alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### NUMBER 13

- 21

- 00 10 4

- CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

– EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________

WALTER LEE WASHINGTON III

, Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On a ppeal from the 3 29 th District Court

of Wharton County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Longoria, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Longoria

This cause is before the C ourt on a ppellant ’s motion to dismiss th is appeal

. The

motion was signed by both counsel and the appellant

. We find the motion meet s the

requirement of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.2(a) that appellant and attorney

must sign a written motion to dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.2(a). Without2 passing on the merits of the case, we grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss t he appeal.

NORA LONGORIA

Justice

Do not publish.

T EX . R. A PP . P. 47.2(b).

D elivered and filed on the

10th day of November, 2021.
#### Welsh v. Cochran.

*Qomerdon*— *what will maintain action for—property seizedby*marshal—married *woman*— *separate property of.*

Defendants were petitioners in-bankruptcy proceedings against a firm. In such proceedings the marshal seized plaintiff’s property. Defendant’s attorney took an active part in directing the seizure, and when defendants were informed that plaintiff claimed the property, gave a bond to the marshal indemnifying him. *Meld,*sufficient to sustain an action for the seizure against defendants.

Where a wife who at the time of her marriage in England had money which she retained and afterward purchased personal property therewith, taking the title to herself without objection from her *husband; held,*that she took a legal title which the husband’s creditors could not gainsay or question.

*700Appeal by defendants from a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon the verdict of a jury and from an order denying- a new trial.

The action was brought by Jane Welsh and another against Fergus Cochran and others to recover the value of personal property seized in bankrupt proceedings against George Welsh and another.

*A. C. & M. H. Ellis,*for appellants.

*Oscar Frisbie,*for respondents.

Barnard, P. J.

The head-note fully states all the points passed upon in the opinion.

*Judgment affirmed.*
Exhibit 32.1

March 13,
2020
Via EDGAR
Securities and Exchange Commission
Judiciary Plaza
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549



Re:

Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Ladies
and Gentlemen:

In
connection with the Annual Report of MV Oil Trust (the "Trust") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2019 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, not in its individual capacity but solely as the trustee of the Trust, certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to its knowledge:



The
above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
separate disclosure document.



THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUSTCOMPANY, N.A.Trustee for MV Oil TrustBy:

/s/ MICHAEL J. ULRICH Michael J. Ulrich Vice President


---



QuickLinks
## COURT OF APPEALS SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 15

- 00296

- CV

IN RE REGINA NACHAEL HOWELL FOSTER RELATOR

------------
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING TRIAL COURT NO. 322

- 518571

- 12

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

### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

------------
The court has consid ered relator’s “Petition for E mergency Writ of

Prohibition and W rit of M andamus ” and “E mergency M otion for S tay ” and is of
the opinion that relief should be denied. Accordingly, relator’s “Petition for

E mergency Writ of Prohibition and W rit of M andamus ” a nd “Emergency Motion
for Stay” are denied.

PER CURIAM
PANEL: DAUPHINOT, WALKER, and GABRIEL, JJ.

DELIVERED: September 21, 2015

1 See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4, 52.8 (d).
----

EXHIBIT 32.1 

**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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the “Report”) of  Wescorp Energy Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31,  2007, each of the undersigned Doug Biles, the Chief Executive Officer of the  Company, and Terry Mereniuk, the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby  certifies 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 each of the undersigned’s  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 results of operations of the Company.
§ 115.800 Inspection standards. ( a ) A vessel is inspected for compliance with the standards required by this subchapter. Machinery, equipment, materials, and arrangements not covered by standards in this subchapter may be inspected in accordance with standards acceptable to the cognizant OCMI as good marine practice.
( b ) In the application of inspection standards due consideration must be given to the hazards involved in the operation permitted by a vessel's Certificate of Inspection. Thus, the standards may vary in accordance with the vessel's area of operation or any other operational restrictions or limitations.
( c ) The published standards of classification societies and other recognized safety associations may be used as guides in the inspection of vessels when such standards do not conflict with the requirements of this subchapter.
#### Robert C. Embree, *Respondent, v.*Miriam L. Franklin, *Appellant*.

Judgment reversed and new trial granted; order denying new trial affirmed and leave given to the respondent to appeal to Court of Appeals, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Dykman and Cullen, JJ.;

Gilbert, J., dissenting.
**Exhibit 99.6**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

 

18 U.S.C. §1350,

 

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the annual report of Westport Innovations Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 40-F for the period ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, David R. Demers, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| October 29,   2012 |   | /s/   David R. Demers     |
|-------------------------|--------|---------------------------|
|                    |   |                      |
|                    |   | David   R. Demers         |
|                    |   | Chief   Executive Officer |

 

This certification accompanies this annual report on Form 40-F pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference.

 

1

----
### From: Keith Head@deq.state.ms.us [mailto:Keith Head@deq.state.ms.us] 

### Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2015 11:03 AM 

### To: Rogers, Bob 

### Cc: Dallas Baker@deq.state.ms.us; Elliott Bickerstaff@deq.state.ms.us; Jerry Beasley@deq.state.ms.us 

### Subject: RE: Need to change our proposed meeting date. Can we move itto April 20? Bob, The 24th at 10:30 works for us. Thanks, Keith Keith Head, P.E., BCEE Environmental Engineer, Air Division Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 515 Amite Street Jackson, MS 39201 601.961.5577

Frorn: "Rogers, Bob" <Bob.Rogers@shelbycountvtn.gov> To· <Keith Head@deq.state.ms.us>, Cc: <Dallas Baker@deq.state.ms.us>, <Elliott Bickerstaff@deq.state.ms.us>, <Jerrv Beasley@deg.state.ms.us> Date: 04/09/2015 10:40AM Subject: RE: Need to change our proposed meeting date. Can we move it to April20?

How about the 24'" at 10:30? Here's the message from MPO staff: 

### GoodMorning Bob, Friday, April241 h 

### at !0:30amworks for bothKenny and Allison. They will be ableto conference call in at that time. Please letus know ifthis works for MDEQ and we will confirm the time with KHA. See youthis afternoon, KATE HORTON, RLA, ASLA 

## ITRANSPORTATION PLANNER Memphis UrbanAreaMetropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) 125 N Main Street 

# ISuite#450 

# IMemphis, TN 38103 PH: 901.576.72181 FAX: 901.576.7272 Email: Kate.Horton(a)memphistn.gov

Bob Rogers, Manager Pollution Control Shelby County Health Department 814 Jefferson Ave. MemphisTN 38105 2
July 7 , 2015

Mr. Anthony J. Rojek

210 West Hanna Avenue

Tampa, FL 33604

Dear Mr. Rojek:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your April 9 , exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 0939 ), but

we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does no t comply

with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further,

you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, h ow it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional i nformation, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any ques tions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
N. Y. SUPERIOR COURT.

#### August A. Ritter, agt. Margaret Krekeler, *et al.*August A. Ritter, agt. Samuel Phillips, *et al.*

*Special Term,*

*February,*1871.

Od an *appeal*from a judgment entered by the direction of a single judge to the general *term of*the same court no security is required, but if a stay of proceedings is desired, an undertaking must be given, the same as required ou an appea to the court of appeals.

Where an undertaking is filed at the time of the service of a notice of appeal for tbe purposes of a stay, which undertaking is disapproved, the appellant should move for leave to file and serve a new undertaking *nunc pro tunc*as of the time of filing the notice of appeal.

Motion for leave to file a new undertaking on appeal from judgment of foreclosure, and to set aside all proceedings upon the judgment.

H. A. Frost *and*A. R. Dyett, *for the motion.*

D. M. Porter, *in opposition.*

Freedman, J.

An appeal from a judgment entered upon the direction of a single judge to the general term of the same court under section 348 of the Code, is effectual without security. It is only when a stay of proceedings is desired that security must be given, as upon an appeal to the court of appeals *(Genter*agt. *Fields,*1 *Keyes,*483 ; *Davis*agt. *Duffie,*8 *Bosw.,*691; *Halsey*agt.. *Flint,*15 *Abb.,*367 ; *Kitching*agt. *Diehl,*40 *Barb.,*433 ; *Niles*agt. *Battershall,*18 *Abb.,*162.)

The first notice of appeal is, therefore, still operative, and *446the second was a nullity. After the undertaking served in each case with the first notice had been disapproved, the appellant should have applied for leave to file and serve a new one, *nunc pro tunc.*Failing to make the proper motion, the several applications for a stay of proceedings, which have been made, were very properly denied.

But inasmuch as the appellant does now present a case, upon which relief may and should be granted to him, he may have leave, upon the conditions hereinafter named, to withdraw the second notices of appeal and to file and serve the undertakings filed and served with such notices, or new ones in place thereof, as of the day when the first notices of appeal were served and filed, with liberty, however, to the' respondents to except to the sureties, &c., &c.

Upon the approval of such undertakings the sale is to be vacated and set aside, and all proceedings upon the judgment will be stayed.

The condition of his relief is, that the appellant in each case pay, within five days after the date of the order to be entered in conformity herewith, to the referee his fees and disbursements in making the sale, and to the attorney for the respondents $10 costs for opposing this motion.

Order to be settled on two days notice.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

BECKY BROSAMER, 

 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

WALMART STORES INC. and 

LIBERTY LIFE ASSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

 Defendants. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. 2:14-CV-12818 

Honorable Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

Magistrate Judge Whalen 

STIPULATION TO DISMISS 

WALMART STORES INC. AS DEFENDANT 

Now come Plaintiff Becky Brosamer and Defendants Liberty Life Assurance 

Company of Boston (“Liberty Life”) and Walmart Stores Inc. (“Walmart”), by and 

through their undersigned counsel, and stipulate as follows: 

1. Plaintiff’s ERISA claim for disability benefits is asserted under a 

group disability income policy (the “Walmart Disability Policy”) issued by Liberty 

Life to Plaintiff’s employer, Walmart. 

2. The parties agree that to the extent Plaintiff seeks benefits under the 

policy, Liberty Life is the proper defendant to that claim, inasmuch as Liberty Life 

is responsible for making decisions concerning benefit eligibility under the 

applicable group disability insurance policy and also for paying benefits under the 

Case 2:14-cv-12818-SJM-RSW ECF No. 10, PageID.73 Filed 12/15/14 Page 1 of 2
policy. The parties further agree that Liberty Life will not be asserting any 

defenses based on the absence of the Walmart as a defendant. 

3. Based on the agreement reflected in paragraph 2 above, the parties 

stipulate that the Walmart be dismissed as a defendant without prejudice. 

4. A proposed order is attached hereto for the Court’s consideration, and 

will be sent to the Court’s email site. 

 s/ Karlan Bender 

Karlan Bender, Esq. 

Cooper & Bender, P.C. 

4153 Occidental Highway 

Adrian, MI 49221 

(517) 263-7884 

cooperandbender@comcast.net 

Attorney for Plaintiff, 

Becky Brosamer 

 s/ James P. Hollihan 

James P. Hollihan, Esq. 

Duane Morris LLP 

600 Grant Street, Suite 5010 

Pittsburgh, PA 15219 

(412) 497-1040 

jphollihan@duanemorris.com

Attorneys for Defendants, 

Liberty Life Assurance Company of 

Boston and Walmart Stores Inc. 

Dated: December 15, 2014 

Case 2:14-cv-12818-SJM-RSW ECF No. 10, PageID.74 Filed 12/15/14 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
      a)
    
    designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, 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)
    
    designed such internal control over financial reporting; or caused such internal
control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision to provide reasonable
assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial
statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles;c)
    
    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; andd)
    
    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
  a)
    
    all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect
the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;
andb)
    
    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.
  /s/ William J. HemeltWilliam J. HemeltExecutive Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer
§ 109.435 Record of fire fighting equipment inspection. ( a ) The master or person in charge shall ensure that a record of each test and inspection required in § 109.223 is maintained on board, until the unit is reinspected or inspected for certification.
( b ) The record required in paragraph (a) of this section must show— ( 1 ) The date of each test and inspection;
( 2 ) The number or other identification of each item of equipment tested or inspected; and
( 3 ) The name of the person, and the company he represents if any, who conducts the test or inspection.
[Civ. No. 13575.

First Dist., Div. One.

May 12, 1948.]

#### Estate of FRANK H. O’DONNELL, an Incompetent Person. DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HYGIENE, Appellant, v. MAY F. DUNHAM, as Guardian, etc., Respondent.

PETERS, P. J., and BRAY, J.

Respondent's petition for rehearing contends that our opinion leaves open the question as to whether in fixing an heir hunter’s fee in a guardianship proceeding it is proper for the trial judge to use a percentage. As pointed out in the main opinion, where there is no express contract, the right to a fee is based primarily upon a showing that the incompetent is a missing person, in the true sense, and therefore that the services of the heir hunter are of real value to the incompetent. When that is shown, the judge may fix the reasonable value of the services rendered. If the nature and extent of the services are shown and if it be the fact that there is a customary percentage for such services, the judge may take all those factors into consideration in fixing the value of the services rendered. There is no automatic right to a percentage. In arriving at that value, the court may as a yardstick take into consideration testimony concerning the customary fee in such cases, but is not bound by such measure.

The petition for a rehearing, and the petition for a modification, are denied.

WARD J.,

I vote for a rehearing for the reason that the order granting the payment of $4,000 to the American Research Bureau should be stricken, because such bureau as a matter of law is not entitled to a fee.
#### § 121.710 First-aid kits.

A vessel must carry either a first-aid kit that meets the requirements in 46 CFR 199.175(b)(10) or a kit with equivalent contents and instructions. For equivalent kits, the contents must be stowed in a suitable, watertight container that is marked “First-Aid Kit”. A first-aid kit must be easily visible and readily available to the crew.

[USCG-2020-0107, 87 FR 68304, Nov. 14, 2022]
#### § 704.3 Other requests and communications.

Requests for information should be addressed to the Public Affairs Unit and requests for Commission literature should be directed to National Clearinghouse Library, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 9th Street, NW., Washington DC 20425. Communications with respect to Commission proceedings should be made pursuant to § 702.17 of this chapter. All other communications should be directed to Office of Staff Director, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 624 9th Street, Washington, DC 20425.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement
of HMT Technology Corporation on Form S-3 (File No. 333-24385) of our report
dated April 22, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements and
financial statement schedule of HMT Technology Corporation and its subsidiary as
of March 31, 1997 and 1996, and for the years ended March 31, 1997, 1996 and
1995, which report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.


                                                        COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.

San Jose, California
June 27, 1997