alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Motion to Stay Denied; Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Opinion

filed July 26 , 2021.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 21

- 00282

- CV

IN RE BASIM MOUSILLI , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 309th District Court Harris County, T exas Trial Cou r t Cause No. 2020

- 49635



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On Friday, May 21, 2021 , relator Basim Mousilli filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov ’ t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. The petition was amended on J un e 4 , 2021 , and a n emergency motion to stay was filed seeking a stay of trial , set for August 23, 2021

. I n the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the H onorable Linda Marie Dunson, presiding judge of the 309th District Court of Harris County , to v ac ate the ord er signed2

February 25, 2021, d isqualifying Lema Barazi as counsel for relator pur suant to Rule 3.08

. See Tex. Dis ciplinary R. Prof. Co nduct 3 .08.

Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator ’ s pet ition for writ of mandamus. We also deny
relator ’ s motion to stay

.

PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Justices Bourliot, Poissant and Wilson.
Exhibit 32.1

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC CORPORATION

411 Union Street, Suite 2000

Nashville, TN 37219-1700

(615)986-5600

February 28, 2011

Securities and Exchange Commission

Judiciary
Plaza

450 Fifth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20549



| | Re: | Certification Pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Form 10-K of Louisiana-Pacific Corporation (the Company) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, that, to such officers 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 as of the dates and
for the periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/S/ RICHARD W. FROSTName: Richard W. Frost
Title: Chief Executive Officer




/S/ CURTIS M. STEVENSName: Curtis M. Stevens
Title: Chief Financial Officer


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Louisiana-Pacific Corporation and will be retained by Louisiana-Pacific Corporation and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1996
<CASH>                                           3,385
<SECURITIES>                                     2,616
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,828
<ALLOWANCES>                                       696
<INVENTORY>                                        635
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                17,908
<PP&E>                                          59,323
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,846
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  64,186
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,739
<BONDS>                                          9,354
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            82
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,341
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    64,186
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                62,920
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,834
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (242)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 702
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,626
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,782
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,844
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .55
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAIS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM LESCARDEN
INC'S MAY 31, 1999 FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAY-31-1999
<CASH>                                          91,525
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    191,316
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               318,841
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 321,921
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          245,664
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      1,840
<COMMON>                                        21,725
<OTHER-SE>                                      52,692
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   321,921
<SALES>                                         24,756
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                24,756
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  963,138
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (938,382)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (938,382)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (938,382)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.05)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,663,918
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        760
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         267,371
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        47,441
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,979,490
<COMMON>                                       424,334<F1>
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                        (226)<F2>
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            181,049
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 605,157
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     95,328
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           646,845
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                   16,000
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 616,160
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                1,979,490
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      723,463
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                            47,524
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     554,613
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     602,137
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        121,326
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               3,776
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 125,102
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        41,918
<NET-INCOME>                                    83,184
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                      6,311
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   76,873
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        89,000
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                       41,259
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         198,600
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Includes Common Stock Expense of $836.
<F2>Represents unrealized loss on marketable securities, net of income taxes.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

No. 95-31317 Summary Calendar

GEORGE W. STEMLEY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

MARTIN MARIETTA MANNED SPACE SYSTEMS,

Defendant,

MARTIN MARIETTA CORP., erroneously sued as Martin Marietta Manned Space Systems,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana

September 19, 1996

Before JONES, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

George W. Stemley sued his employer, Martin Marietta

Corporation, for illegal discrimination on the basis of race under

Title VII and for age discrimination under the ADEA. Stemley was

discharged in June 1992 as part of a company-wide reduction in2

force which Martin Marietta undertook because of reduction in its

business from the National Ae ronautics and Space Administration.

As part of this reduction in force process, Martin Marietta used a

process for ranking all of its employees. Stemley ranked only 105

of 106 employees on the Technical Operations Department integrated

ranking list for labor grade 45. These ranking lists were used as

a tool in selecting individual employees for layoff. In addition

to these rankings, the ability of each individual to perform the

work whi ch was anticipated to be available after the NASA

reductions took affect were considered in choosing individuals to

be laid off. Prior to trial, the district court granted a partial

summary judgment in favor of Martin Marietta on Stemley’s claims of

race d iscrimination and the case went to trial before a jury on

Stemley’s claims of age discrimination. At the conclusion of

plaintiff’s evidence, the district court granted judgment as a

matter of law in favor of Martin Marietta on the age discrimination

claims. Stemley moved for a new trial which was denied and timely

appealed.

We have carefully considered the briefs, the record excerpts

and the record itself. We agree with the district court that there

was insufficient evidence of either race or age discrimination to

support a jury verdict on Stemley’s claims. We affirm the final

judgment entered by the district court in favor of Martin Marietta.

AFFIRMED

.
#### § 2580.412-31 Exemption.

An exemption from the bonding requirements of subsection 13 (a) and (b) of the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act is granted whereby any insurance carrier or service or other similar organization specified in § 2580.412-32 is not required to comply with subsections 13 (a) and (b) of the Act with respect to any welfare or pension benefit plan covered by the Act which is established or maintained for the benefit of persons other than the employees of such insurance carrier or service or other similar organization.

[34 FR 5158, Mar. 13, 1969. Redesignated at 50 FR 26706, June 28, 1985]
#### Joan C. Lipin, Appellant, v Robert M. Bender, Jr., et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 26, 1996;

decided May 2, 1996

Motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from the Appellate Division’s September 14, 1995 order, dismissed upon the *867ground that that order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion, insofar as it seeks leave to appeal from so much of the Appellate Division’s June 20, 1995 order as affirmed Supreme Court’s August 31, 1994 judgment, dismissed upon the ground that that portion of the June 20, 1995 order does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution; motion for leave to appeal otherwise denied, with $100 costs and necessary reproduction disbursements.

Judge Ciparick taking no part.
PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OVERSIGHT BOARD 

6 CFR Ch. X 

Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 

AGENCY: Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board. 

ACTION: Semiannual regulatory agenda. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 to 612, and Executive Order 

12866, the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board publishes the following Agenda of 

proposed regulations that the Board issued or expects to issue and current rules that are under 

review. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claire McKenna, Legal Counsel, at (202) 366-0365. 

 

Dated: May 14, 2013. 

NAME: Claire McKenna, 

Legal Counsel. 
The 2 Regulatory Agendas

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board - Proposed Rule

Title

Regulation 

Identifier 

Number

Freedom of Information, Privacy Act, and Government in the Sunshine Act Procedures 0311-AA01

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board - Completed Action

Title

Regulation 

Identifier 

Number

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board Organization and Delegations 0311-AA02

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board ( PCLOB ) RIN: 0311-AA01

 View Related Documents

Title: Freedom of Information, Privacy Act, and Government in the Sunshine Act Procedures

Abstract: This rulemaking will implement the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board's procedures for Freedom of

Information Act, Privacy Act, and Government in the Sunshine Act compliance.

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Proposed Rule

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: Not Yet Determined (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 5 USC 552; 5 USC 552a; 5 USC 552b

Legal Deadline: None

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Final Action 

NPRM 05/15/2013 78 FR 28532 

NPRM Comment Period End 07/15/2013 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Claire McKenna Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

Phone: 202 366-0365 

E-Mail: claire.mckenna.pclob@dot.gov

Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board ( PCLOB ) RIN: 0311-AA02

 View Related Documents

Title: Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board Organization and Delegations

Abstract: This rulemaking provides for the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board's organizational structure and the

delegation of certain Board authorities to the Chairman, Executive Director, and certain other staff.

Priority: Substantive, Nonsignificant Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Completed Action

Major: No Unfunded Mandates: No

CFR Citation: 6 CFR 1000 (To search for a specific CFR, visit the Code of Federal Regulations ) 

Legal Authority: 5 USC 552; 42 USC 2000ee
Legal Deadline: None

Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite

Final Action 06/05/2013 78 FR 33689 

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: No Government Levels Affected: No

Small Entities Affected: No Federalism: No

Energy Affected: No

Agency Contact: Claire McKenna Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

Phone: 202 366-0365 

E-Mail: claire.mckenna.pclob@dot.gov
§ 1918.37 Barges. ( a ) Walking shall be prohibited along the sides of covered lighters or barges with coamings or cargo more than five feet (1.52 m) high unless a three-foot (.91 m) clear walkway or a grab rail or taut handline is provided.
( b ) Walking or working shall be prohibited on the decks of barges to be loaded unless the walking or working surfaces have been determined by visual inspection to be structurally sound and maintained properly. If, while discharging a barge, an unsound deck surface is discovered, work shall be discontinued and shall not be resumed until means have been taken to ensure a safe work surface.
[62 FR 40202, July 25, 1997, as amended at 65 FR 40944, June 30, 2000]
§ 501.6 Investigation authority of the Secretary. ( a ) *General.* The Secretary, through WHD, may investigate to determine compliance with obligations under 8 U.S.C. 1188, 20 CFR part 655, subpart B, or this part, either pursuant to a complaint or otherwise, as may be appropriate. In connection with such an investigation, WHD may enter and inspect any premises, land, property, housing, vehicles, and records (and make transcriptions thereof), question any person, and gather any information as may be appropriate.
( b ) *Confidential investigation.* WHD shall conduct investigations in a manner that protects the confidentiality of any complainant or other person who provides information to the Secretary in good faith.
( c ) *Report of violations.* Any person may report a violation of the obligations imposed by 8 U.S.C. 1188, 20 CFR part 655, subpart B, or this part to the Secretary by advising any local office of the SWA, ETA, WHD, or any other authorized representative of the Secretary. The office or person receiving such a report shall refer it to the appropriate office of WHD for the geographic area in which the reported violation is alleged to have occurred.
(77 South. 979)

#### DEAN v. STATE.

(3 Div. 293.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

Jan. 15, 1918.)

Lewdness <&wkey;l — Elements of Offense.

The statutes directed against the various kinds of adultery and fornication are against a state or condition of cohabitation, the parties intending to continue so long as they choose, as distinguished from a single act of illicit sexual intercourse.

Brown, P. J., dissenting.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Montgomery County; Gaston Gunter, Judge.

Emanuel Dean was convicted of felonious adultery, and he appeals.

Reversed and remanded.

Hill, Hill, Whiting & Stern, of Montgomery, for appellant. W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

SaMEORD, J.

As has been many times declared, the statutes directed against the various kinds of adultery and fornication are against a state or condition of cohabitation, the parties intending to continue so long as they choose, as distinguished from a single act of illicit sexual intercourse. Brown v. State, 108 Ala. 18, 18 South. 811; Hall v. State, 53 Ala. 463.

We have read and re-read the evidence as shown by the bill of exceptions, and, while we do not deem it necessary to set it out in its vulgar detail, we are clearly of the opinion that the evidence offered is not sufficient to establish the corpus delicti. Admitting that one act was proven and corroborated, there is an entire absence of any evidence tending to prove the crime charged.

For the rulings of the trial court in conflict with the foregoing, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded.

Reversed and remanded.

BROWN, P. J.

(dissenting). It is well settled that when there is any evidence at all haring even the slightest tendency to prove the corpus delicti, the case is for the jury. Daniels v. State, 12 Ala. App. 119, 68 South. 499. There ivas evidence in my opinion clearly tending to prove the corpus delicti— the living together in a state of adultery— and the case was properly submitted to tbe jury. I am further of opinion that the jury reached the correct conclusion on the evidence, and that the ease should be affirmed.
EXHIBIT 10.17















Marco Pagni


[ADDRESS]







14 May 2012







Dear Marco







Amendment to Employment Agreement







I am writing to advise you that at the May 2012 Remuneration Committee meeting, it was agreed to align your notice period with that of the other executive directors. Accordingly, the termination provision set out in your employment agreement dated 1 June 2005 was amended to increase the notice period to be given by the company to terminate your contract from six months to one year. For the avoidance of doubt, the six month notice period that you are required to serve on the company remains unchanged.







All other terms and conditions of your employment agreement dated 1 June 2005, as amended by the letter dated 14 June 2006, remain unaltered.







Yours sincerely







	
/s/ Frank Standish

	 	 








Frank Standish


Company Secretary
June 12; 2012 ,
U S DepartmentofTransporta:tion
.u<. . 1 ; DocketManagerp.entSystern ;:h:·,c··,, ,-,_.,;, ;,·.: 

### ;.·u·:, 11 (> 1200 NewiJersey Ave., SE ·,.;;·:: ,... ,1 :.; 11 :iA \ West Building Ground Floor, Room Wl2-140. Washington, DC 20590**·~**.. - 

### ... "

·. ', .t.' To whom it may**conc~f!l;** ! ;-: :**~' ~**  < ; • : '• 

### P 2: OJ

);,

! I'' f , '\} •**-?~** • 'i .:.! ·,: ,.·. :'
. • ' 1 ' Lakeshore Aviation, Ll.Gwould like ,to,_seek relieffrom**~11~** rF!gulato,ry .iequirement for having separate Drug Testing programs for our FAR_91.14? Air Tour Operation and,**P~rt** 135 AirCharter Operatioli1**~s** establisheq underl4CFRpartll,Sec.ll.61-11.101. · · ' · We are a small FBO operation, with less thanlO employees and limited charter and sightseeing operations. Due to our small size, duplication ofpersonnel in the two programs, and limited number ofmanagement staffto oversee such operations, we request permission to combinethe two programs, which were required under 49 CFR part 40 and 14 CFR part 120.117
..

,.

### Cu~ently, we have 1pilot (me) :and-1 mechanic on our Piirt.135 Air Cl).arter Dl}lg Testing Program, and those same 2·people, plus 3 other pilots on (wr AirTourDrug Testing Program. Additionally, I am.the only ·

. . '•• ( 

### . management person in the company (President), and one ofonly two full-time employees, the other being the 1,11echanic. I oversee.allbusiness and flight operations, and am the only Air Charter pilot and one of aforementioned Air Tour pilots. We do not have any other suitable management personnel to oversee a second program.
i · ,**~ ~**  ;·!**~** · ,. . ,**~** _ , : r • . : : \

### Combini~g;.. these programs would not adversely public safety, as we fully comply with all drug testing requirements: All 5 ofus are routinely randomly tested by a consortium in accordance with FAA regulations. It -would be difficult to have separate programs with a different management person overseeing each ofthem, as I am the only management person on staff. We recently underwent a drug testing inspection, and this request was suggested by the Drug Abatement FAA Inspector for a small operation ofour size. Ifyou have any further questions; please feel free to contact me at your convenience.

Curt Drumm President, Lakeshore Aviation 1815 Freedom Way Manitowoc, WI 54220 PH: 920-682-0043 ofc PH: 920-901-2200 Cell FX: 920-482-1651 Fax Email: cdrumm@lakeshoreaviation.com