alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 In The



### Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09

- 18

- 00419

- CV



### _________________

IN RE ALEX MELVIN WADE JR.

________________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

284 th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 17

- 05

- 06174

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Proceeding pro se , Relator, Alex Melvin Wade Jr., filed a mandamus petition

to compel the trial court to rule on his motion for appointment of counsel in a civil

suit and to stay all proceedings pending final resolution of Wade’s motions. On

November 14, 2018, we notified Wade that because it appears he is a vexatious

litigant subject to prefiling orders, the mandamus proceeding would be dismissed

unless within ten days he obtained an order from the local administrative judge

permitting the filing of the original proceeding

. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code2 Ann. §§ 11.101

– .104 (West 2017). To date, we have not received a copy of an order

signed by the local administrative judge. See id. § 11.102. Accordingly, we dismiss

the original proceeding for a mandamus petition. See id. § 11.1035(b).

PETITION DI SMISS ED

.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on December 12, 2018

Opinion Delivered December 13, 2018

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger, and Johnson , JJ.
<PAGE>


		      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Prospectus 
constituting part of the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (No. 333-18947)
and in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 (No. 333-4562) of Lumen 
Technologies, Inc. (formerly BEC Group, Inc.) of our report dated April 9, 
1998, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Lumen Technologies,
Inc. appearing on page 18 of Lumen Technologies, Inc. Annual Report on 
Form 10K for the year ended December 31, 1997.



PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Dallas, Texas
April 13, 1998
Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

# District: 11
Federal Reserve Bank of: Dallas

## Filings received during the week ending February 4, 2006

|Filer | Filing Type | Filing Proposal | End of Comment Period
|----- | ----------- | --------------- | ---------------------
|NONE 

## Availability of CRA Public Evaluations

|Institution / Location | RSSDID | Exam Date | CRAPublic Date | CRARating | Exam Method
|---------------------- | ------ | --------- | -------------- | --------- | -----------
|NONE                  

## CRA Examinations scheduled for     Quarter of

|Institution | Location
|----------- | --------
|NONE       

Release dates | Full version (300 KB PDF)Actions by the Board | Actions 
  under delegated authority
  Applications and reports:Boston
 |
New York
 |
Philadelphia
 |
Cleveland
 |
Richmond
 |
Atlanta
Chicago
 |
St. Louis
 |
Minneapolis
 |
Kansas City
 |
Dallas
 |
San Francisco

---

Home Banking information and regulation  Accessibility Contact 
  us
# C_2014112EN.01000901.xml

| 14.4.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 112/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 112/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber) of 27 February 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Okresný súd Svidník — Slovakia) — Pohotovosť s.r.o. v Miroslav Vašuta

(Case C-470/12) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Consumer credit contract - Unfair terms - Directive 93/13/EEC - Enforcement of an arbitration award - Application for leave to intervene in enforcement proceedings - Consumer protection association - National legislation which does not allow such an intervention - Procedural autonomy of the Member States))

2014/C 112/10

Language of the case: Slovak

Referring court

Referring court

Okresný súd Svidník

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Pohotovosť s.r.o.

Applicant:

Defendant: Miroslav Vašuta

Defendant:

Intervening party: Združenie na ochranu občana spotrebiteľa HOOS

Intervening party:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Okresný súd vo Svidníku — Interpretation of Article 6(1) and Article 8 of Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29) and Articles 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union — Consumer credit contract — Enforcement of an arbitration award — Application by a consumer protection association for leave to intervene in the enforcement procedure — National legislation not providing for the possibility for a third party to intervene — Possibility for the national court to allow that application for leave to intervene.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Council Directive 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts, in particular Articles 6(1), 7(1) and 8 of that directive, read in conjunction with Articles 38 and 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding national legislation which does not allow a consumer protection association to intervene in support of a consumer in proceedings for enforcement, against the latter, of a final arbitration award.

---

(1)  OJ C 46, 16.2.2013.

1

---
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2422 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2422

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2300 Scenic Drive in Georgetown, Texas, as the ``Kile G. West Post 
                           Office Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. KILE G. WEST POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 2300 Scenic Drive in Georgetown, Texas, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Kile  G. West Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Kile G. 
West Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 15, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 2422

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 2300 Scenic Drive in Georgetown, Texas, as the ``Kile G. West Post 
                           Office Building''.
```
<PAGE>




                                                                    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 filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission of the
Quarterly Report of ComBanc, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period
ending March 31, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Paul G. Wreede, 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 to
the best of my 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.


/s/ Paul G. Wreede
------------------
Paul G. Wreede, President and Chief Executive Officer

May 3, 2004
























                                       22
Exhibit
      32.1




**CERTIFICATION
      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AND EXCHANGE ACT RULES 13a-14(b)
      AND 15d-14(b)**




**(Section 906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of China Bio Energy Holdings Group Co.,
      Ltd. on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of
      the undersigned does hereby 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 his or her 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 the operation of the
      Company.





Dated:
                November 7, 2008By:
            /s/
              Gao
              XinchengGao
                XinchengChief
                Executive Officer and President





Dated:
                November 7, 2008By:
            /s/
              Li
              GaihongLi
                GaihongChief
                Financial Officer
#### James W. Murphy, *an Infant, etc., Appellant, v.*John C. Orr and others, *Respondents*.

Judgment and order denying new trial reversed, and new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.
Exhibit 12.1



I, Martin Cotter, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer,

certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Annual Report Amendment No. 1
on Form 20-F /A
 of

Portrush Petroleum Corp.;



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

Annual 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 company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;



4. The companys other certifying officer(s) 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 company

and have:

(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

company, 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) Evaluated the effectiveness of the company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

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the companys internal control

over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the

Annual Report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely

to materially affect, the companys internal control over financial

reporting; and



5. The companys other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on

our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to

the companys auditors and the audit committee of the companys board of

directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(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 companys ability to record,

process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other

employees who have a significant role in the companys internal control

over financial reporting.





Date: July 22, 2005



/s/ Martin Cotter

Martin Cotter, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PARIS PALMER,

Petitioner, Case Number 15-11422

Honorable David M. Lawson

v.

CARMEN PALMER,

Respondent.

____________________________________/

ORDER TRANSFERRING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF 

HABEAS CORPUS TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

On April 15, 2015, Paris Palmer filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254. The petitioner challenges his convictions for murder, armed robbery, unlawful

imprisonment, and three counts of possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony. The

Court will transfer the petition to the Western District of Michigan because the petition should have

been filed there in the first instance. 

A habeas petition submitted by a person in state custody may be filed in the district where

the person is in custody or in the district where the person was convicted and sentenced. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241(d). Section 2241(d) prescribes the proper venue for filing of a habeas petition, but its

territorial limits are not jurisdictional. Moore v. Olson, 368 F.3d 757, 759, 2004 WL 1088316 (7th

Cir. 2004) (“Section 2241(d) is [] clearly a special venue provision.”). “The district court of a

district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division or district [must] dismiss, or if

it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have

been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406. The petitioner was convicted in the Calhoun County Circuit

Court, located in Battle Creek, Michigan, and is currently incarcerated at the Michigan Reformatory

2:15-cv-11422-DML-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 05/01/15 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 119
in Ionia, Michigan. Both are located in the Western District of Michigan. 28 U.S.C. § 102(b). The

Western District of Michigan is the proper venue to hear the petitioner’s habeas corpus petition. The

Court therefore will transfer the case to the Western District of Michigan.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court is directed to TRANSFER this

case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan.

s/David M. Lawson

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: May 1, 2015

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on May 1, 2015.

s/Susan Pinkowski 

SUSAN PINKOWSKI

-2-

2:15-cv-11422-DML-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 05/01/15 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 120
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       5,069,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                9,994,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   481,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,037,000
<PP&E>                                       3,620,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             (7,452,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              21,512,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       10,617,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  59,822,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                21,512,000
<SALES>                                     22,166,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            52,090,000
<CGS>                                        1,031,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,441,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            48,434,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               253,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (18,402,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   249,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (18,651,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (18,651,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.01
        

</TABLE>
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

# Date and Time:

Wednesday, May 16, 2007, 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time.

# Place:

Clarence M. Mitchell, Jr. Conference Room on the Ninth Floor of the EEOC Office Building, 1801 “L” Street, NW., Washington, DC 20507.

# Status:

The meeting will be open to the public.

# Matters to be Considered:

 

## Open Session

1. Announcement of Notation Votes, 

2. Employment Testing and Screening—Invited Panelists, and

3. Full-Service Publication Storage and Distribution Center Contract.

# Note:

                        In accordance with the Sunshine Act, the meeting will be open to public observation of the Commission's deliberations and voting. (In addition to publishing notices on EEOC Commission meetings in the                         **Federal Register**                        , the Commission also provides a recorded announcement a full week in advance on future Commission sessions.)                     

Please telephone (202) 663-7100 (voice) and (202) 663-4074 (TTY) at any time for information on these meetings. The EEOC provides sign language interpretation at Commission meetings for the hearing impaired.  Requests for other reasonable accommodations may be made by using the voice and TTY numbers listed above: 

# Contact Person for More Information:

Stephen Llewellyn, Acting Executive Officer on (202) 663-4070.

      ( print page 26116)    
This Notice Issued May 4, 2007.

Stephen Llewellyn, 

Acting Executive Officer, Executive Secretariat.

[FR Doc. 07-2304 Filed 5-4-07; 3:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6570-01-M
# C_2013164EN.01000701.xml

| 8.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 164/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 164/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 18 April 2013 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Varhoven administrativen sad — Bulgaria) — Meliha Veli Mustafa v Direktor na fond ‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ kam Natsionalnia osiguritelen institut

(Case C-247/12) (1)

1

(Protection of employees in the event of insolvency of their employer - Directive 80/987/EEC - Directive 2002/74/EC - Directive 2008/94/EC - Articles 2 and 3 - Obligation to provide a guarantee for employees’ claims - Possibility of limiting the guarantee to claims arising before the entry of the decision to open the insolvency proceedings in the register of companies - Decision to open the insolvency proceedings - Effects - Continuation of the employer’s activity)

2013/C 164/11

Language of the case: Bulgarian

Referring court

Referring court

Varhoven administrativen sad

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Meliha Veli Mustafa

Applicant:

Defendant: Direktor na fond ‘Garantirani vzemania na rabotnitsite i sluzhitelite’ kam Natsionalnia osiguritelen institut

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Request for a preliminary ruling — Varhoven administrativen sad — Interpretation of Article 2(1) of Council Directive 80/987/EEC of 20 October 1980 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 1980 L 283, p. 23), as amended by Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC (OJ 2002 L 270, p. 10) — Obligation on the Member States to provide for guarantees not only for employees’ salary claims existing at the time of the opening of the insolvency proceedings of the employer but also for claims that may arise at each stage of the insolvency proceedings

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Directive 2008/94/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 October 2008 on the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer must be interpreted as not requiring the Member States to provide guarantees for employees’ claims at every stage of the insolvency proceedings of their employer. In particular, it does not preclude Member States from providing a guarantee only for employees’ claims arising before the entry of the decision to open insolvency proceedings in the register of companies, even though that decision does not order the termination of the employer’s activities.

---

(1)  OJ C 235, 4.8.2012.

1

---
# C_2013225EN.01007303.xml

| 3.8.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 225/73 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 225/73

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 June 2013 — MPDV Mikrolab v OHIM (Lean Performance Index)

(Case T-598/11) (1)

1

(Community Trade mark - Application for Community word mark Lean Performance Index - Absolute grounds for refusal - Descriptive character - Lack of distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009)

2013/C 225/162

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: MPDV Mikrolab GmbH, Mikroprozessordatenverarbeitung und Mikroprozessorlabor (Mosbach, Germany) (represented by: W. Göpfert, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (represented by: G. Marten and R. Pethke, Agents)

Defendant:

Objet

Objet

Appeal against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 15 September 2011 (Case R 131/2011-1) concerning an application for registration of the word mark Lean Performance Index as a Community trade mark.

Operative part

Operative part

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders MPDV Mikrolab GmbH to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders MPDV Mikrolab GmbH to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 32, 4.2.2012.

1

---