alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 07-03-0518-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

JANUARY 22, 2004

______________________________

IN RE: HOLLIS POSEY, RELATOR

_________________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Hollis Posey seeks a writ of mandamus ordering respondent, the Honorable

Abe Lopez, Judge of the 108th District Court of Potter County, to take action on a motion

filed by relator in cause number 44,635-E in the 108th District Court of Potter County. We

deny the petition.

In his petition, relator alleges that he has filed a motion seeking a nunc pro tunc

order in the referenced trial court case. We are requested to order respondent to rule on

the motion seeking a nunc pro tunc order. 
2

In support of the petition for writ of mandamus, relator attached copies of (1) the

State’s Motion to Dismiss and the Order dismissing the referenced cause, (2) relator’s

Petition for Expunction, and (3) a letter to the Hale County District Clerk filing the petition

and requesting notification of any rulings on the motion. No other document or record of

proceedings is attached to or furnished in support of the petition. 

 When petition for writ of mandamus is made, it is the relator’s burden to show

entitlement to the relief being requested. See generally Johnson v. Fourth District Court

of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex. 1985) (orig. proceeding). The showing must, in

part, be by certified, sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for

relief and which was filed in any underlying proceeding. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a).

Relators seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus must satisfy three requirements to show

entitlement to the writ: (1) a legal duty to perform; (2) a demand for performance; and (3)

a refusal to act. Stoner v. Massey, 586 S.W.2d 843, 846 (Tex. 1979). A court is not

required to consider a motion not called to its attention. Metzger v. Sebek, 892 S.W.2d 20,

49 (Tex.App.--Houston[1st Dist.] 1994, writ denied). Showing that a motion was filed with

the court clerk does not constitute proof that the motion was brought to the trial court’s

attention or presented to the trial court with a request for a ruling. See In re Chavez, 62

S.W.3d 225, 228 (Tex.App.--Amarillo 2001) (orig. proceeding). 

Relator’s petition does not demonstrate that his motion has been called to

respondent’s attention or presented to respondent for a ruling, nor does he present

certified, sworn copies of material documents. Relator has not presented a record which

shows entitlement to the relief sought.
3

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Phil Johnson

Chief Justice
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17916-17917]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1762]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology; American Health Information Community Meeting

ACTION: Announcement of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the 13th meeting of the American Health 
Information Community in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.). The American Health 
Information Community will advise the Secretary and recommend specific 
actions to achieve a common interoperability framework for health 
information technology (IT).

DATES: April 24, 2007, from 8:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. (EDT)

ADDRESSES: Hubert H. Humphrey building (200 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20201), Conference Room 800.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Visit http://www.hhs.gov/healthit/ahic.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will include presentations by 
the Electronic Health Records and Chronic Care Workgroups on 
Recommendations and an update, as well as reports from the National 
Governors Association's State Alliance Task Force and a report on the 
First Year of the Nationwide Health Information Network (NHIN) 
initiative.
    A Web cast of the Community meeting will be available on the NIH

[[Page 17917]]

Web site at: http://www.videocast.nih.gov/.
    If you have special needs for the meeting, please contact (202) 
690-7151.

    Dated: April 2, 2007.
Judith Sparrow,
Director, American Health Information Community, Office of Programs and 
Coordination, Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information 
Technology.
[FR Doc. 07-1762 Filed 4-9-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-24-M
# C_2013225EN.01008402.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/84 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/84

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (First Chamber) of 7 May 2013 — McCoy v Committee of the Regions

(Case F-86/11) (1)

1

(Civil Service - Officials - Invalidity pension - Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations - Refusal to recognise that invalidity arose from an occupational disease)

2013/C 225/193

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Robert McCoy (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: L. Levi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Committee of the Regions of the European Union (represented by: J.C. Cañoto Argüelles, acting as Agent, assisted by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Civil Service — Application for the annulment of the decision refusing to recognise that the applicant's invalidity arose from an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Annuls the decision of 10 September 2010 of the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions of the European Union, concerning the refusal to recognise that Mr McCoy's invalidity arose from an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls the decision of 10 September 2010 of the Bureau of the Committee of the Regions of the European Union, concerning the refusal to recognise that Mr McCoy's invalidity arose from an occupational disease within the meaning of Article 78(5) of the Staff Regulations;

| 2. | Dismisses the remainder of the application; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the remainder of the application;

| 3. | Orders the Committee of the Regions of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr McCoy. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Committee of the Regions of the European Union to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Mr McCoy.

---

(1)  OJ C 340, 19.11.2011, p. 42.

1

---
#### MARIE SCHREIBER, ADMINISTRATRIX AD PROSEQUENDUM OF THE ESTATE OF CARL SCHREIBER, DECEASED, PLAINTIFF, v. MILFORD GOULD, HEZEKIAH JORDON, HOWARD H. JOHNSON, PETER QUIST, RALPH E. BRADY AND ROBERT CARRINGTON, DEFENDANTS.

Decided November 4, 1929.

Before Justices Teenohaed, Kalisch and Lloyd.

Eor the rule, *William George.*

*Gontra, Edward Stover.*

Pee Ctjeiam.

This is an application to open a judgment entered in the Supreme Court on a default verdict of a jury, in the Hudson Circuit for $7,500 in favor of the plaintiff, against the defendants. The action, which resulted in the verdict and judgment was one of tort. The cause of action arose in Atlantic City.

On May 30th, 1927, the plaintiff’s decedent, while crossing a public highway was run into and fatally injured by an automobile operated by Milford Gould. A rule to show cause was allowed by Mr. Justice Minturn why the judgment should not be set aside and a new trial granted to the defendant Jordon. Jordon is a colored man, and a police *937officer—or was a police officer at the time the accident happened—he being a member of the Atlantic City police force.

At the time of the occurrence of the accident which resulted in the death of the plaintiff’s decedent, testimony taken under the rule, tends to show that Jordon was in the discharge of a public duty, and his insistence is, that he was in nowise concerned with the operation of an automobile which struck the plaintiff’s decedent, and caused the latter’s death.

There seems to have been some misunderstanding between Jordon’s counsel who lived in Atlantic City, and counsel employed by the latter, to represent Jordon in Jersey City, as to the date of trial, which resulted in a default verdict, and as a result, Jordon claims that without any fault of his own, he has never been afforded a day in court, to give his version of how the accident happened, and to exculpate himself from liability to respond in damages to the plaintiff.

We think, however, there is some fault attributable to the Jersey City counsel, who was entrusted to give timely notice as to when the cause was to come on for trial, and we also think under all the circumstances in the case, that the judgment should be opened for the purpose of permitting the defendant Jordon to put in his defense upon a retrial of the cause, but that the judgment shall remain a lien upon the lands, goods and chattels of the defendant Jordon, and subject to such judgment as shall be obtained upon such retrial; that the case be put upon the calendar, and a day set for trial, subject to the convenience of the plaintiff, and that the defendant Jordon pay all costs incurred by the plaintiff, which are the direct result of opening the default, and a granting of a new trial.
----

----

Preamble

Table of Contents
          - Introduction 
          - Scope 
          - Qualification 
          - Calculation of Tier 1 Capital and Total Qualifying Capital 
          - Calculation of Risk-Weighted Assets 
          - Operational Risk 
          - Disclosure 

List of Acronyms

Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

Paperwork Reduction Act

Plain Language

OCC Executive Order 12866

OTS Executive Order 12866 Determination

OCC Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Determination

OTS Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Determination

Proposed Regulatory Text

Table of Contents
        - Part I
        - General Provisions
        - Part II
        - Qualifying Capital
        - Part III
        - Qualification
        - Part IV
        - Risk-Weighted Assets for General Credit Risk
        - Part V 
        - Risk-Weighted Assets for Securitization Exposures
        - Part VI
        - Risk-Weighted Assets for Equity Exposures
        - Part VII
        - Risk-Weighted Assets for Operational Risk
        - Part VIII
        - Disclosure

List of Subjects

Authority and Issuance

OCC

Federal Reserve

FDIC

OTS

OCC

Federal Reserve

FDIC

OTS

Billing Codes

(a) Each [bank] must publicly disclose each quarter its total and tier 1       risk-based capital ratios and their components (that is, tier 1 capital,       tier 2 capital, total qualifying capital, and total risk-weighted       assets).11

[Disclosure paragraph (b)]

[Disclosure paragraph (c)]

END OF COMMON RULE.	[END OF COMMON TEXT]

  

----

    -  Other public disclosure requirements continue to apply - for example, Federal securities law and regulatory reporting requirements.   Return to text

Basel II Capital AccordNotice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPR)

----

HomeBanking information and regulationAccessibilityContact us
<PAGE>

                           CENTRAL FEDERAL CORPORATION
                                  Exhibit 32.1
                           Section 1350 Certifications

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Central Federal Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David C. Vernon, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer 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:

      (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.

Dated: May 14, 2004                   By: /s/ David C. Vernon
                                          --------------------------------------
                                          David C. Vernon
                                          Chairman of the Board, President and
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                          (Principal Executive Officer)

                                                                             23.
# C_2011282EN.01002201.xml

| 24.9.2011 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 282/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.9.2011

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 282/22

---

Order of the General Court of 6 July 2011 — Petroci v Council

(Case T-160/11) (1)

1

(Common Foreign and Security Policy - Restrictive measures taken in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire - Removal from the list of persons concerned - Action for annulment - No need to adjudicate)

2011/C 282/45

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Société nationale d'opérations pétrolières de la Cote d’Ivoire Holding (Petroci Holding) (Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire) (represented by: M. Ceccaldi, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: B. Driessen and A. Vitro, Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Annulment of Council Decision 2011/18/CFSP of 14 January 2011 amending Council Decision 2010/656/CFSP renewing the restrictive measures against Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 36), and Council Regulation (EU) No 25/2011 of 14 January 2011 amending Regulation (EC) No 560/2005 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Côte d’Ivoire (OJ 2011 L 11, p. 1), in so far as those acts introduce restrictive measures which adversely affect the applicant.

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate.

| 2. | The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Council of the European Union shall pay the costs.

| 3. | There is no need to adjudicate on the application of the European Commission for leave to intervene |
| --- | --- |

3.

There is no need to adjudicate on the application of the European Commission for leave to intervene

---

(1)  OJ C 139 of 7.5.2011.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 74 (Wednesday, April 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 19545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-1892]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Aging; Notice of Closed 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 following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The contract proposals and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Aging Special Emphasis 
Panel, Longitudinal Study Contract.
    Date: April 25, 2007.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate contract proposals.
    Place: National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, 7201 
Wisconsin Avenue, 2C212, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Wilbur C. Hadden, PhD, Health Science 
Administrator, National Institute on Aging, Gateway Building, Room 
2C212, 7201 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4a222b2e2e2f243d0a272b232664242322642d253c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7d151c191918130a3d101c141153131415531a120b">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, Aging 
Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS).

    Dated: April 11, 2007.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 07-1892 Filed 4-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Order entered March 3 1, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 19

- 01431

- CV

TOWN OF HIGHLAND PAR K, Appellant

V.

TIFFANY RENEE MCCULL ERS, INDIVIDUALLY AN D FOR THE

BEN EFIT OF CALVIN MARCUS MCCULLERS AND CALVIN BENNETT MCCU LLERS AND

ANF OF C.J., MINOR, AND SONYA HOSKINS, ET AL ., Appellee s

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 18

- 08709

ORDER

Before t he Court is a ppellant’s March 27 , 2020 unopposed motion for an

extension of time to file appellant’s opening brief. We GRANT the motion and

ORDER appellant’s opening brief to be filed on or before April 13, 2020.

/s/ BILL WHITEHILL JUSTICE
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Kelly L. Hankinson, Chief Financial Officer of Thinkpath Inc., certify that:

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

2.       Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.       Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
         information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

4.       The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
         establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
         defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
         we have:

                  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report
         is being prepared;

                  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
         controls and procedures as of a date within 45 days prior to the filing
         date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

                  c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about
         the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on
         our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date.

5.       The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based
         on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the
         audit committee of the registrant's board of directors:

                  a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of
         internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability
         to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
         identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
         internal controls; and

                  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves
         management or other employees who have a significant role in the
         registrant's internal controls.


Date: August 22, 2005
                                                /S/ KELLY HANKINSON
                                                -------------------

                                                Kelly L. Hankinson
                                                Chief Financial Officer
#### § 169.744 Emergency position indicating radio beacon (EPIRB).

Each EPIRB must be marked with the vessel's name.
# EUR-Lex - - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

#

**Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conservation of wild birds (codified version) COM(2009) 129 final — 2009/0043 (COD) **

*
Official Journal C 306 , 16/12/2009 P. 0079 - 0079 *

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conservation of wild birds (codified version)

COM(2009) 129 final — 2009/0043 (COD)

2009/C 306/18

On 3 April 2009 the Council decided to consult the European Economic and Social Committee, under Article 175 (1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the

"Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the conservation of wild birds (Codified Version)"

Since the Committee unreservedly endorses the contents of the proposal and has already set out its views on the subject in its earlier opinion, adopted on 25 May 1977 [*], the opinion adopted on 14 September 1994 [**] and the opinion adopted on 22 April 2008 [***] it decided, at its 454th plenary session, held on 10 and 11 June 2009 (meeting of 10 June 2009), by 110 votes in favour and 5 abstentions to issue an opinion endorsing the proposal and to refer to the position it had taken in the above-mentioned documents.

Brussels, 10 June 2009.

The President

of the European Economic and Social Committee

Mr Mario Sepi

[*] Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Directive on bird conservation — OJ C 152 on 29.6.1977, p. 3.

[**] Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (94/C 393/19) — OJ C 393 on 31.12.1994, p. 93.

[***] Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on Adaptation to the regulatory procedure with scrutiny/Proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending, as regards the implementing powers conferred on the Commission, Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds — OJ C 211 on 19.08.2008, p. 46.

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