alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 29, 2015

N o. 04

- 15

- 00374

- CV

IN RE Francisco J. AGUERO

Original Mandamus Proceeding 1

ORDER

Sitti ng: Karen Angelini, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On June 22, 2015, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. The court has considered

relator’s petition and is of the opinion that relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly,

the petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a). The court’s opinion

will issue at a later date.

It is so ORDERED on June 29, 2015

.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 29 day of June, 2015

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk

1 This p roceeding arises out of Cause No. 1999CVG000760 C1, styled In the Interest of F.J.A., A Child , pending in

the County Court at Law No. 1, Webb County, Texas, the Honorable Hugo Martinez presiding.
Exhibit 31.1
                          CERTIFICATION

I, Murray S. Cohen, certify that:

     1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Epolin, Inc.;

     2.   Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any
untrue  statements 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 small business issuer's other certifying officers
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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business
issuer'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 small
business issuer's internal control over financial reporting  that
occurred  during the small business issuer's most  recent  fiscal
quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonable likely  to
materially  affect, the small business issuer's internal  control
over financial reporting; and

     5.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s)
and  I  have  disclosed, based on our most recent  evaluation  of
internal  control over financial reporting, to the small business
issuer'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 reasonable  likely  to  adversely
affect  the  small business issuer'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
small   business   issuer's  internal  control   over   financial
reporting.


Dated: January 11, 2006        By:/s/ Murray S. Cohen
                               Murray S. Cohen,
                               Chairman of the Board
                               (Principal Executive Officer)
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3249

To extend the term of the Forest Counties Payments Committee. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 3, 2003

Mr. WALDEN of Oregon (for himself and Mr. DEFAZIO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Resources, and in 

addition to the Committee on Agriculture, for a period to be subsequently 

determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL

To extend the term of the Forest Counties Payments 

Committee.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TERM OF FOREST COUNTIES 

4 PAYMENTS COMMITTEE. 

5 Effective as of October 11, 2003, section 320(e) of 

6 the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Ap7 propriations Act, 2001 (Public Law 106–291; 114 Stat. 

8 994; 16 U.S.C. 500 note), is amended by striking ‘‘three 
2

•HR 3249 IH 

1 years after the date of the enactment of this Act’’ and 

2 inserting ‘‘on September 30, 2007’’.

Æ
*

 Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-21027

Summary Calendar

 

TERRY E. HARTMAN; JON G. THORNE,

 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

TEXACO, INC.,

 Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-99-CV-2757

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

September 12, 2001

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges:

PER CURIAM:*

TerryHartman and JonThorne appealthe district court’s entry ofsummary judgment in favor

of defendant Texaco. Appellants first argue that the district court erred in denying their motion for

remand because their state-law claims were not preempted by ERISA. The district court did not err

in determining that ERISA completely preempted the appellants’ state-law claims. See Whittemore

v. Schlumberger TechnologyCorp., 976 F.2d 922, 923 (5thCir. 1992); Perdue v. Burger KingCorp.,

7 F.3d 1251, 1253 n.5 (5thCir. 1993). Because ERISA preempted the appellants’ claims, the district

court also did not err in granting the appellee’s motion for summary judgment. 

The appellants further argue that the district court erred in determining that diversity

jurisdiction existed. Because the district court did not err in determining that ERISA completely
preempted the appellants’ state-law claims, it did not err in declining to remand the case, and there

is no need to consider this argument. 

The appellants’ final argument is that there were genuine issues of material fact precluding

the entry of summary judgment. These alleged factual disputes are irrelevant to the issue whether

ERISA preempted the appellants’ state-law claims and are thus not material to the district court’s

entry of summary judgment in favor of Texaco.

The appellants have not shown that the district court erred in determining that it had subjectmatterjurisdiction over the case or ingrantingTexaco’smotion forsummaryjudgment. Accordingly,

the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
§ 603.335 Agency review of request for amendment of record. Upon receipt of a request for amendment of a record, the Privacy Act Officer shall: ( a ) Correct any portion of a record which the individual making the request believes is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete and thereafter inform the individual in writing of such correction, or
( b ) Inform the individual in writing of refusal to amend the record and of the reasons therefor, and advise that the individual may appeal such determination as provided in § 603.340 of this part.
[40 FR 40454, Sept. 2, 1975, as amended at 51 FR 41942, Nov. 20, 1986]
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

Set: 9:30 AM (AST)

Started: 10:19 AM(AST)

Ended: 11:19 AM (AST)

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

BEFORE JUDGE LAURA TAYLOR SWAIN DATE: February 2, 2022

MAGISTRATE JUDGE JUDITH G. DEIN

COURTROOM DEPUTY: Carmen Tacoronte

COURT REPORTER: Amy Walker

CERTIFIED INTERPRETER: Juan Segarra

Omnibus Hearing held.

Agenda filed at Case No. 17-3283; ECF No. 19961.

I. CONTESTED MATTERS

1. Debtors’ Three Hundred Forty-Fifth Omnibus Objection to Late-Filed Claims. 

[Case No. 17-3283, ECF No. 17108]

 Correspondence Submitted by Rubén Muñiz Ruberté (Claim No. 3398) 

[Case No. 17-3283, ECF No. 19680-5, 6] (Response Form submitted, 

claimant requested the hearing date be moved)

 Mr. Muñiz Ruberté was heard on the record with the assistance of the 

interpreter. 

In Re: 

The Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto 

Rico

as representative of

 3:17-BK-3283 (LTS)

 PROMESA Title III

 (Jointly Administered)

The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, et al.

Debtors

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19981 Filed:02/02/22 Entered:02/02/22 15:33:22 Desc: Main

Document Page 1 of 2
3:17-BK-3283 (LTS) 

Omnibus Hearing – February 2, 2021

Page 2 of 2

 The objection was sustained as to Claim No. 3398. The claim is to be 

reclassified as a general unsecured claim. 

II. STATUS REPORT

1. Report from the Oversight Board. [Case No. 17-3283; ECF No. 19968]

2. Report from AFAAF. [Case No. 17-3283; ECF No. 19976]

III. ADJOURNED MATTERS

1. Objection of Puerto Rico Sales Tax Financing Corporation to Proofs of Claim of 

the United States Department of the Treasury/Internal Revenue Service. (Claims 

Nos. 168648 and 16885) [Case No. 17-3283, ECF No. 7419; Case No. 17-3284, ECF 

No. 643]

2. Atlantic Medical Center, Inc. et al.’s Motion to Enforce Court’s Prior Order and 

for Relief from Automatic Stay. [Case No. 17-3283, ECF No. 12918]

3. PREPA’s Omnibus Motion for Order Approving Its Rejection of Certain Power

Purchase and Operating Agreements. [Case No. 17-3283, ECF No. 15178; Case 

No. 17-4780, ECF No. 2296]

4. Motion of Fir Tree Capital Management, LP for Allowance and Payment of

Administrative Expense Claim. Motion of Fir Tree Capital Management, LP for

Allowance and Payment of Administrative Expense Claim. [Case No. 17-3283, 

ECF No. 16331]

5. Community Health Foundation’s Administrative Claim Motion. [Case No. 17-

3283, ECF No. 18602]

6. Ricoh Puerto Rico Inc.’s Objection to Cure Amounts. [Case No. 17-3283, ECF No. 

19498]

7. Orlando Santiago Amador’s Objection to Cure Amounts. [Case No. 17-3283, ECF 

No. 19501]

8. FISA, SE’s Objection to Cure Amount. [Case No. 17-3283, ECF No. 19505]

9. Debtors’ Omnibus Objections to Claims.

 See Agenda. 

Hearing on Adjourned Omnibus Objections to Claims set for February 16, 2022 before Judge 

Laura Taylor Swain. 

s/Carmen Tacoronte

Carmen Tacoronte

PROMESA Case Administrator

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:19981 Filed:02/02/22 Entered:02/02/22 15:33:22 Desc: Main

Document Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1



               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated February 9,
2001, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Human Genome
Sciences, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
December 31, 2000, in the following Registration Statements:

<TABLE>
<S>               <C>
         (1)      Registration Statement Number 33-79020 on Form S-8
         (2)      Registration Statement Number 33-79022 on Form S-8
         (3)      Registration Statement Number 333-85319 on Form S-3
         (4)      Registration Statement Number 333-96387 on Form S-3
         (5)      Registration Statement Number 333-33252 on Form S-3
         (6)      Registration Statement Number 333-36384 on Form S-3
         (7)      Registration Statement Number 333-44798 on Form S-8
         (8)      Registration Statement Number 333-45272 on Form S-3
         (9)      Registration Statement Number 333-46298 on Form S-8
         (10)     Registration Statement Number 333-47292 on Form S-3
</TABLE>




                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

McLean, Virginia
March 28, 2001
EXHIBIT A

Schedule of Claims Subject to the Four Hundred Thirty-Eighth Omnibus Objection

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22454-1 Filed:10/03/22 Entered:10/03/22 14:42:26 Desc:

Exhibit Page 1 of 2
ASSERTED CORRECTED

NAME CLAIM# DEBTOR PRIORITY 

STATUS

AMOUNT DEBTOR PRIORITY 

STATUS

AMOUNT

1 KADAIR, MARGO B

7436 RICHARDS DRIVE

BATON ROUGE, LA 70809-1544

178094 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Unsecured $35,625.00 Puerto Rico Electric Power 

Authority

Unsecured $35,625.00

Reason: Claimant identifies obligor as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico when the proof of claim, supporting documentation, bond name(s) at issue, and/or the CUSIP information show that any liability 

would reside, if at all, under Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority.

2 MELVIN LYNN REVOCABLE TRUST

7562 GRANVILLE DR.

TAMARAC, FL 33321

179204 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Unsecured $60,000.00 Commonwealth of Puerto Rico Unsecured $20,000.00

Puerto Rico Electric Power 

Authority

Unsecured $40,000.00

Subtotal $60,000.00

Reason: Claimant identifies, in part, obligor as the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico when the proof of claim, supporting documentation, bond name(s) at issue, and/or the CUSIP information show that any 

liability would reside, if at all, under Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority. Another portion will remain at the Commonwealth

TOTAL $ 95,625.00 TOTAL $ 95,625.00

Page 1 of 1

Four Hundred Thirty-Eighth Omnibus Objection

Exhibit A - Claims to Be Reclassified

Case:17-03283-LTS Doc#:22454-1 Filed:10/03/22 Entered:10/03/22 14:42:26 Desc:

Exhibit Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         433,661
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  582,276
<ALLOWANCES>                                   502,680
<INVENTORY>                                  2,357,982
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,026,409
<PP&E>                                       2,040,844
<DEPRECIATION>                                 790,107
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,746,247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          653,477
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       136,099
<OTHER-SE>                                  23,379,738
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,748,247
<SALES>                                      1,652,469
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,796,653
<CGS>                                        1,428,891
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,428,891
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,536,833
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,066,394)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (6,066,394)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,066,394)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.48)
        

</TABLE>
#### William A. Copp, Appellant, *v.*The Colonial Coal and Iron Company, Respondent.

Appeal from an order of the General Term of the City Court of the city of Hew York, and from a judgment entered thereon, affirming a judgment of dismissal of the complaint.

John O’Connell (George M. Van Iloesen, of counsel), for appellant.

James Stikeman, for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

If the plaintiff had any cause of action against the defendant on account of the matters stated, it was for damages for breach of contract. Either the defendant by its action in consolidating made it impossible for the plaintiff to perform and so become liable as for a breach, or there was a breach of the contract caused by the plaintiff’s discharge through Osgood.

At all events, it is quite clear that the plaintiff did not and could not perform his contract after the consolidation, and as the action is to recover as for performance the complaint should have been dismissed at the trial.

•The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Present: Tbuax, P. J., Scott and Dugro, JJ.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
I 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3353

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

525 Main Street in Tarboro, North Carolina, as the ‘‘George Henry 

White Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 21, 2003

Mr. BALLANCE (for himself, Mr. MILLER of North Carolina, Mr. BALLENGER, 

Mr. COBLE, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. WATT, 

Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. BURR, Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. 

ETHERIDGE, and Mr. HAYES) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform 

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 525 Main Street in Tarboro, North Carolina, 

as the ‘‘George Henry White Post Office Building’’.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. GEORGE HENRY WHITE POST OFFICE BUILD4 ING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 525 Main Street in Tarboro, 

7 North Carolina, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘George Henry White Post Office Building’’. 
2

•HR 3353 IH 

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the George Henry White 

5 Post Office Building.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3321 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3321

  To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a national 
  cemetery for veterans in the Baltimore, Maryland, metropolitan area.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 16, 2003

Mr. Ruppersberger introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                   the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a national 
  cemetery for veterans in the Baltimore, Maryland, metropolitan area.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL CEMETERY.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall establish, 
in accordance with chapter 24 of title 38, United States Code, a 
national cemetery in the Baltimore, Maryland, metropolitan area to 
serve the needs of veterans and their families.
    (b) Consultation in Selection of Site.--Before selecting the site 
for the national cemetery established under subsection (a), the 
Secretary shall consult with--
            (1) appropriate officials of the State of Maryland and 
        local officials of the Baltimore metropolitan area, and
            (2) appropriate officials of the United States, including 
        the Administrator of General Services, with respect to land 
        belonging to the United States in that area that would be 
        suitable to establish the national cemetery under subsection 
        (a).
    (c) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment 
of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress a report on the 
establishment of the national cemetery under subsection (a). The report 
shall set forth a schedule for such establishment and an estimate of 
the costs associated with such establishment.
                                 <all>
```
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 27, 2006

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-60680

Summary Calendar

JUAN MARIO SIFUENTES-GARCIA,

Petitioner,

versus

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A75-214-007

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

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Juan Mario Sifuentes-Garcia (Sifuentes) appeals the

affirmance by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) of the

Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of a motion for continuance of

the removal proceeding. Sifuentes contends that he should have

been granted the continuance so that he could challenge the 2003

alien-smuggling conviction that rendered him removable. 

This court reviews the denial of a continuance for abuse of

discretion. Witter v. INS, 113 F.3d 549, 555-56 (5th Cir. 1997).

An IJ may grant a continuance upon a showing of good cause. Id.
No. 05-60680

-2-

Sifuentes cites to two BIA decisions having nothing to do

with the granting of a continuance, and he makes no argument

directly relevant to the “good cause” that must be shown in order

to obtain a continuance. 

Sifuentes fails to show that the denial of a continuance was

an abuse of discretion. His petition for review is DENIED.
#### § 619.9140 Farm Credit bank(s).

Except as otherwise defined, the term *Farm Credit bank(s)* includes Farm Credit Banks, agricultural credit banks, and banks for cooperatives, but excludes bridge System banks chartered by the Farm Credit Administration Board pursuant to section 5.61C(h)(2) of the Act.

[88 FR 82244, Nov. 24, 2023]
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 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 Annual Report of Big 5 Corp. (the Company) on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Charles P. Kirk,
Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended;
and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Company. /s/ Charles P. KirkCharles P. KirkSenior Vice President and Chief Financial OfficerMarch 29, 2004
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Big 5 Corp. and will be retained by Big 5 Corp. and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.