alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Alfred E. Braun et al., Appellants, v Hudson Park Co-operative Apts., Inc., Respondent.

In an action, *inter alia,*to declare that plaintiffs have the sole right to sell their apartment and the shares of stock connected therewith, plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered May 21, 1980, which denied their motion for summary judgment on their first cause of action. Order modified, on the law, by adding thereto, immediately after the word "denied”, the following: "except that the motion is granted as to items numbered T’, '2’, and '3’ of plaintiffs’ demand under the first cause of action, plaintiffs have the right to sell their apartment and the shares of stock connected therewith, the Board of Directors of the Hudson Park Co-operative Apts., Inc., must recognize said right and perform its obligations accordingly, and the board is enjoined from doing anything which would thwart plaintiffs’ attempts to sell their apartment.” As so modified, order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs presented the court with sufficient facts to establish their right to the relief herein granted. In view of defendant’s failure to raise genuine issues of fact, summary judgment should have been granted. Hopkins, J. P., Titone, Margett and Weinstein, JJ., concur.
F-802 Corrected DD Form 250-1.       Follow the procedures at PGI F-802 when corrections to DD Form 250-1 are needed.    **Parent topic:** Part 8 -DISTRIBUTION OF THE DD FORM 250-1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TTI INDUSTRIES, INCORPORATED FROM THE PERIOD ENDED
AUGUST 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                          10,057
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  126,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               136,057
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 141,057
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           32,031
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,072,151
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   141,057
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,502
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (10,502)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (10,502)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

EASTERN DIVISION

BARBARA M. JEFFERS and )

JOAN K. CRAIG, )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:06cv685-WKW

)

RUSSELL COUNTY BOARD )

OF EDUCATION, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER

Upon consideration of the plaintiffs’ motion to compel (doc. # 19), it is

ORDERED that on or before September 6, 2007, the opposing parties shall show

cause why the motion should not be granted.

Done this 28 day of August, 2007. th 

 /s/Charles S. Coody 

CHARLES S. COODY

CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-00685-WKW-CSC Document 20 Filed 08/28/2007 Page 1 of 1
# L_2014085EN.01000901.xml

| 21.3.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 85/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 85/9

---

COUNCIL DECISION 2014/153/CFSP

of 20 March 2014

amending Decision 2011/172/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 29 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | On 21 March 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/172/CFSP (1). |
| --- | --- |

(1)

On 21 March 2011, the Council adopted Decision 2011/172/CFSP (1).

| (2) | On the basis of a review of Decision 2011/172/CFSP, the restrictive measures contained in that Decision should be renewed until 22 March 2015. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On the basis of a review of Decision 2011/172/CFSP, the restrictive measures contained in that Decision should be renewed until 22 March 2015.

| (3) | Decision 2011/172/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

Decision 2011/172/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

In Article 5 of Decision 2011/172/CFSP, the second paragraph is replaced by the following:

‘This Decision shall apply until 22 March 2015.’

Article 2

This Decision shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Brussels, 20 March 2014.

For the Council

The President

D. KOURKOULAS

---

(1)  Council Decision 2011/172/CFSP of 21 March 2011 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons, entities and bodies in view of the situation in Egypt (OJ L 76, 22.3.2011, p. 63).

1

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 9, 2020

No. 04-20-00537-CV

IN RE Phillip RODRIGUEZ

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2020-CI-12089

Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

Sitting: Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena Chapa, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

On November 5, 2020, relator filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in which he 

complained the trial court has refused to rule on and grant his no-evidence motion for summary 

judgment. Relator contends he set his summary judgment motion for hearing on September 15, 

2020. On November 25, 2020, this court issued an opinion denying the petition on the grounds 

that relator did not provide this court with any record and he did not establish that a two-month

delay in ruling was unreasonable. 

On November 30, 2020, relator filed a motion for reconsideration stating that two months 

have now passed since he filed his no-evidence motion for summary judgment and this court 

should reconsider our November 25, 2020 ruling. Relator also filed a copy of his request to the 

trial court clerk in which he requested certain pleadings that would support his request for 

mandamus relief. 

In addition to providing this court with a record showing the motion at issue was properly 

filed and the trial court was made aware of the motion, relator must also establish that the motion 

has not been ruled on by the trial court for an unreasonable period of time. See In re Mendoza, 

131 S.W.3d 167, 167-68 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2004, orig. proceeding). The temporal 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2020-CI-12089, styled Philip Rodriguez v. H.E.B. Grocery Store, L.P., et 

al., pending in the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Larry Noll presiding.
requirement on a trial court to rule on a pending motion is only that the judge rule within a 

“reasonable time.” In re Chavez, 62 S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2001, orig. 

proceeding); In re Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d 682, 683 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. 

proceeding). Whether such a period has lapsed is dependent upon the circumstances of each 

case. Chavez, 62 S.W.3d at 228. Moreover, “no bright-line demarcates the boundaries of a 

reasonable time period.” Id. Its scope is dependent upon a myriad of criteria, including the trial 

court’s actual knowledge of the motion, its overt refusal to rule, the state of the court’s docket, 

and the existence of other judicial and administrative matters that must be addressed first. Id. at 

228-29.

Relator’s motion for reconsideration does not establish the trial court has refused to rule 

for an unreasonable period of time. Therefore, relator’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED 

without prejudice to relator filing a new petition for writ of mandamus.

It is so ORDERED on December 9, 2020.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _________________________

 MICHAEL A. CRUZ, 

 CLERK OF COURT
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 239 (Tuesday, December 14, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 77939]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31176]



[[Page 77939]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Notice of Intent To Release Certain Properties From Federal 
Obligations

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for public comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The FAA hereby provides notice of intent to release certain 
airport properties on 23.45 acres at the Orlando International Airport, 
Orlando, FL from the conditions, reservations, and restrictions as 
contained in a Quitclaim Deed agreement between the United States 
Government and the City of Orlando, dated September 28, 2000. The 
release of property will allow the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority 
to dispose of the property for other than aeronautical purposes. The 
property is located on the northwest portion of airport property, near 
the corner of Avenue C and Binnacle Way in Orange County, Florida. The 
parcel is currently designated as non-aeronautical use. The property 
will be released of its Federal obligations to swap the land for 
another City-owned parcel. The 12.3 acre parcel to be acquired is 
located at the corner of Daetwyler Drive and Jetport Drive in Orange 
County, Florida. The fair market value of the Binnacle Way parcels has 
been determined by appraisal to be $3,115,900. The fair market value of 
the Jetport Drive parcel has been determined by appraisal to be 
$3,215,000.
    Documents reflecting the Sponsor's request are available, by 
appointment only, for inspection at the Orlando International Airport 
and the FAA Airports District Office.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 125 of The Wendell H. Ford Aviation 
Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21) requires the 
FAA to provide an opportunity for public notice and comment prior to 
the ``waiver'' or ``modification'' of a sponsor's Federal obligation to 
use certain airport land for non-aeronautical purposes.

DATES: Comments are due on or before January 13, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review at the Palm Beach 
International Airport, and the FAA Airports District Office, 5950 
Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822. Written 
comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or mailed to: 
Rebecca R. Henry, Program Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, 
5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rebecca R. Henry, Program Manager, 
Orlando Airports District Office, 5950 Hazeltine National Drive, Suite 
400, Orlando, FL 32822-5024.

    Issued in Orlando, Florida, on December 2, 2010.
W. Dean Stringer,
Manager, Orlando Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2010-31176 Filed 12-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

§ 868.33 Sample requirements; general. ( a ) *Samples for lot inspection service* — ( 1 ) *Original lot inspection service.* The sample(s) on which the original inspection is determined shall be— ( i ) Obtained by official personnel;
( ii ) Representative of the commodity in the lot;
( iii ) Protected by official personnel from manipulation, substitution, and improper or careless handling; and
( iv ) Obtained within the prescribed area of responsibility of the cooperator or field office performing the inspection service.
( 2 ) *Retest lot inspection service.* The sample(s) on which the retest is determined shall meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section. The retest inspection shall be performed on the basis of a file sample(s), and the samples shall meet the requirements prescribed in § 868.35(e).
( 3 ) *Appeal lot inspection service.* For an appeal lot inspection service, the sample(s) on which the appeal is determined shall meet the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section. If the appeal inspection is performed on the basis of a file sample(s), the samples shall meet the requirements prescribed in § 868.35(e). In accordance with § 868.61(b), an applicant may request that a new sample be obtained and examined as part of the appeal inspection service.
( 4 ) *Board appeal lot inspection service.* A Board appeal lot inspection service shall be performed on the basis of file sample.
( b ) *Sampler requirement.* An official sampler shall sample commodities and forward the samples to the appropriate cooperator or field office or other location as specified. A sampling report signed by the sampler shall accompany each sample. The report shall include the identity, quantity, and location of the commodity sampled; the name and mailing address of the applicant; and all other information regarding the lot as may be required.
( c ) *Representative sample.* A sample shall not be considered representative of a commodity lot unless the sample— ( 1 ) Has been obtained by official personnel;
( 2 ) Is of the size prescribed in the instructions; and
( 3 ) Has been obtained, handled, and submitted in accordance with the instructions.
( d ) *Protecting samples.* Official personnel shall protect samples from manipulation, substitution, and improper and careless handling which would deprive the samples of their representativeness or which would change the physical and chemical properties of the commodity from the time of sampling until inspection services are completed and file samples have been discarded.
[53 FR 3722, Feb. 9, 1988. Redesignated and amended at 60 FR 16364, Mar. 30, 1995]
#### § 906.29 Expenses and compensation.

The members of the committee, and alternates, shall serve without compensation; but they may be reimbursed for expenses necessarily incurred by them in the performance of their duties and in the exercise of their powers under this subpart.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MONTY W. ERVIN and )

PATRICIA D. ERVIN, )

)

Petitioners, )

)

v. ) CASE NO. 1:06-mc-3331-MEF

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

and COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL )

REVENUE SERVICE, )

)

Respondents. )

ORDER

Pursuant to Monty W. Ervin’s Voluntary Withdrawal of Action (Doc. #11) filed on

March 6, 2007 and Patricia D. Ervin’s Voluntary Withdrawal of Action (Doc. 12) filed on

March 13, 2007 and defendants’ notice that the motions are unopposed , it is hereby

ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice.

DONE this the 27th day of March, 2007.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-mc-03331-MEF-TFM Document 13 Filed 03/27/2007 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
              Armored Storage Income Investors Limited Partnership
                   Appendix A to Item 601(c) of Regulation S-K
                       Commercial and Industrial Companies
                           Article 5 of Regulation S-X
                          3 Months Ended March 31, 1998
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollar
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                          1
<CASH>                                             605,477
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       36,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                        18,000
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   587,312
<PP&E>                                           7,074,105
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,293,891
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   5,403,856
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               71,735
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,332,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     5,403,856
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   288,863
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      159,697
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    40,041
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     89,125
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 89,125
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                        89,125
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         5.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         5.64
                                               

</TABLE>
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

BETTY MAE SHIPP, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

 v. ) 2:06-CV-0853-MHT

) (WO)

SHAWN SMITH, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION

This litigation is now before the court on the recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge entered on November 21, 2006 (Doc. 10), that this case be dismissed

without prejudice for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute this action. 

 After a review of the recommendation, to which no timely objections have been filed,

and after an independent review of the entire record, the court believes that the

recommendation should be adopted.

An appropriate judgment will be entered.

DONE, this the 7th day of December, 2006.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00693-ID-TFM Document 29 Filed 12/07/2006 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of NuPathe Inc.;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 registrant as of, and for, the periods
presented in this report;4.
    
    The registrant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 registrant 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 registrant, 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 registrant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 registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants
auditors and the audit committee of registrant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 registrant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 registrants internal control over
financial reporting.
 Date: March 18, 2011
    /s/ Keith A. GoldanKeith A. GoldanVice President and Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION


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)


In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Zogenix, Inc. (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stephen J. Farr, as Chief Executive 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 to 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: April 28, 2016/s/ Stephen J. FarrStephen J. FarrChief Executive Officer


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.