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

San Antonio, Texas

June 12, 2019

No. 04-19-00249-CV

IN RE James Brent MANSFIELD

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

On April 22, 2019, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus and the real party in interest 

responded. After reviewing the petition, the response, and the record, we conclude relator is 

entitled to the relief requested. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is 

CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(c).

The Honorable Kirsten Cohoon is ORDERED to vacate her April 1, 2019 Order on Motion 

For Temporary Orders Pending Appeal within fifteen days from the date of this order The writ 

will issue only if we are notified that Judge Cohoon has not complied within fifteen days from the 

date of this order.

It is so ORDERED on June 12, 2019.

_____________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 12th day of June, 2019.

_____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 16-443CCL, styled In the Interest of H.E.W.M., a Child, pending in the 

451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas, the Honorable Kirsten Cohoon presiding.
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b)/RULE 15d-14(b)

OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934, AS AMENDED

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Analogic Corporation (the
Company) for the quarter ended January 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, John J. Millerick, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to the best of his 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 results of operations of the Company.

Date: March 6, 2009



/s/ John J. MillerickJohn J. MillerickChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
§ 102-75.25 What are landholding agencies' responsibilities concerning the utilization of excess property? Landholding agencies' responsibilities concerning the utilization of excess property are to— ( a ) Achieve maximum use of their real property, in terms of economy and efficiency, to minimize expenditures for the purchase of real property;
( b ) Increase the identification and reporting of their excess real property; and
( c ) Fulfill its needs for real property, so far as practicable, by utilization of real property determined excess by other agencies, pursuant to the provision of this part, before it purchases non-Federal real property.
EXHIBIT 31.b

I, Marc N. Teal, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "Assignor");
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:



1. 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;
2. 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
3. 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



1. 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 the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



1. 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
2. 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.



|August 20, 2004 | /s/ Marc N. Teal                                     
|--------------- | -----------------------------------------------------
|                | Marc N. Teal                                         
|                | (Principal Financial Officer), BCTC IV Assignor Corp.
|                |
#### § 109-40.110 Assistance to economically disadvantaged transportation businesses.
#### § 109-38.401 Use standards.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DADE DIVISION 

ALEJANDRO ESPINOZA, CASE NO: 1:22-cv-23107-DPG

Plaintiff,

vs.

PVH CORP., DELAWARE.

a Foreign for Profit Corporation 

Defendant,

____________________________________________/

NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT

Plaintiff, ALEJANDRO ESPINOZA by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby gives the 

Court notice that Plaintiff, ALEJANDRO ESPINOZA and Defendant, PVH CORP., 

DELAWARE, have reached a settlement in this matter. The parties are finalizing the settlement 

documents and will file a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal in the near future.

Respectfully Submitted,

MENDEZ LAW OFFICES, PLLC

Attorney for Plaintiff

P.O. BOX 228630

Miami, Florida 33172

Telephone: 305.264.9090

Facsimile: 305.809.8474

Email:info@mendezlawoffices.com

By: /s/ Diego German Mendez

DIEGO GERMAN MENDEZ, ESQ.

FL BAR NO.: 52748

###

Case 1:22-cv-23107-DPG Document 12 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/30/2022 Page 1 of 1
-cr-06241-WJZ Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2000 P
-cr-06241-WJZ Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/07/2000 P
#### § 102-76.125 What portions of this subpart are severable?

All provisions included in this subpart are separate and severable from one another. If any provision is stayed or determined to be invalid, it is GSA's intention that the remaining provisions will continue in effect.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                            7
<MULTIPLIER>                     1,000
       
<S>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>               JUN-30-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>         2,689,208
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>        2,723,937
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>          2,723,937
<EQUITIES>                      40,900
<MORTGAGE>                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>               2,803,617
<CASH>                          86,758
<RECOVER-REINSURE>             230,430
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>         199,383
<TOTAL-ASSETS>               3,438,313
<POLICY-LOSSES>              3,118,221
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                  0
<POLICY-OTHER>                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>           14,024
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                 65,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                0
<PREFERRED>                          0
<COMMON>                        16,978
<OTHER-SE>                     199,567
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 3,438,313
<PREMIUMS>                       9,086
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>            103,138
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>               3,915
<OTHER-INCOME>                   1,561
<BENEFITS>                      76,471
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>      8,286
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>            12,849
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 17,231
<INCOME-TAX>                     6,031
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             11,200
<DISCONTINUED>                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                      0
<CHANGES>                            0
<NET-INCOME>                    11,200
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      .81
<EPS-DILUTED>                      .73
<RESERVE-OPEN>                       0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                  0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                    0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                   0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                     0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                      0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>              0
        

</TABLE>
Natoma

Manors

Bay

Heights

Golden Pines

North

Grove

Shorecrest

Bay Point

Miami International Airport

Morningside

Grapeland Heights

Little Havana Dodge Island

Shenandoah

Virginia Key

Auburndale

Liberty City

Silver Bluff

Wynwood

Little River

Downtown

The Roads

Allapattah

Little Haiti

Overtown

Flagami

Brickell

Omni

C

O

C

O

N

U

T

G

R

O

V

E

pU

ep Er sa St edi

r et a wegdE

D

5

Alt. M

a

p

Districts

12345

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 82-30 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2023 Page 1 of 1
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-10019 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JORGE ONTIVEROS-SOTO, also known as Jorge Onteberos Soto, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 3:01-CR-146-1-X

-------------------- December 12, 2002 Before JOLLY, JONES, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jorge Ontiveros-Soto appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Ontiveros-Soto contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) define separate offenses. He argues that the aggravated felony conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of the offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) that should have been alleged in his indictment and included in the factual basis ofNo. 02-10019 -2- his guilty plea. Ontiveros-Soto maintains that he pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Ontiveros-Soto acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres

. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. In lieu of filing an appellee’s brief, the Government has filed a motion asking this court to dismiss this appeal or, in the alternative, to summarily affirm the district court’s judgment. The Government’s motion to dismiss is DENIED. The motion for a summary affirmance is GRANTED. The Government need not file an appellee’s brief.No. 02-10019 -3- AFFIRMED; MOTION TO DISMISS DENIED; MOTION FOR SUMMARY AFFIRMANCE GRANTED.
Exhibit 28.3
                        Report of Independent Accountants


March 15, 2000

To the Board of Directors of
The Chase Manhattan Bank

We have examined management's assertion that, as of December 31, 1999, The Chase
Manhattan Bank maintained an effective system of internal control over servicing
of securitized automobile financing receivables, included in the accompanying
Management Report on Internal Control Over Servicing of Securitized Automobile
Financing Receivables.

Our examination was made in accordance with standards established by the
American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and, accordingly, included
obtaining an understanding of the internal control over servicing of securitized
automobile financing receivables, testing and evaluating the design and
operating effectiveness of the internal control, and such other procedures as we
considered necessary in the circumstances. We believe that our examination
provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control, errors or
irregularities may occur and not be detected. Also, projections of any
evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting to future periods
are subject to the risk that the internal control may become inadequate because
of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or
procedures may deteriorate.

In our opinion, management's assertion that, as of December 31, 1999, The Chase
Manhattan Bank maintained an effective system of internal control over servicing
of securitized automobile financing receivables, is fairly stated, in all
material respects, based upon the criteria for effective internal control
described in "Internal Control - Integrated Framework" issued by the Committee
of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

/s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
------------------------------
AMVESTORS FINANCIAL CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES                     EXHIBIT 11
                    CALCULATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER SHARE
                     (000's Omitted, except per share data)

                               For the Nine Months Ended  For the Quarter Ended
                                           September 30,     September 30,
                                           1996     1995     1996     1995
CALCULATION OF PRIMARY EARNINGS
  PER SHARE
  Earnings for primary earnings
   per share .........................  $15,019   10,893    5,329    3,806
 Average number of shares
   outstanding .......................   11,978   10,090   12,927   10,116

  Dilutive effect of stock options
   and warrants after application
    of treasury stock method .........      606      240      713      294
  Average number of common shares
   and common equivalents
    outstanding ......................   12,584   10,330   13,637   10,410
Primary earnings per share ...........     1.19     1.05      .39      .37
CALCULATION OF FULLY DILUTED
  EARNINGS PER SHARE
Net earnings .........................  $15,019   10,893    5,329    3,806
  Add back interest expenses
  on subordinated debentures .........      819      -        819      -
  Earnings for fully diluted
   earnings per share ................  $15,838    10,893   6,147    3,806
  Shares used in calculating
   primary earnings per share ........   12,584   10,330   13,637   10,410
  Shares resulting from assumed
   conversion of subordinated
   debentures ........................    1,108        -     3,301      -
  Additional dilutive effect of
   stock options and warrants after
    application of treasury stock
     method ..........................       63       48        1      -
  Average number of common shares
   outstanding on a fully diluted
    basis ............................   13,755   10,378   16,939   10,410
Fully diluted earnings per share .....  $  1.15     1.05      .36      .37
46
Form 10-Q
                                                                    For the nine
                                                                    Months Ended
                                                              September 30, 1999


                                   AT&T Corp.
                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges

                              (Dollars in Millions)
                                   (Unaudited)




Income from Continuing Operations
  Before Income Taxes .................................     $6,158

Less Interest Capitalized during
  the Period...........................................        104

Add Equity Investment Losses, net of distributions
  of Less than 50% Owned Affiliates....................        594

Add Fixed Charges......................................      1,608

Total Earnings from Continuing
  Operations Before Income Taxes
  and Fixed Charges....................................     $8,256



Fixed Charges

Total Interest Expense Including Capitalized Interest..     $1,212

Interest Portion of Rental Expense.....................        197

Dividend Requirements on Subsidiary Preferred Stock and
 Interest on Trust Preferred Securities................        199

  Total Fixed Charges..................................     $1,608

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges.....................        5.1
# Fourth Court of Appeals San Antonio, Texas October 6, 2021 No. 04-20-00356-CR John Stewart MUELLER , Appellant

v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee From the 198th Judicial District Court, Bandera County, Texas

Trial Court No. CR-19-0000009 Honorable M. Rex Emerson, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice On August 4, 2021, the court ordered this appeal abated and remanded for appointment of new counsel for appellant John Stewart Mueller. On August 5, 2021, the trial court appointed Patrick Maguire as appellant’s attorney. We therefore ORDER appellant to file his brief by November 5, 2021 . The State’s brief will be due 30 days after appellant files his brief.
It is so ORDEREDOctober 6, 2021. PER CURIAM
ATTESTED TO:__________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, CLERK OF COURT
# Comments on: 21-1878: BURNS v. MCDONOUGH [OPINION], Nonprecedential
#### § 102-75.495 May the Department of Education (ED) or the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) notify nonprofit organizations that surplus real property and related personal property is available for educational and public health purposes?

Yes, ED or HHS may notify eligible non-profit institutions that such property has been determined to be surplus. Notices to eligible non-profit institutions must require eligible non-profit institutions to coordinate any request for educational or public health use of the property with the appropriate public agency responsible for developing and submitting a comprehensive and coordinated plan of use and procurement for the property.
No. 10-11042.

#### McNeal *v.*Illinois.

App. Ct. Ill., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.
Argued and submitted June 28,

affirmed July 26, 1995

#### JOHN W. KREBS, *Petitioner, v.*BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, *Respondent.*

(CA A85539)

900 P2d 530

Hari Nam S. Khalsa, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.

Robert K. Lau, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General.

Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, and Edmonds and Armstrong, Judges.

ARMSTRONG, J.

*689ARMSTRONG, J.

Petitioner seeks review of an order of the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (Board) that requires him to serve 12 months of supervised parole pursuant to OAR 253-93-000. Petitioner was convicted of first degree robbery and first degree burglary committed on May 29, 1985. The Board set petitioner’s release date at April 8, 1995, and ordered, pursuant to OAR 253-93-000, that he serve a 12-month term of supervised parole. On appeal, petitioner argues only that the 12-month term of supervised parole imposed by the Board violates constitutional prohibitions against *ex post facto*laws, because he claims he would have received only a 6-month term of supervised parole under the law in effect at the time he committed his crimes. We affirm.

In *Byrnes v. Board of Parole,*134 Or App 296, 894 P2d 1252 (1995), we held that, because parole is a component of a sentence, no law that increases the term of parole may be applied to a convicted person to the person’s detriment if the law was adopted after the date on which the person committed the underlying crime. *See also Thierman v. Board of Parole,*134 Or App 304, 894 P2d 1250 (1995). Thus, we must determine whether the 12-month term of supervised parole disadvantages petitioner.

At the time petitioner committed his offenses, *former*OAR 255-90-002 (May 31, 1985) directed the Board to establish a term of supervised parole that was based on the offender’s crime severity rating and criminal history/risk score. According to the Board Action Form that set the terms of petitioner’s parole, petitioner’s crime severity rating is six and his criminal history/risk score is two. Under the matrix provided by *former*OAR 255-90-002, petitioner would have been given a 12-month term of supervised parole, not a 6-month term as petitioner claims. Thus, the 12-month term of supervised parole mandated by OAR 253-93-000 does not disadvantage petitioner.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 4.2

 

ONECONNECT FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.

(Incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands)

 

	
Number
    	
 
    	
Shares
    


 

US$50,000 Share Capital divided into

5,000,000,000 Shares of a par value of US$0.00001 each

 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT                                        is the registered holder of                                                             Shares in the above-named Company subject to the Memorandum and Articles of Association thereof.

 

EXECUTED for and on behalf of the Company on                       .

 

	
 
    	
DIRECTOR
Exhibit
32.1




CERTIFICATION


REQUIRED
BY RULE 13a-14(b) or


RULE
15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


(AS
ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)




I, Floyd
Warkol, as Chief Executive Officer of KSW, Inc. (the “Company”), certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002:





(1) the accompanying Annual Report on
Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (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
results of operations  of the Company.





Dated:  March
23, 2009




/s/ Floyd WarkolFloyd
      WarkolChief
      Executive Officer
#### § 105-68.340 If I disclose unfavorable information required under § 105-68.335, will I be prevented from participating in the transaction?

As a primary tier participant, your disclosure of unfavorable information about yourself or a principal under § 105-68.335 will not necessarily cause us to deny your participation in the covered transaction. We will consider the information when we determine whether to enter into the covered transaction. We also will consider any additional information or explanation that you elect to submit with the disclosed information.