alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Denied and Opinion Filed August 28, 2024 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-24-01006-CV 

IN RE ADRIAN HOLDEN, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 283rd Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. F06-73800 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Pedersen, III, Smith, and Garcia 

Opinion by Justice Garcia 

Before the Court is relator’s August 22, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus. 

Relator asks this Court to compel the trial court to rule on a post-conviction motion 

for DNA testing that relator contends he filed in 2019. 

It is relator’s burden to provide the Court with a record that is sufficient to 

show he is entitled to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 

1992) (orig. proceeding). A petition seeking mandamus relief must include a 

certification stating that the relator “has reviewed the petition and concluded that 

every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included 

in the appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(j). We are bound by this Court’s 
 –2– 

precedent requiring exceptionally strict compliance with rule 52.3(j)’s requirements. 

In re Stewart, No. 05-19-01338-CV, 2020 WL 401764, at *1 (Tex. App.—Dallas 

Jan. 24, 2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Here, relator provided an unsworn 

declaration wherein he stated that “the statements contained in this [p]etition [f]or a 

[w]rit [o]f [m]andamus [are] within [his] personal knowledge and are true and 

correct,” and he provided a certification wherein he stated that “[e]very factual 

statement in the Petition is supported by competent evidence here [sic] is true and 

correct.” These certifications do not meet rule 52.3(j)’s requirements. To comply 

with prior opinions of this Court that interpret the mandamus rules, a relator should 

use the exact words of rule 52.3(j) without deviation in his certification. Id. 

Additionally, although relator filed documents with his petition, they are not 

sworn or certified copies as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a). Without a properly certified petition and 

properly authenticated appendix or record, we conclude that relator has not carried 

his burden. See In re Butler, 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2008, orig. 

proceeding). 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. 

 
 –3– 

Relator’s August 22, 2024 motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as 

moot. 

241006F.P05 

/Dennise Garcia/ 

DENNISE GARCIA 

JUSTICE
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### National Park Service

Pursuant to section 60.14 of 36 CFR part 60, comments are being accepted on the following properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places that are being considered for relocation. Comments may be forwarded by United States Postal Service, to the National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service, 1849 C St. NW., MS 2280, Washington, DC 20240; by all other carriers, National Register of Historic Places, National Park Service,1201 Eye St. NW., 8th floor, Washington DC 20005; or by fax, 202-371-6447. Written or faxed comments should be submitted by December 7, 2010.

Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.

Alexandra Lord, 

Acting Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program.

Request for RELOCATION has been made for the following resources:

## MISSISSIPPI

## Harrison County

Quarles, W.J., House and Cottage, 120 and 122 E Railroad St., Long Beach, 80002244

## ALASKA

## Skagway-Hoonah-Angoon

Windfall Harbor CCC Shelter Cabin, Admiralty Island National Monument, Angoon, 95001299

[FR Doc. 2010-29286 Filed 11-19-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4312-51-P
Editorial Note on Subpart E of Part 301
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part appear at 87 FR 80005, Dec. 29, 2022.

§ 301.45-4 Conditions governing the interstate movement of regulated articles and outdoor household articles from quarantined areas. ( a ) Regulated articles and outdoor household articles from areas. ( 1 ) A regulated article, except for an article moved in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section, shall not be moved interstate from any quarantined area into or through any area that is not quarantined unless a certificate or permit has been issued and attached to such regulated article in accordance with §§ 301.45-5 and 301.45-8.[1]
( 2 ) An outdoor household article shall not be moved interstate from any quarantined area into or through any area that is not quarantined unless a certificate or OHA document has been issued and attached to such outdoor household article in accordance with §§ 301.45-5 and 301.45-8.
( b ) A regulated article originating outside of any quarantined area may be moved interstate directly through anyquarantined area without a certificate or permit if the point of origin of the article is clearly indicated by shipping documents, its identity has been maintained, and it has been safeguarded against infestation while in any quarantined area during the months of April through August.
( c ) A regulated article originating in a quarantined area may be moved interstate from a quarantined area without a certificate if it complies with (1) or (2) of this paragraph: ( 1 ) The article is moved by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for experimental or scientific purposes, and: ( i ) Is moved pursuant to a permit issued for each article by the Administrator;
( ii ) Is moved in accordance with conditions specified on the permit and found by the Administrator to be adequate to prevent the dissemination of the gypsy moth, i.e., conditions of treatment, processing, shipment, and disposal; and
( iii ) Is moved with a tag or label securely attached to the outside of the container containing the article or securely attached to the article itself if not in a container, and with such tag or label bearing a permit number corresponding to the number of the permit issued for such article.
( 2 ) The article is logs, pulpwood, or bark and bark products, and the person moving the article has attached a signed accurate statement to the waybill or other shipping documents accompanying the article stating that he or she has inspected the article in accordance with the Gypsy Moth Program Manual no more than 5 days prior to the date of movement and has found no life stages of gypsy moth on the article.
[58 FR 39423, July 23, 1993, as amended at 70 FR 33268, June 7, 2005; 71 FR 40878, July 19, 2006; 72 FR 70764, Dec. 13, 2007; 80 FR 12917, Mar. 12, 2015; 87 FR 80006, Dec. 29, 2022] Footnotes -
301.45-4
[1] Requirements under all other applicable Federal domestic plant quarantines must also be met.
§ 27.98 Value of grade where no sale; determination. As provided in § 27.96, whenever no sale of a particular grade of cotton shall have been made on a given day in a particular spot market, the value of such grade in the market on that day will be determined as follows: ( a ) If on such given day there shall have been in such market both a sale of any higher grade and a sale of any lower grade, the average of the declines, or advances, or decline and advance, as the case may be, of the next higher grade and the next lower grade so sold shall be deducted from, or added to, as the case may be, the value, on the last preceding business day, of the grade the value of which on such given day is sought to be ascertained.
( b ) If on such given day there shall have been in such market a sale of either a higher or a lower grade, but not sales of both, the decline or advance of the next higher or the next lower grade so sold shall be deducted from, or added to, as the case may be, the value on the last preceding business day of the grade the value of which on such given day is sought to be ascertained.
( c ) If on such given day there shall have been in such market no sale of spot cotton of any grade, the value of each grade shall be deemed to be the same as its value therein on the last preceding business day, unless in the meantime there shall have been bona fide bids and offers, or sales of hedged cotton, or other sales of cotton, or changes in prices of futures contracts made subject to the act, which in the usual course of business would clearly establish a rise or fall in the value of spot cotton in such market, in which case such rise or fall may be calculated and added to or deducted from the value on the preceding business day of cotton of all grades affected thereby.
[53 FR 29327, Aug. 4, 1988]
UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2885

(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE)

CONDITIONAL TRANSFER ORDER (CTO −39)

On April 3, 2019, the Panel transferred 8 civil action(s) to the United States District Court for the

Northern District of Florida for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1407. See 366 F.Supp.3d 1368 (J.P.M.L. 2019). Since that time, 988 additional action(s)

have been transferred to the Northern District of Florida. With the consent of that court, all such

actions have been assigned to the Honorable M. Casey Rodgers.

It appears that the action(s) on this conditional transfer order involve questions of fact that are

common to the actions previously transferred to the Northern District of Florida and assigned to

Judge Rodgers.

Pursuant to Rule 7.1 of the Rules of Procedure of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict

Litigation, the action(s) on the attached schedule are transferred under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to the

Northern District of Florida for the reasons stated in the order of April 3, 2019, and, with the consent

of that court, assigned to the Honorable M. Casey Rodgers.

This order does not become effective until it is filed in the Office of the Clerk of the United States

District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The transmittal of this order to said Clerk shall be

stayed 7 days from the entry thereof. If any party files a notice of opposition with the Clerk of the

Panel within this 7−day period, the stay will be continued until further order of the Panel.

FOR THE PANEL:

John W. Nichols

Clerk of the Panel

Case MDL No. 2885 Document 607 Filed 10/17/19 Page 1 of 2
IN RE: 3M COMBAT ARMS EARPLUG

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2885

SCHEDULE CTO−39 − TAG−ALONG ACTIONS

DIST DIV. C.A.NO. CASE CAPTION

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN

MSN 1 19−00176 Pevey v. 3M Company et al

Case MDL No. 2885 Document 607 Filed 10/17/19 Page 2 of 2
§ 3430.209 Emergency Citrus Disease Research and Extension Program. The purpose of this program is to award competitive grants to: ( a ) Conduct scientific research and extension activities, technical assistance, and development activities to combat citrus diseases and pests, both domestic and invasive, which pose imminent harm to the United States citrus production and threaten the future viability of the citrus industry, including huanglongbing and the Asian Citrus Psyllid; and
( b ) Provide support for the dissemination and commercialization of relevant information, techniques, and technologies discovered pursuant to research and extension activities funded through— ( 1 ) The emergency citrus disease research and extension program; or
( 2 ) Other research and extension projects intended to solve problems caused by citrus production diseases and invasive pests.
[81 FR 6415, Feb. 8, 2016]
• I -

Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Civil Action No. 

Prince George's County Police 

Services et at., 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Defendants. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

FILED 

OCT 302009 

Clerk, u.s. District and 

Bankruptcy Courts 

09 2U35 

This matter is before the Court on its initial review of plaintiffs pro se complaint and 

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the informa pauperis 

application and dismiss the case because the complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading 

requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 

656 F. Supp. 237,239 (D.D.C. 1987). Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires 

complaints to contain" (1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction 

[and] (2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 

F.3d 661,668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair 

notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate 

defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies. Brown v. Califano, 75 

F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). 
· .. - ... ' 

Plaintiff, a resident of Upper Marlboro, Maryland, sues police officers in Palmer Park, 

Maryland, for $100,000. The complaint consists of one page and a stack of unexplained 

attachments. The allegations are incomprehensible and, thus, fail to provide any notice of a 

claim and the basis of federal court jurisdiction. A separate order of dismissal accompanies this 

Memorandum Opinion. 

United 

C2~~. States District Judge 

Date: October .....L.!-, 2009 

2
§ 400.707 Presentation to the Board for approval or disapproval. ( a ) The Board will inform the applicant of the date, time, and place of the Board meeting.
( b ) The applicant will be given the opportunity and is encouraged to present the 508(h) submission, concept proposal, or index-based weather plan of insurance to the Board in person. The applicant must confirm in writing, email or fax whether the applicant will present in person to the Board.
( c ) If the applicant elects not to present the 508(h) submission, concept proposal, or index-based weather plan of insurance to the Board, the Board will make its decision based on the information provided in accordance with § 400.705 and § 400.706.
Case 3:96-cr-00014-LC-CJK Document 92 Filed 07/05/16 Page 1 of 4
Case 3:96-cr-00014-LC-CJK Document 92 Filed 07/05/16 Page 2 of 4
Case 3:96-cr-00014-LC-CJK Document 92 Filed 07/05/16 Page 3 of 4
Case 3:96-cr-00014-LC-CJK Document 92 Filed 07/05/16 Page 4 of 4
# Search Census Archive

Home

## 2002

**Issuing Agency:** NASS

**Date of Publication:** 2002

**

### 						Volume 1: Geographic Area Series					

#### State and County Data

#### Summary

#### Outlying Areas

**

### 						Volume 2: Subject Series					

**

### 						Volume 3: Specialty Products and Special Studies					

### Other Years

#### 				2012			

#### 				2007			

#### 				2002			

#### 				1997			

#### 				1992			

#### 				1987			

#### 				1982			

#### 				1978			

#### 				1974			

#### 				1969			

#### 				1964			

#### 				1959			

#### 				1954			

#### 				1950			

#### 				1945			

#### 				1940			

#### 				1935			

#### 				1930			

#### 				1925			

#### 				1920			

#### 				1910			

#### 				1900			

#### 				1890			

#### 				1880			

#### 				1870			

#### 				1860			

#### 				1850			

#### 				1840			

- Home
- Login

- Home
- Login

repliche rolex orologigenți falsereplique breitling

**Partners:**

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)

Albert R. Mann Library, Cornell UniversityUnited States Department of Agriculture

**Developed & supported by:**

**Albert R. Mann Library****Cornell University****Ithaca, NY 14853-4301**Phone: **(607) 255-5406**Email: **usda-help@cornell.edu**
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of TWC Holding LLC (the “Company”)for the thirteen weeks ended April 1, 2006 as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Brian A. Lutes,Chief Financial Officer 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:

1.               TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.               The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date:  May 16, 2006

 
|        | By:    | /s/ Brian A. Lutes       |
|--------|--------|--------------------------|
|   |   | Brian A. Lutes           |
|   |   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

 

 

Asigned original of this written statement, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this written statement, has been provided tothe Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securitiesand Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
§ 3430.909 Other considerations. ( a ) *Amount of grants.* An applicant for a regular project proposal (single institution/organization) under this subpart may request up to $125,000 (total project, not per year). An applicant for a joint project proposal (applicant plus one or more partners) under this subpart may request up to $300,000 (total project, not per year). A conference/planning grant applicant may request up to $10,000 (total project/not per year).
( b ) *Duration of grants.* The term of a grant for a standard RTP project under this subpart shall not exceed 5 years. No-cost extensions of time beyond the maximum award terms will not be considered or granted.
#### Donald A. Diamond et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Residents and Property Owners in the City of Kingston Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. City of Kingston et al., Respondents.

Memorandum bt the Coubt. Appeal from an order of the -Supreme Court at Special Term which (1) granted the motion of defendants O’Connor and Fox to vacate a preliminary injunction theretofore granted in the action, for plaintiffs’ failure to file the undertaking required by the order granting the injunction (CPLR 6312, subd. [b]), and (2). denied plaintiffs’ cross motion for an order reducing the amount of the undertaking. The amount fixed was entirely reasonable under the circumstances and, in consequence the refusal to reduce -it was well within the Special Term’s -discretion and will not be disturbed by us. The court having properly declined to modify its prior order was obliged to vacate the injunction. We reach no other issue. Order affirmed, without costs. Gibson, P. J., Herlihy, Reynolds, Aulisi and Greenblott, JJ., concur in memorandum by the court.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 21, 2011

y0914 

# Order

September 21, 2011

142910

GUY HISSONG and BETHANY HISSONG, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

and SC: 142910 COA: 294956 MARK R. DANCER, Wexford CC: 06-019885-CE Appellant,

v

STEWART BRYCE, CA ROLYN BRYCE, COUNTY OF WEXF ORD, WEXFORD COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, and WEXFORD COUNTY LANDFILL, Defendants-Appellees, and

JILANE FENNER and FENNER REAL ESTATE, INC., a/k/a EXIT RE ALTY OF GREATER CADILLAC, Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 3, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to app eal, we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals, for the reasons stated in the Court of Appeals di ssenting opinion, and we REMAND this case
to the Wexford Circuit Court for reconsidera tion of the defendants’ motion for sanctions pursuant to MCR 2.114(D), (E), (F) and MCL 6 00.2591. On remand, if the circuit court again assesses sanctions, we direct the cour t to determine whether the plaintiffs’ cocounsel at the time of the defendants’ motio n for summary disposition—James P. O’Neill
and Robert Charles Davis—shoul d be held jointly and severa lly liable for the assessment, along with the plaintiffs and their former attorney, Mark R. Dancer.

We do not retain jurisdiction.
#### § 3565.4 Availability of assistance.

The Agency's authority to enter into commitments, guarantee loans, or provide interest credits is limited to the extent that appropriations are available to cover the cost of the assistance. The Agency will notify the public of the availability of assistance, changes in application requirements, or changes in the fee structure.

[84 FR 55035, Oct. 15, 2019]
Exhibit
      32.1




CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned
officer of O2 Secure Wireless, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the “Company”), does
hereby certify, to the best of his knowledge, that:




1. 
The Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 (the “Report”) of
the Company complies in all material respects with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
and




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






/s/ Craig C.
Sellars