alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed June

18 , 2019.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00424- CV

IN RE MEREDITH JOHNS ON , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 309th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2017-62105



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On May 21, 2019, relator Meredith Johnson filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( Supp. ); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the Honorable Linda
Dunston , presiding judge of the 309th District Court of Harris County , to vacate the2

portion of her May 9, 2019 order denying Meredith’s motion to decline jurisdiction under section 152.207 of the Texas Family Code. To obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show that the trial court clearly
abused its discretion . In re Prudential Ins. Co ., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135– 36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); In re G arza , 544 S.W.3d 836, 840 (Tex. 2018) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). Relator has not shown that the trial court clearly abused its discretion

. We the refore deny relator ’s petition for writ of mandamus

.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Justices Wise, Jewell, and Hassan.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-3524

___________ Terry Lynn Harris, * * Appellant, *

* v. * * St. Charles County Commissioner; St. * Appeal from the United States Charles County Sheriff; Tony Tipton, * District Court for the Eastern Officer, Badge No. 411; Phillip * District of Missouri. Adams, Officer, Badge No. 484; * Unknown Simmon, Officer, Badge * [UNPUBLISHED] No. 447; Robert Smith, Officer, * Badge No. 471; Unknown Seager, * Officer, Badge No. 472; R. Gatewood, * Officer, Badge No. Unknown, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: June 22, 2000 Filed: June 29, 2000

___________ Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, FAGG and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Terry Lynn Harris appeals the district court's denial of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging various correctional officers violated his Eighth Amendment rights by-2-

failingtimely to administer medication and by using unreasonable force constituting crueland unusual punishment. Having carefully reviewed the record and the parties' briefs, we conclude extended discussion is not required and affirm for the reasons stated in the district court's thorough opinion. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER Appellate case name: Senrick Wilkerson v. Ramsey 1 Unit Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00790

- CV Trial court case number: 78470

- I Trial court: 412th Judicial District Court of Brazoria County Appellant Senrick Wilkerson, an inmate, appeals the trial court’s judgment dismissing his underlying civil action as frivolous. On appeal, appellant filed an affidavit of inability to pay costs (attached to a motion to appoint counsel that this Co urt denied on November 13, 2014) but has failed to comply with the additional requirements of Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code governing inmate litigation. Section 14.004 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code provides that an inmate who files an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to pay costs must file an additional affidavit or declaration identifying each prior lawsuit, other than an action under the Family Code, filed by the inmate without legal representation. T EX . C IV . P RAC
. & R EM . C ODE § 14.004(a). As to each prior lawsuit, the affidavit or declaration must specify the operative facts, the case name or style, the cause number, the court in which it was brought, the names of the parties, and the result of the suit. Id . If a previous action or claim was dismissed as frivolous or malicious, the affidavit or unsworn declaration of previous filings must state the date of any final judgment or order affirming the dismissal. T EX . C IV . P RAC
. & R EM . C ODE § 14.004(b). A dditionally, the affidavit or unsworn declaration of previous filings must be accompanied by a certified copy of the inmate ’s trust account statement reflecting the balance of the account at the time the appeal was filed and all account activity during the six months preceding the date the appeal was filed. T EX . C IV . P RAC
. & R EM . C ODE §§ 14.004(c); 14.006(f); see Douglas v. Moffett , 418 S.W.3d 336, 339 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2013, no pet.). A ppellant has not filed an additional affidavit or declaration relating to previous filings nor has appellant filed a certified copy of his inmate trust account statement. Unless all documents required by Chapter 14 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code are filed by Februar y 2 7 , 201 5 , this appeal may be dismissed without further notice

. See Gozowski v. T.D.C.J.

– I.D. , No. 12

- 14

- 00350

- CV, 2014 WL 6983246, *1 (Tex. App.

— Tyler Dec. 10, 2014, no pet. h.; Hickman v. Tex. Dep’t of Criminal Justice , No. 13

- 12

- 00437

- CV, 2013 WL 37709 16,at *2 (Tex. App.

— Corpus Christi July 18, 2013, no pet.); Douglas v. Turner , 441 S.W.3d 337,

339 (Tex. App.

—

Waco May 9, 2013, no pet.). It is so ORDERED. Judge’s signature: /s/ Jane Bland

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: January 27, 2015
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsBOREAS TE-2 NSA Soil Lab DataThis data set contains the major soil properties of soil samples collected in 1994 at the tower flux sites in the Northern Study Area (NSA). The soil samples were collected by Hugo Veldhuis and his staff from the University of Manitoba. The mineral soil samples were largely analyzed by Barry Goetz, under the supervision of Dr. Harold Rostad at the University of Saskatchewan. The organic soil samples were largely analyzed by Peter Haluschak, under the supervision of Hugo Veldhuis at the Centre for Land and Biological Resources Research in Winnipeg, Manitoba. During the course of field investigation and mapping, selected surface and subsurface soil samples were collected for laboratory analysis. These samples were used as benchmark references for specific soil attributes in general soil characterization. Detailed soil sampling, description, and laboratory analysis were performed on selected modal soils to provide examples of common soil physical and chemical characteristics in the study area. The soil properties that were determined include soil horizon; dry soil color; pH; bulk density; total, organic, and inorganic carbon; electric conductivity; cation exchange capacity; exchangeable sodium, potassium, calcium, magnesium, and hydrogen; water content at 0.01, 0.033, and 1.5 MPascals; nitrogen; phosphorus: particle size distribution; texture; pH of the mineral soil and of the organic soil; extractable acid; and sulfur. These data are stored in ASCII text files. The data files are available on a CD-ROM (see document number 20010000884), or from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC).Document ID20010005249Acquisition SourceGoddard Space Flight CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsVeldhuis, Hugo*(Manitoba Univ. Winnipeg, Manitoba Canada)*Hall, Forrest G.*(NASA Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt, MD United States)*Knapp, David E.*(Raytheon Information Technology and Scientific Services Greenbelt, MD United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 7, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 2000Subject CategoryEarth Resources And Remote SensingReport/Patent NumberRept-2000-03136-0/VOL183NASA/TM-2000-20981/VOL183NAS 1.15:209891/VOL183Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 462-33-01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20010005249.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### MOOT v. MOOT.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.

November 11, 1914.)

Action by Richmond D. Moot against Margaret A. Moot.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed, without costs.

KELLOGG, J., dissents. WOODWARD, J., not sitting. See, also, 86 Misc. Rep. 495, 149 N. Y. Supp. 302; 149 N. Y. Supp. 901; 150 N. Y. Supp. 1098.
PGI 225.7301 General.       (c)(i) Separately identify known FMS requirements and the FMS customer in solicitations.          (ii) For economies of scale and efficiency, combine U.S. and FMS requirements under the same contract whenever possible. It is not in the taxpayer’s interest to concurrently use mixed contract types for the same or similar items.          (iii) Clearly identify contracts for known FMS requirements by the case identifier code in section B of the Schedule.          (iv) Ensure that the FMS LOA terms and conditions are incorporated into the signed contract.          (v) Ensure that the shipping terms for any contract for FMS materiel are stated as free on board (f.o.b.) origin.          (vi) For Pseudo LOAs, ensure that the period of performance in the contract is consistent with the period of availability of appropriated funds, as provided by the financial resource manager.          (vii) Consistent with the Defense Transportation Regulations (DTR) 4500.9-R-Part II, Cargo Movement, http://www.transcom.mil/dtr/part-ii/, Appendix E, contracting officers shall ensure that contracts involving the acquisition and delivery of FMS materiel comply with the policies, procedures, packaging, labeling, and documentation requirements specified by the DTR.          (viii) The Government representative responsible for acceptance shall ensure that the contractor prepares material inspection and receiving reports in compliance with—          (A) Appendix F, F-301(b)(15)(iv)(K) for a Wide Area WorkFlow (WAWF) Receiving Report; or          (B) F-401(b)(16)(iv)(L) for a paper DD Form 250, Material Inspection and Receiving Report, if an exception to the use of WAWF at 232.7003 applies.          (ix) Prior to contract award, contracting officers shall ensure that—          (A) If a contracting officer’s representative is assigned, detailed point of contact information (email, phone number with international dialing protocols, and physical and mailing address) shall be clearly visible;          (B) Unique country requirements are specified in the contract (i.e., additional documentation requirements for use in country customs clearance (Levy Exemption waiver));          (C) Commodity-unique requirements are specified in the contract (i.e., responsibility for obtaining/paying for/affixing active Radio Frequency Identification tags and Transportation Control Number construction/usage); and          (D) The FMS Transportation Accounting Code is stated in the contract.    **Parent topic:** PGI 225.73 -ACQUISITIONS FOR FOREIGN MILITARY SALES
EXHIBIT 32

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                              18 USC, SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the  quarterly  report of Alpha  Spacecom,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the nine month period ended September 30, 2005, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on date hereof (the "Report"),
I, the undersigned,  in the capacity and on the date indicated  below,  certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C./  Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 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.


Dated: November 29, 2005                 s/Xuedong Hu
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         Xuedong Hu, Chief Executive Officer/CFO
Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
        Officer pursuant to 8 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to
                 Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

                                                                      Exhibit 32

                                  CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Quarterly Report of WaterChef, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), the undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350 as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge and upon a review
of the Report that:

(1) the Report of the Company filed today pursuant to Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act; and

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

This certification is based upon, among other things, my responsibilities as
Chief Executive Officer, my own due diligence and representations made by
certain members of the Company's senior management.

Dated: May 14, 2004


                                            /s/  David A. Conway
                                            ----------------------------------
                                                 David A. Conway
                                                 President,
                                                 Chief Executive Officer and
                                                 Chief Financial Officer
#### PAINTED POST LUMBER CO., Respondent, v. BARTH, Appellant, et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

May 27, 1914.)

Action by the Painted Post Lumber Company against Harris Barth, impleaded with others.

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
Subpart 2807.1 - Acquisition Plans    **Parent topic:** PART 2807 - ACQUISITION PLANNING2807.103 Agency-head responsibilities.       (a) The HCA is the agency head's designee for the purposes of FAR 7.103.          (b) The CAO may establish acquisition planning criteria and dollar approval thresholds for those bureaus that:          (1) Fail to allow ample time for conducting competitive acquisitions;          (2) Develop a pattern of awarding urgent requirements that generally restrict competition;          (3) Fail to identify identical or like requirements that, where appropriate, can be combined under one solicitation, and thereby miss opportunities to obtain lower costs through volume purchasing, reduced administrative costs in processing one contract action versus multiple actions, and standardizing goods and services.2807.104 General procedures.2807.104-70 Bundled requirements.       In the case of bundled requirements, as defined in FAR 7.104(d)(2) and 7.107, the contracting officer shall consult with the bureau Small Business Technical Advisor (SBTA). After receiving concurrence from the bureau SBTA, the contracting officer will provide a copy of the proposed acquisition package to the Small Business Administration (SBA) Procurement Center Representative (PCR) and a copy to the DOJ Director, Office of Small Disadvantaged Business Unit (OSDBU), at least 30 days prior to the solicitation issuance. The SBA PCR is required to make any alternative recommendations to the contracting officer within 15 days after receipt of the package. If the SBA does not respond in this timeframe, the contracting officer may proceed as planned with the procurement.
# PGI 15.403-3 Requiring data other than certified cost or pricing         data.

(6)(ii) Instead of forwarding information directly to Defense Pricing and Contracting **(**DPC), HCAs shall submit consolidated, validated reports to the DLA Acquisition Compliance, Policy and Pricing Division Pricing Program Manager (PM) within 20 days after the end of each quarter. Negative replies are required. The DLA Acquisition Compliance, Policy and Pricing Division Pricing PM will consolidate all submitted reports and forward the DLA report to DPC. When the DLA Acquisition Deputy Director is the HCA, contracting officers shall submit reports through the contracting chain of command, in accordance with procedures established by the contracting office, to the DLA Acquisition Compliance, Policy and Pricing Division Pricing PM, who will brief the DLA Acquisition Deputy Director. Submit reports using the spreadsheet at  Denials of Requests for Data Other than Certified Cost or Pricing Data )  https://dlamil.dps.mil/sites/Acquisition/Shared%20Documents/J-72/4_%20Attachment_A-2_Denied_Data_Requests_Template_with_2-Added_Columns.xlsx ).

**Parent topic:**PGI SUBPART 15.4 – CONTRACT PRICING
Exhibit 32.1


Certification of Chief Executive Officer Under Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002








The undersigned officer of The First Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies that the Company's quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010 to which this certification is being furnished as an exhibit (the "Report"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. This certification is provided pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K ("Item 601(b)(32)") promulgated under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act. In accordance with clause (ii) of Item 601(b)(32), this certification (A) shall not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, and (B) shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.





Date: November 8, 2010








/s/ Daniel R. Daigneault


Daniel R. Daigneault


President & Chief Executive Officer


The First Bancorp, Inc.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Willie Sanders, Appellant.

Determination of appeal withheld and case remitted to Brie County Court, for a further hearing on the motion to suppress in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant is entitled to a full and complete hearing on the suppression of the evidence seized and ultimately used during his trial. Prior to the commencement of the trial on charges of burglary and petit larceny, defendant’s assigned counsel moved to suppress certain critical items of evidence. Upon the hearing, defendant was called as a witness but his questioning was suspended when the court ruled that any testimony given by defendant could be used against him upon the trial regardless of whether or not he took the stand. This was, of course, error *(Simmons*v. *United States,*390 U. S. 377, 389-394) and the firm ruling made by the Judge, who was thereafter to conduct the trial and rule upon the admissibility of the evidence, effectively deprived defendant of a fair and complete hearing, thus requiring a *de novo*suppression hearing (cf. *People*v. *Conilio,*23 N Y 2d 701). (Appeal from judgment of Brie County Court convicting defendant of burglary, second degree and petit larceny.) Present—Goldman, P. J., Del Yecchio, Gabrielli, Moule and Henry, JJ.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE EXCHANGE ACT I, John V. Curci, the Chief Financial Officer of B.H.I.T. Inc., certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of B.H.I.T. 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 we 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 is made
known to us by others, 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; andc)
    
    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 function):  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 data; andb)
    
    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: August 2, 2004
    By:
    /s/ John V. CurciJohn V. CurciVice-President, Treasurer & Chief Financial Officer
Principal Accounting Officer