alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed October 30, 

2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00972-CV

IN RE PAUL SHKEDY, GARY SHKEDY, and WRAPTOR EQUIPMENT, 

Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2012-05211

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On October 23, 2012, relators Paul Shkedy, Gary Shkedy, and Wraptor Equipment

filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code §22.221; see also 

Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relators ask this court to compel the Honorable Larry 

Weiman, presiding judge of the 80th District Court of Harris County, to vacate or modify 

the temporary injunction signed August 8, 2012.
2

Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will issue only if (1) the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and (2) the party requesting mandamus relief has no 

adequate remedy by appeal. In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 

(Tex. 2004). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the 

benefits of mandamus review against its detriments. Id. at 136. In evaluating benefits and 

detriments, we consider whether mandamus will preserve important substantive and 

procedural rights from impairment or loss. Id. Appellate courts must be mindful that the 

benefits of mandamus review are easily lost by overuse. Id. at 138.

An interlocutory order granting a temporary injunction may be appealed. See Tex. 

Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014(a)(4). An aggrieved party’s remedy from a temporary 

injunction is by interlocutory appeal. Reynolds, Shannon, Miller, Blinn, White & Cook v. 

Flanary, 872 S.W.2d 248, 251 (Tex. App.—Dallas 1993, no writ). Where the legislature 

has created the right to bring an interlocutory appeal, the remedy is adequate. In fact, the 

remedy by appeal is actually superior to filing a petition for writ of mandamus. 

Interlocutory appeals lie as of right and must be decided on the merits; mandamus, on the 

other hand, is an extraordinary remedy, not issued as a matter of right, but at the 

discretion of the court. Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 138. Therefore, relators are not entitled 

to mandamus relief because an adequate appellate remedy exists.

Accordingly, we deny relators’ petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges and Justices Brown and Busby.
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 9, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45531-45536]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6796]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Revised Non-Foreign Overseas Per Diem Rates

AGENCY: DoD, Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee.

ACTION: Notice of Revised Non-Foreign Overseas Per Diem Rates.

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

SUMMARY: The Per Diem, Travel and Transportation Allowance Committee is 
publishing Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin Number 248. This 
bulletin lists revisions in the per diem rates prescribed for U.S. 
Government employees for official travel in Alaska, Hawaii, Puerto 
Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands and Possessions of the United 
States. AEA changes announced in Bulletin Number 194 remain in effect. 
Bulletin Number 248 is being published in the Federal Register to 
assure that travelers are paid per diem at the most current rates.

DATES:  Effective Date: August 1, 2006.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document gives notice of revisions in 
per diem rates prescribed by the Per Diem Travel and Transportation 
Allowance Committee for non-foreign areas outside the continental 
United States. It supersedes Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletin 
Number 247. Distribution of Civilian Personnel Per Diem Bulletins by 
mail was discontinued. Per Diem Bulletins published periodically in the 
Federal Register now constitute the only notification of revisions in 
per diem rates to agencies and establishments outside the Department of 
Defense. For more information or questions about per diem rates, please 
contact your local travel office. The text of the Bulletin follows:

    Dated: August 2, 2006.
C.R. Choate,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 45532]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AU06.000


[[Page 45533]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AU06.001


[[Page 45534]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AU06.002


[[Page 45535]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AU06.003


[[Page 45536]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN09AU06.004

[FR Doc. 06-6796 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-01-1999
<CASH>                                   1,031,874,000
<SECURITIES>                               367,766,000
<RECEIVABLES>                              217,381,000
<ALLOWANCES>                              (49,752,000)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            98,572,000
<PP&E>                                   5,189,567,000
<DEPRECIATION>                           (501,400,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           8,810,471,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      667,136,000
<BONDS>                                  6,457,732,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      128,340,000
<PREFERRED>                                      7,000
<COMMON>                                       734,000
<OTHER-SE>                               1,491,400,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             8,810,471,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           313,381,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              161,544,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           119,270,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         130,823,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (230,419,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (230,419,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                             (230,419,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.82)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.82)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 160 (Friday, August 18, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 47817]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7021]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the meeting of 
the President's Cancer Panel.
    The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with 
attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to attend 
and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or 
other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person 
listed below in advance of the meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(9)(B), Title 5 U.S.C., as 
amended, because the premature disclosure of information and the 
discussions would likely to significantly frustrate implementation of 
recommendations.

    Name of Committee: President's Cancer Panel.
    Date: September 11, 2006.
    Open: September 11, 2006, 8 a.m.-4 p.m.
    Agenda: Promoting Healthy Lifestyles to Reduce the Risk of 
Cancer.
    Place: University of Minnesota Cancer Center, 425 East River 
Road, Room 450, Minneapolis, MN 55455.
    Closed: September 11, 2006, 4:30 p.m.-6:30 p.m.
    Agenda: The Panel will discuss the Promoting Healthy Lifestyles 
to Reduce the Risk of Cancer and discuss potential topics for the 
2007/2008 series.
    Place: Radisson Plaza Hotel, 35 South 7th Street, Minneapolis, 
MN 55402.
    Contact Person: Abby Sandler, PhD, Executive Secretary, National 
Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Building 6116, Room 
212, 6116 Executive Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/451-9399.
    Any interested person may file written comments with the 
committee by forwarding the comments to the Contact Person listed on 
this notice. The comments should include the name, address, 
telephone number and, when applicable, the business or professional 
affiliation of the interested person.
    Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home 
page: deainfo.nci.nih.gov/advisory/pcp/pcp.htm, where an agenda and 
any additional information for the meeting will be posted when 
available.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 14, 2006.
Anna Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 06-7021 Filed 8-17-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
EXHIBIT 3.4


      CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
  (Pursuant to NRS 78.385 and 78.390. After Issuance of Stock)

                            Filed by:

                 REMOTE UTILITIES NETWORK, INC.

We, the undersigned, David Phan and Thomas J. Charlton, President
and Assistant Secretary, respectively, of Remote Utilities
Network, Inc. (the "Corporation"), do hereby certify that:

     1.   The original articles were filed with the Office of the
Secretary of State on January 22, 1996.

     2.   As of the date of this certificate, 9,290,000 shares of
voting common stock of the corporation are issued and
outstanding.

     3.   Pursuant to the Annual Meeting of the Shareholders held on
July 10, 2001, in which (a) 8,310,250 shares, representing 89.5%
of the outstanding voting shares, approved the action taken by
the Board of Directors to change the Corporation's name; (b)
8,310,250 shares, representing 89.5% of the outstanding voting
shares, approved the action taken by the Board of Directors to
increase the authorized common stock of the Corporation; and (c)
8,199,500 shares, representing 88.3% of the outstanding voting
shares, approved the action taken by the Board of Directors to
increase the authorized preferred stock of the Corporation, the
Corporation hereby adopts the following amendments to the
Articles of Incorporation of this Corporation:

     Article I, Name, is hereby amended in its entirety to
     read as follows:

          The name of the Corporation is Runcorp Inc.

     Paragraph 1 of Article IV, Capital Stock, is hereby
     amended in its entirety to read as follows:

               1.   Number of Shares.  The aggregate number
          of capital stock shares which the Corporation
          shall have authority to issue is Two Hundred
          Seventy-Five Million (275,000,000) shares, of
          which Two Hundred Fifty Million (250,000,000)
          shall be common stock, $.001 par value, and Twenty-
          Five Million (25,000,000) shall be preferred
          stock, $.001 par value.

     Paragraphs 2 through 6, inclusive, of Article IV shall
     remain the same.

Dated:  July 11, 2001.

                              /s/ David Phan
                              David Phan, President


                              /s/ Thomas J. Charlton
                              Thomas J. Charlton, Assistant
                              Secretary
No. 11-5730.

#### Argelio Angel *v.*Virginia.

Sup. Ct. Va. Cer-tiorari denied.
§ 22.961 Cellular licenses subject to competitive bidding. ( a ) The following applications for Cellular licensed area authorizations are subject to competitive bidding: ( 1 ) Mutually exclusive applications for Unserved Area filed after July 26, 1993; and
( 2 ) Mutually exclusive applications for the initial authorization for CMA672-A (Chambers, TX).
( b ) The competitive bidding procedures set forth in § 22.229 and the general competitive bidding procedures set forth in subpart Q of part 1 of this chapter will apply.
[79 FR 72153, Dec. 5, 2014]
§ 22.717 Procedure for mutually exclusive applications in the Rural Radiotelephone Service. Mutually exclusive applications in the Rural Radiotelephone Service, including those that are mutually exclusive with applications in the Paging and Radiotelephone Service, are processed in accordance with § 22.131 and with this section. ( a ) Applications in the Rural Radiotelephone Service may be mutually exclusive with applications in the Paging and Radiotelephone Service if they seek authorization to operate facilities on the same channel in the same area, or the technical proposals are otherwise in conflict. See § 22.567.
( b ) A modification application in either service filed on the earliest filing date may cause all later-filed mutually exclusive applications of any type in either service to be “cut off” (excluded from a same-day filing group) and dismissed, pursuant to § 22.131(c)(3)(ii) and § 22.131(c)(4).
[59 FR 59956, Nov. 21, 1994, as amended at 62 FR 11636, Mar. 12, 1997]
No. 92-8133.

#### Inocelda *v.*Department of the Army.

C. A. Fed. Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 52.20 Thousands-block number pooling. ( a ) *Definition.* Thousands-block number pooling is a process by which the 10,000 numbers in a central office code (NXX) are separated into ten sequential blocks of 1,000 numbers each (thousands-blocks), and allocated separately within a rate center.
( b ) *General requirements.* Pursuant to the Commission's adoption of thousands-block number pooling as a mandatory nationwide numbering resource optimization strategy, all carriers, except those exempted by the Commission, must participate in thousands-block number pooling where it is implemented and in accordance with the national thousands-block number pooling framework and implementation schedule established by the Commission.
( c ) *Donation of thousands-blocks.* ( 1 ) All service providers required to participate in thousands-block number pooling shall donate thousands-blocks with ten percent or less contamination to the thousands-block number pool for the rate center within which the numbering resources are assigned.
( 2 ) All service providers required to participate in thousands-block number pooling shall be allowed to retain at least one thousands-block per rate center, even if the thousands-block is ten percent or less contaminated, as an initial block or footprint block.
( d ) *Thousands-Block Pooling Administrator.* ( 1 ) The Pooling Administrator shall be a non-governmental entity that is impartial and not aligned with any particular telecommunication industry segment, and shall comply with the same neutrality requirements that the NANPA is subject to under this part.
( 2 ) The Pooling Administrator shall maintain no more than a six-month inventory of telephone numbers in each thousands-block number pool.
[65 FR 37709, June 16, 2000, as amended at 66 FR 9532, Feb. 8, 2001; 68 FR 43009, July 21, 2003]
Exhibit 99.1

          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 Capital Preferred Yield Fund-IV, L.P.
(the "Partnership") on Form 10-K for the annual period ended December 31, as
filed with the Security and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, John F. Olmstead, President and Director of CAI Equipment Leasing
V Corp., the General Partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

     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 Partnership.


By:    /s/Mary M. Ebele                                  Dated: March 30, 2004
       ----------------
       Mary M. Ebele
Title: Principal Financial Officer
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 Quarterly  Report of Electronic  Game Card, Inc. on Form
10-QSB for the period ending  September  30, 2004, as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Linden  Boyne,
Treasurer/Secretary of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that, to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

                          /s/ Linden Boyne
                          ----------------------------
                              Linden Boyne
                              Secretary / Treasurer
                              (Principal Financial Officer)

Date : August 15, 2005
# Recent Research Activity 

/ Published Aug. 8, 2017

• On 15 June, RADM (Ret) Jan Hamby, CIC Chancellor, participated in a panel presentation at the AFCEA Defensive Cyber Operations Symposium. The panel discussed the topic of“Readiness in the Cyber Domain: The Fight for Talent and Resources.”

• On 19 June, Dr. Jim Chen, CIC Professor, gave a presentation entitled “Cybersecurity Education and Awareness Training: A Societal Project” to the 30th National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Federal Information Systems Security Educators’ Association (FISSEA) Annual Conference held at NIST.

• In June, Dr. John Hurley, CIC Professor, published an article entitled “Cyberspace: The New Battlefield - An Approach via the Analytics Hierarchy Process” in the International Journal of Cyber Warfare and Terrorism, Volume 7, Issue 3.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-2121

SUSAN SMITH,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

CITY OF MARION; BOBBY GERALD, individually and

as Mayor; BOBBY DAVIS, individually and in his

official capacity as a member of the City

Council of Marion; JERRY MITCHELLE,

individually and in his official capacity as a

member of the City Council of Marion; MICHAEL

BAKER, individually and in his official

capacity as a member of the City Council of

Marion; FRANK M. HART, individually and in his

official capacity as a member of the City

Council of Marion; RALPH ATKINSON,

individually and in his official capacity as a

member of the City Council of Marion; FRAIZER

WALPOH, individually and in his official

capacity as City of Marion Administrator;

CLYDE JAMES, individually; JAMES EQUIPMENT

WRECKER SERVICE; JOHN FINNEY, individually and

in his capacity; RONALD ATKINSON,

 Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.

(CA-04-1327-4-TLW)

Submitted: June 15, 2006 Decided: June 19, 2006
- 2 -

Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Susan Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Charles Baxter, RICHARDSON,

PLOWDEN, CARPENTER & ROBINSON, Myrtle Beach, South Carolina;

Saunders McKenzie Bridges, Jr., AIKEN, BRIDGES, NUNN, ELLIOTT &

TYLER, PA, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
*

In the district court, the lead plaintiff was Derrick Smith;

he is no longer a party on appeal.

- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Susan Smith* appeals the district court’s order accepting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on

her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. On appeal, Smith alleges

that the district court improperly referred the action to the

magistrate judge without the consent of the parties. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. The district

court properly referred Defendants’ motion for summary judgment to

the magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (2000), and

Smith filed objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

See Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 46 (4th Cir. 1982) (noting

that a district court may refer matters to a magistrate judge

without the consent of the parties under § 636(b)). Accordingly, we

affirm. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          FEB-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             MAR-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               NOV-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,697
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   53,682
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,088
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                56,819
<PP&E>                                          25,730
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,232
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  84,244
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           87,070
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           118
<OTHER-SE>                                    (65,933)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    84,244
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               197,450
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  123,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 4,549
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,282
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (12,222)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        75
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (12,297)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (12,297)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    $(1.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  $(1.04)


</TABLE>