alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued July 22, 2021

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-20-00552-CV

———————————

IN RE TRI POINTE HOMES TEXAS, INC. 

F/K/A TRENDMAKER HOMES, INC., Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Tri Pointe Homes Texas, Inc. f/k/a Trendmaker Homes, Inc., filed a 

petition for writ of mandamus challenging an order by the trial court appointing an 

arbitrator.1 Relator asserts that the parties’ agreements require arbitration of the

1 The underlying case is Randall B. Lee and Amy Jo Wagner v. Trendmaker Homes, 

Inc., cause number 19-DCV-268791, pending in the 400th District Court of Fort 

Bend County, Texas, the Honorable Tameika Carter presiding.
2

dispute to be conducted by a specific arbitration administrator rather than the 

arbitrator selected by the court.

Because the challenged order was issued by the former trial court judge, this 

original proceeding was abated for the successor trial court judge to reconsider the 

order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 7.2(b). The successor judge subsequently issued an order 

denying reconsideration of the challenged order. Accordingly, we reinstate the 

original proceeding on the Court’s active docket. 

Upon consideration of the challenged order and the successor judge’s order 

denying reconsideration, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. Any pending 

motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Landau and Countiss.
Exhibit 13.2









Certification of Principal Executive Officer
and Principal Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Thomas Mika, the Chief Financial Officer of POET Technologies Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certify, that, to my knowledge:



1. The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended
2016 (the "Report") of the Company 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.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying
with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be used or relied upon for any other
purpose.





Date: April 17, 2017







/s/ Thomas Mika

_____________________

Name: Thomas Mika

Title: Chief Financial Officer
Change in Control Agreement Renewal and Extension - Teresa Thompson



 Exhibit 10.22.1 
  
 Quaker City Bank Change in Control Agreement Renewal and Extension Acknowledgment between Quaker City Bank and Teresa A. Thompson dated July 1, 2003.

  
 QUAKER CITY BANK 
 CHANGE IN CONTROL AGREEMENT 
 RENEWAL AND EXTENSION
ACKNOWLEDGMENT 
  
 Name of Participant:    Teresa A. Thompson

  
 The undersigned participant does hereby acknowledge that, at their regularly scheduled
meeting on June 19, 2003, the Board of Directors of Quaker City Bank acted to renew and extend the Quaker City Bank Change in Control Agreement with the undersigned participant to a full twenty-four (24) month term, until June 30, 2005. 

 
 Dated
this            1st            day
of            July            ,
A.D.,            2003            . 
  

	 	 	 	 	 QUAKER CITY BANK

					
	 	 	             /s/    TERESA A. THOMPSON

	 	 	 	 By:
	 	             /s/    FREDERIC R. MCGILL


	 	 	Participant	 	 	 	 	 	President
No. 58865.

protests 236653-K and 236654-K (New York).

#### Lep Transport, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

Prom an examination of the papers in this case, the court was unable to find anything to overcome the presumption of correctness attaching to the collector’s classification. The protests were therefore overruled.
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                  Certification of Principal Executive Officer
                         And Principal Financial Officer
                           Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350
                 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)


            I, Philip Pilevsky, Chief Executive Officer and principal financial
officer of Philips International Realty Corp. (the "Registrant"), do 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 my knowledge, based upon
a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,
2003 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"):

            (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
Registrant.




Date: November 6, 2003                       By:  /s/ PHILIP PILEVSKY
                                                 ----------------------------
                                                 Philip Pilevsky
                                                 Chief Executive Officer and
                                                 principal financial officer



--------------
This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Registrant for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Philips International Realty Corp. and will be retained by Philips
International Realty Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
No. 51850.

#### F. W. Woolworth Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 104724-K/12606, etc. (New Orleans, etc.).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
**EXHIBIT 8**
**SUBSIDIARIES**
     The following are our “significant subsidiaries” as that term is defined byapplicable rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission.               **Proportion of****Company Name** **Country of Incorporation** **Ownership Interest**Telenor Mobile Communications AS Norway  100%Telenor Telecom Solutions AS Norway  100%Telenor Interkom Verwaltung GmbH Germany  100%Telenor KB AS Norway  100%Telenor Mobil AS Norway  100%Telenor Telecom Solutions AS Norway  100%Kyivstar GSM JSC Ukraine  100%Pannon GSM RT Hungary  100%GrameenPhone Ltd. Bangladesh  51%
No. *59427.*

protests 246062-K, etc. (New York).

#### J. Zissu *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of silk scarves or squares similar in all material respects to those the subject of *United States*v. *The Specialty House, Inc., Bryant & Heffernan, Inc., et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 136, C. A. D. 585), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
**Exhibit 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
     I, James L. Box, certify that:
     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of ebank FinancialServices, Inc.;
     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;
     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respectsthe financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the smallbusiness issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
     4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the smallbusiness issuer and have:
     a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;
     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
     c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the smallbusiness issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting;
     5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the auditcommittee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent functions):
     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonablylikely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record,process, summarize and report financial information; and
     b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.
Date: November 12, 2004      By: /s/ James L. Box       James L. Box, President and Chief Executive Officer
January 2, 1945

No. 49929.

Suit 4468.

#### *United, States*v. *Dixie Veneer Co., Inc., et al.*

C. D. 806 affirmed October 30, 1944 (32 C. C. P. A. 75, C. A. D. 288).
No. 60332.

protest 235463-K (New York).

#### The Frank H. Lee Co. and R. F. Downing & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion of

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of fur hoods, valued at more than $12 and not more than $15 per dozen, the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *United States*v. *Accurate Millinery Co., Roberts, Reilly & Sons, et al.*(42 C. C. P. A. 229, C. A. D. 599), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
(Reap. Dec. 10292)

Entry No. 9703.

#### Innocenti Corporation (W. R. Zanes & Co. of La., Inc.) *v.*United States

(Decided July 3, 1962)

*Siegel, Mandell & Davidson*for the plaintiff.

*Joseph, D. Guilfoyle,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Rao, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisemeiit has been submitted for decision upon tbe following stipulation:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the respective parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, as follows:

> That the merchandise covered 'by the appeal for reappraisement noted above consists of motorscooters, plus extra parts, exported from Italy during 1959.

> That at the time of export such or similar merchandise was not freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Italy for home consumption or for export to the United States nor was it freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal market of the United States for domestic consumption.

> That “cost of production” as defined in Section 402a (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930 for such merchandise at the time immediately preceding the date of exportation was Lira 108,010.00, plus extras, as invoiced, packed.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appeal for reap-praisement may be deemed submitted for decision on this stipulation.

Upon tbe agreed facts, I find cost of production, as that value is defined in section 402a(f) of tbe Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by tbe Customs Simplification Act of 1956, to be tbe proper basis for tbe determination of tbe value of tbe merchandise, covered by tbis appeal for reappraisement, and that such value was lire 108,010, plus extras, as invoiced, packed.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
Skip to Main Content Contact Us|About Us|Sign In
     Top Links
 Project Search Navigation
 Home
 Funding
 Research
 Publications
 Newsletters
HomeFunding
        Breadcrumb
    Main Body
 View announcements & apply for funding
        
        JFSP Indirect Cost Rate Exception MemoFooter
 The Basics
			Fire Science Info
			Partners
			What is FireScience.gov?HomeContact UsAbout Us
			Fire Science Exchange NetworkFundingResearchPublicationsNewsletters
			Disclaimer | Privacy Policy | FOIA | Accessibility
            The Joint Fire Science Program funds scientific research on wildland fires and 
                distributes results to help policymakers, fire managers and practitioners make sound 
                decisions. More...
          Release 1.0
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 84 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 428
106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 84

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 24, 2000

                    Received and read the first time

                            January 25, 2000

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and 
                          for other purposes.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That Public Law 106-62 is 
further amended by striking ``November 18, 1999'' in section 106(c) and 
inserting
``December 3, 1999'', and by striking ``$346,483,754'' in section 119 
and inserting ``$755,719,054''. Public Law 106-46 is amended by 
striking ``November 18, 1999'' and inserting ``December 3, 1999''.

            Passed the House of Representatives November 18, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                 JEFF TRANDAHL,

                                                                 Clerk.
                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 428

106th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             H. J. RES. 84

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2000, and 
                          for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            January 24, 2000

                    Received and read the first time

                            January 25, 2000

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.3

                [GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING, INC. LETTERHEAD]

                                 March 30, 2001


TO ALL PARTIES LISTED ON SCHEDULE A
ATTACHED HERETO:


             RE:  GreenPoint Home Equity Loan Trust (Series 2000-2);
                  Annual Statement as to Compliance by the Issuer
                  -----------------------------------------------

Ladies and Gentlemen:

     Pursuant to Section 3.9 of the Pooling Agreement and Indenture with respect
to the above-referenced offering and in compliance with the requirements of TIA
Section 314(a)(4), the undersigned officer of GreenPoint Mortgage Funding, Inc.
(as "Manager") hereby certifies as to the following:

     1.   a review of the activities of the Issuer and its performance under the
          Indenture during the preceding fiscal year since the inception of the
          trust has been made under the direct supervision of the undersigned
          officer; and

     2.   to the best knowledge of the undersigned officer, based on such
          review, the Issuer has fulfilled all of its material obligations under
          the Indenture throughout the applicable period, and there has been no
          known default in the fulfillment of the Issuer's material obligations
          throughout such period.

                                               Very truly yours

                                               GREENPOINT HOME EQUITY
                                               LOAN TRUST (Series 2000-2);

                                               By: GREENPOINT MORTGAGE FUNDING,
                                                   INC.,
                                                   as Manager


                                               /s/ Nathan Hieter
                                               --------------------------------
                                               Nathan Hieter
                                               Vice President
<PAGE>

                                   SCHEDULE A

Bank One, National Association
1 Bank One Plaza
Suite IlI-0126
Chicago, IL  60670-0126
Attn: Corporate Trust Services

Financial Guaranty Insurance Corporation
115 Broadway
New York, NY  10006

Moody's Investors Service, Inc.
99 Church Street
New York, NY  10004

Standard & Poor's Ratings Services, a division of The McGraw-Hill Companies,
Inc.
55 Water Street
New York, NY  10041
Attn: Asset-Backed Surveillance Department

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation
8200 Jones Branch Drive
McLean, VA  22102
Attn: Vice President, Structured Finance

Lehman Brothers Inc.
Three World Financial Center
New York, NY  10285-1200
Attn: Legal Department
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7223

CLARENCE JAY LYNCH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (7:05-cv-00480-jlk)

Submitted: February 15, 2007 Decided: February 22, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Jay Lynch, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Jay Lynch seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration

of the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369

(4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lynch has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 6
<SERIES>
   <NUMBER> 1
   <NAME> BELAIR CAPITAL FUND LLC

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<INVESTMENTS-AT-COST>                    2,319,697,929
<INVESTMENTS-AT-VALUE>                   2,608,076,250
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,593,584
<ASSETS-OTHER>                                 478,270
<OTHER-ITEMS-ASSETS>                         7,890,941
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           2,619,039,045
<PAYABLE-FOR-SECURITIES>                             0
<SENIOR-LONG-TERM-DEBT>                              0
<OTHER-ITEMS-LIABILITIES>                  632,023,102
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES>                        632,023,102
<SENIOR-EQUITY>                                      0
<PAID-IN-CAPITAL-COMMON>                 1,705,412,775
<SHARES-COMMON-STOCK>                       16,429,460
<SHARES-COMMON-PRIOR>                       16,568,833
<ACCUMULATED-NII-CURRENT>                            0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-NII>                               0
<ACCUMULATED-NET-GAINS>                              0
<OVERDISTRIBUTION-GAINS>                             0
<ACCUM-APPREC-OR-DEPREC>                   281,603,168
<NET-ASSETS>                             1,987,015,943
<DIVIDEND-INCOME>                           16,340,574
<INTEREST-INCOME>                            1,294,267
<OTHER-INCOME>                                       0
<EXPENSES-NET>                              14,994,940
<NET-INVESTMENT-INCOME>                      2,639,901
<REALIZED-GAINS-CURRENT>                      (94,399)
<APPREC-INCREASE-CURRENT>                   68,242,973
<NET-CHANGE-FROM-OPS>                       70,788,475
<EQUALIZATION>                                       0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-INCOME>                            0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OF-GAINS>                             0
<DISTRIBUTIONS-OTHER>                                0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-SOLD>                              0
<NUMBER-OF-SHARES-REDEEMED>                    139,373
<SHARES-REINVESTED>                                  0
<NET-CHANGE-IN-ASSETS>                      54,167,571
<ACCUMULATED-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<ACCUMULATED-GAINS-PRIOR>                            0
<OVERDISTRIB-NII-PRIOR>                              0
<OVERDIST-NET-GAINS-PRIOR>                           0
<GROSS-ADVISORY-FEES>                        1,521,637
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           8,344,620
<GROSS-EXPENSE>                             14,994,940
<AVERAGE-NET-ASSETS>                     1,976,803,500
<PER-SHARE-NAV-BEGIN>                           116.66
<PER-SHARE-NII>                                  0.160
<PER-SHARE-GAIN-APPREC>                           4.12
<PER-SHARE-DIVIDEND>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-DISTRIBUTIONS>                            0
<RETURNS-OF-CAPITAL>                                 0
<PER-SHARE-NAV-END>                             120.94
<EXPENSE-RATIO>                                   3.08


</TABLE>
No. 53932.

#### Hal Delphin & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 146427-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ford, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.