Ledge Financial Center 
 40 Highland Avenue

 Rowayton, CT 06853 
 Attention:
Mr. Paul Sedlack 
 Re: Management Agreement Renewals 
 Dear Mr. Sedlack: 
 We are writing with respect to your management agreements concerning the
commodity pools to which reference is made below (the “Management Agreements”). We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2013 and all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged.

  

	 	•	 	 Diversified 2000 Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P. II. 



 

	 	•	 	 Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P. 


  

	 	•	 	 Fairfield Futures Fund L.P. II 


  

	 	•	 	 CMF Graham Capital Master Fund L.P. 


 Please acknowledge receipt of this modification by signing one copy of this letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Brian Centner at the address above or fax to 212-296-6868. If you have any
questions I can be reached at 212-296-1290. 
 Very truly yours, 
 CERES MANAGED FUTURES LLC 
  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Brian Centner

		 	Brian Centner
		 	Chief Financial Officer & Director

  

			
	GRAHAM CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Paul Sedlack

	Print Name:	 	Paul Sedlack, CEO
	BC/sr
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,

Petitioner 

v.

STEPHEN DANIEL BRINTON,

 Respondent 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 2691 Disciplinary Docket No. 3

No. 88 DB 2020

Attorney Registration No. 94817

(Out of State)

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of July, 2020, upon consideration of the Recommendation 

of the Three-Member Panel of the Disciplinary Board, the Joint Petition in Support of 

Discipline on Consent is granted, and Stephen Daniel Brinton is suspended on consent

from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of three years, with six months to be 

served. The remaining suspension period is stayed, and he is placed on probation for 

two years and six months, subject to the following conditions:

1. Respondent shall comply with all of the conditions of his criminal probation 

as directed by the Chester County Court of Common Pleas and supervised 

by the Chester County Office of Probation and Parole;

2. Respondent shall provide to the Board the name and contact information of 

his parole and probation officer and shall immediately report to the Board 

any changes to this information and/or a transfer to a new parole and 

probation officer;

3. Respondent shall file with the Board quarterly written reports which, at a 

minimum, establish his continued compliance with these conditions; and
4. Respondent shall immediately report to the Board any violations of the 

terms and conditions of this probation. 

Respondent shall comply with all the provisions of Pa.R.D.E. 217 and pay costs to 

the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Pa.R.D.E. 208(g).
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Kubla Khan, Inc. on Form 10-KSBfor the year ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission (the “Report”), I, YaLi Xu, Chief Executive Officer and adirector of Kubla Khan, Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1.                                       The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

2.                                       To my knowledge,the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company asof and for the period covered by the Report.

 

 
| April 9, 2004 | /s/ YaLi Xu |                    |
|--------------------|-------------|-------------------------|
|               |        | YaLi Xu                 |   |
|               |        | Chief Executive Officer |
|                    |             |                         |  |  |

 

----
EXHIBIT 32.2


                          SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

                   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 Form 10-QSB/A of MADISON EXPLORATIONS, INC. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Joel Haskins , Chief Financial Officer and Director of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:

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 the Company.



DATE: March 8, 2006


/s/ JOEL HASKINS
________________________________________
    Joel Haskins
    Chief Financial Officer and Director


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 MADISON EXPLORATIONS, INC. AND
WILL BE RETAINED BY MADISON EXPLORATIONS, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES
AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
### SAT Report PMN Number: P-15-0136 SAT Date: 12/23/2014

Print Date: 2/3/2015

Related cases : CBI : Yes Health related cases: Ecotox related cases:

Concern levels : Type of Concern: Health Eco Comments Level of Concern: 1-2 1

Persistence Bioaccum Toxicity Comments 3 11

Exposure Based Review : Health: Yes Exposure based testing (health): Inhalation only: 90-day inhalation with 60 day hold Ecotox: N o
Routes of exposure : Health: Inhalation Ecotox: N o releases to water Fate: ; Keywords : Keywords: LUNG OVERLOAD
Summary of Assessment :
Fate : Fate Summary: P-15-0136 FATE: with 1.5% < 500 and 1.5% < 1000 Solid S = N egl. VP < 1.0E-6 torr at 25 C (E) BP > 400 C (E) H < 1.00E-8 (E) POTW removal (%) = 90 via sorption Time for complete ultimate aerobic biodeg > mo Sorption to soils/sediments = v.strongPBT Potential: P3B1 *CEB FATE: Migration to ground water = negl

Health : Health Summary: Absorption is nil all routes ( p che m ). Concern for lung toxicity if inhaled based on lung overload for high molecular weight .

Ecotox :
Test Organism Test Type Test End Point Predicted Measured Comments

fish 96-h LC50 * daphnid 48-h LC50 * green algal 96-h EC50 * fish

_ chronic value * daphnid

_ chronic value *
algal

_ chronic value *
Sewage Sludge 3-h EC50

_ Sewage Sludge

_ Chronic Value _

Ecotox Values Comments: Predictions are based on ; SAR chemical class = ; with 1.5% <1000 and 1.5% <500; solid with unknown mp (P); S < 0.001 mg/L at 20 °C(P); p H7; effective concentrations based on 100% active ingredients and nominal concentrations; hardness < 150.0 mg/L as CaCO3; and <2.0 mg/L;

Factors Values Comments Assessment Factor 10 Concentration of Concern ( p pb) *

SARs SAR Class Ecotox Category

Ecotox Factors Comments:

SAT Chair: L Keifer 564-8916
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21-7436

BRYANT MATTHEW PARKER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR OF THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, Senior District Judge. (1:20-cv-00807-AJT-MSN)

Submitted: January 31, 2023 Decided: February 16, 2023

Before WYNN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bryant Matthew Parker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7436 Doc: 17 Filed: 02/16/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Bryant Matthew Parker seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing 

of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court 

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims 

debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-16 (2017). When the district 

court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the 

dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of 

the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Parker has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Parker’s motions for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 21-7436 Doc: 17 Filed: 02/16/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
§ 1146.1 Definitions. *AMS* means the Agricultural Marketing Service of the United States Department of Agriculture.
*Eligible dairy organization* means a dairy farmer, either individually or as part of a cooperative, or a dairy processor that: ( 1 ) Accounts to a Federal Milk Marketing Order; and
( 2 ) Incurs a qualified expense described in § 1146.1.
*Eligible distributor* means a public or private non-profit organization that distributes donated eligible milk.
*Eligible milk* means Class I fluid milk products produced and processed in the United States that meet the specifications referenced in § 1146.3.
*Eligible partnership* means a partnership between an eligible dairy organization and an eligible distributor.
*Fiscal year* means the twelve-month period beginning October 1 of any year and ending September 30 of the following year.
*Participating partnership* means an eligible partnership for which AMS has approved a Dairy Donation and Distribution Plan (Plan) for eligible milk under § 1146.104.
*Program* means the Milk Donation Reimbursement Program established in this part.
*Qualified expense* means the cost incurred to purchase fresh fluid milk product or bulk dairy commodity product for processing into eligible dairy products.
*Secretary* means the Secretary of the United States Department of Agriculture or a representative authorized to act in the Secretary's stead.
[84 FR 46658, Sept. 5, 2019, as amended at 86 FR 48897, Sept. 1, 2021; 88 FR 60105, Aug. 31, 2023]