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

8, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-14-00232-CR

NO. 14-14-00233-CR

IN RE ESEQUIEL OCHOA, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

234th & 263rd District Courts

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 1026778 & 983043

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On March 19, 2014, relator Esequiel Ochoa filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. 

App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Jim 

Wallace, presiding judge of the 263rd District Court of Harris County, to rule on 

relator’s motion for nunc pro tunc judgment. 
2

Relator states in his petition that he filed his motion on January 10, 2014. 

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that he has no adequate 

remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and what he seeks to compel is a 

ministerial act, not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State ex rel. 

Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207 

S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). Consideration of a 

motion that is properly filed and before the court is a ministerial act. State ex rel. 

Curry v. Gray, 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987) (orig. proceeding) 

(op. on reh’g). A relator must establish that the trial court (1) had a legal duty to 

rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed to do so. In 

re Keeter, 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.—Waco 2003, orig. proceeding). A 

relator must show that the trial court received, was aware of, and was asked to rule 

on the motion. In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, 

orig. proceeding). Filing something with the district clerk’s office does not mean 

the trial court is aware of it; nor is the clerk’s knowledge imputed to the trial court. 

Id. at n.2.

Relator has not provided a sufficient record in this original proceeding. 

Relator has not provided filed-stamped copies of his motion demonstrating that his 

motion is actually pending in the trial court. Moreover, relator has not shown that 

the trial court received the motion, was aware of the motion, or was asked to rule 

on the motion. 
3

Relator has not established his entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a 

writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

 PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices McCally, Busby, and Donovan.

Do Not Publish — Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 13-325 

________________________________________________________________________ 

CIVIL AVIATION 

Transport Services 

 Agreement Between the 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

and GUYANA 

Signed at Georgetown March 25, 2013 
 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

 Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 

(80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)—

“. . .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued 

under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent 

 evidence . . . of the treaties, international agreements other than 

treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and 

international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, 

therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime 

jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the 

United States, and of the several States, without any further proof 

or authentication thereof.” 
 GUYANA 

Civil Aviation: Transport Services 

 Agreement signed at Georgetown 

 March 25, 2013; 

 Entered into force March 25, 2013.
EXHIBIT 31.2

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James Dyas, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Form 10-KSB of MEDIANET GROUP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.;

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 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 small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer'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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer,
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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer'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 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 other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: March 31, 2007       By: /s/ James Dyas
                           James Dyas, Director and
                           Principle Financial Officer
No. 65551.

#### American Bitumuls & Asphalt Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 58/15956, etc. (Savannah).

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the *455merchandise consists of cutback asphalt the same in all material respects as that the subject of *American Bitumuls & Asphalt Co.*v. *United States*(45 Cust. Ct. 1, C.D. 2188), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
**EXHIBIT
      23**




**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**




We
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
      S-8 No. 333-138396) pertaining to the NDS 2006 Long-Term Incentive Plan, the
      NDS
      UK Approved Share Option Scheme and the NDS Group plc Sharesave Scheme of our
      reports dated August 8, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial
      statements of NDS Group plc and the effectiveness of internal control over
      financial reporting of NDS Group plc, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K)
      for the year ended June 30, 2008.




London,
                England
              August
                8, 2008
            Ernst & Young
              LLP
No. 60907.

#### Kroder Reubel Co., Inc., and Alltransport, Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 279075-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of curtain clips the same in all material respects as those involved in Abstract 60061, the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 INFORMATIONAL ADDENDUM TO REPORT ON FORM 10-K/A PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 NOT FILED PURSUANT TO THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Solely for the purpose of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and solely to the extent this certification may be applicable to this Report on Form 10-K/A, the
undersigned hereby certify that this report on Form 10-K/A of Grant Prideco, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained herein this report on Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Grant Prideco, Inc. September 30, 2004
    
    /s/ Michael McShaneName: Michael McShaneTitle: Chief Executive Officer/s/ Matthew D. FitzgeraldName: Matthew D. FitzgeraldTitle: Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. CHARLES T. MORIS, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. Peter Murray*and *Mr. Michael Blacker*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Vincent P. Eeuper, Mr. Thomas L. Taccarino*and *Mr. Ronald B. Rosen*for the respondent.

May 28, 1968.

Denied.
No. 47418.

#### Protests 36712-K, etc., of Revere Sugar Refinery (Boston).

*387Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON

DIVISION II

In the Matter of the No. 52011

- 7

- II Post

- Sentence Petition of

MARCUS ALAN CHURCH,
Respondent. UNPUBLISHED OPINION

M AXA , C.J.

— The Department of Corrections (DOC) petitioned this court under RCW
9.94A.585(7) to review the sentence imposed by the trial court in State v. Marcus Alan Church
, Lewis County Superior Court Cause No. 17

- 1

- 00650

- 21.
In its judgment and sentence, the trial court imposed 36 months of community custody as
part of Church’s sentence for attempted failure to register as a sex offender. DOC asserts that
attempted failure to register as a sex offender is not a sex offense for which community custody

can be imposed under RCW 9.94A.702(1).

In Postsentence Review of Thompson, we held that DOC is correct and that attempted
failure to register a s a sex offender does not qualify for the imposition of community custody. 6

Wn. App. 2d 64, 73, 429 P.3d 545 (2018). Accordingly, we grant DOC’s petition and remand Filed Washington State Court of Appeals Division Two
February 13, 2019No. 52011

- 7

- II

2

Church’s judgment and sentence to the superior court to strike the imposition of comm unity
custody.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW

2.06.040, it is so ordered.

MAXA, C.J.

We concur:

WORSWICK, J.

MELNICK, J.
#### The Travis Company v. Peacock Holding Company, Inc.

182 So. 213.

Opinion Filed June 15, 1938.

*812
      *Leo Rosen,*for Appellant;

*Redfearn & Ferrell,*for Appellee.

Per Curiam.

The above cause having been submitted upon the transcript of record and the briefs and argument of counsel, the Court, having duly considered the questions involved, is of the opinion that there is no reversible error in the record, and the final decree appealed from is affirmed.

Whitfield, Terrell, Brown, and Chapman, J. J., concur.

Buford, J., dissents.

Buford, J.

(dissenting).—I think the decree appealed from should be reversed. The tax deed conveyed a valid but defeasible title. Outstanding tax sale certificates and delinquent tax levies not redeemed or discharged at the time the tax deed was issued remained a lien against the property. See Allison Realty Co. v, Graves Investment Co., 115 Fla. 48, 155 So. 745.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MAXIMILIANO MENDEZ,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2447 LKK DAD P

vs.

DR. CRAPOTTA, et al.

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local General Order No. 262.

On December 5, 2005, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any

objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff

has filed objections to the findings and recommendations, and defendants have filed replies. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 72-

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

proper analysis.

Case 2:04-cv-02447-LKK -DAD Document 37 Filed 02/24/06 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed December 5, 2005, are adopted in

full;

2. Defendants’ July 5, 2005 motion to dismiss is granted;

3. Plaintiff’s November 23, 2005 request for leave to amend and for court

intervention is denied; and

4. This action is dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust available

administrative remedies prior to bringing the action.

DATED: February 23, 2006.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

/mend2447.805

Case 2:04-cv-02447-LKK -DAD Document 37 Filed 02/24/06 Page 2 of 2
DARRYL MYLES

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 14

- 1030

___________ __________________/

Opinion filed October 2, 2014.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Dawn Caloca

- Johnson , Judge

.

Darryl Myles, pro se; Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Mark G. Hanson,

Assistant Public Defender, Tallahassee , for App ellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS

, C.J., CLARK and MARSTILLER

, J J

. , CONCUR.
No. 62612.

#### P. H. Petry Co. (Corp.) *v.*United States,

protest 325117-K (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protest was dismissed.
Case No. 15,109.

#### UNITED STATES v. FIVE CASES OF CIGARS.

[41 Hunt, Mer. Mag. 74.]

District Court. S. D. New York.

1859.

Customs Duties—Cigars—Undervaluation.

Before

BETTS, District Judge.

This was a suit to forfeit the cigars for being undervalued in the invoice, with intent to defraud the United States of the legal- duty on them. The cigars were imported from Havana in October, 1857, in the ship Crosby, and were consigned to Mervin & Yeaton, of Philadelphia, by Cornell & Co., of Havana, who now claimed them. The cases contained, amongst others, 3,100 Regalias, Lord Wellington, and were invoiced at $19, and appraised at $26, and reappraised at $26; 11,000 Loudres Comercianti, invoiced at $18, and appraised at $25, and reappraised at $25; 17,000 2da, invoiced at $15, and appraised at $20, and reappraised at $22; 2,000 3a 6,000, and 6,000 invoiced at $12, and appraised at $18, and reappraised at $18; 4,000 Garatizada flor, invoiced at $13, and appraised at $20, and reappraised at $20; 1,500 2a, invoiced at $11, appraised at $17, and reappraised at $17; la, 10,100 of another brand, invoiced at $12, appraised, at $18, and reappraised at $18; 7,900 2a, invoiced at $11, appraised at $15, and reappraised at $16; 21,000 Vegueritas, invoiced at $15, and appraised at $18, and reappraised at $20; 1,000 2a, appraised at $18, and reappraised at $20. The whole importation was invoiced at $1,308, and appraised at $1,846.40, and reappraised at $1,877.30. Several merchants and importers of cigars were examined for the prosecution, and testified that such cigars could not have been purchased at Havana, at the time they were imported, at anything like the prices at which they were invoiced.

For the claimants, several witnesses were examined, who testified that these cigars were invoiced at their fair market value, at the time, in Havana. Evidence was also adduced to show that similar cigars, invoiced at a similar price, had passed the customhouse in New York and Philadelphia. To account for the low price at which these cigars were purchased, it was alleged that the panic, which had then reached Havana, lowered the price of cigars, in many instances, $5 per thousand.

Verdict for the United States.
(Reap. Dec. 10471)

#### John C. Rogers & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

Entry No. 25497.

*431(Decided April 1, 1963)

*Dechert, Price & Rhoads*for tlie plaintiff.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Olives, Chief Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement relates to certain merchandise, identified herein as “2-Methyl-4-Chlorophenoxy Acetic Acid, 94% Minimum Assay,” which was expected from Denmark on or about March 12, 1960, and entered at the port of Philadelphia.

Stipulated facts, upon which the case has been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is American selling price, as defined in section 402(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, and that such statutory value therefor is 88 cents per pound, net, packed, and I so hold.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
2014.12.31 - 10K EX 10.10








December 31, 2014


Re:    Renewal of Amended and Restated Retention Agreement
Dear John:
This letter is to serve as your notification that Ply Gem Industries, Inc. has elected to execute its Renewal Term right under your current Amended and Restated Retention Agreement dated December 31, 2008 for a period of one year.  As such, all applicable rights and terms as outlined in your Amended and Restated Retention Agreement will remain in effect through December 31, 2015.
Please sign this letter in the space provided below as your acknowledgement and agreement of this Renewal Term agreement and return this original to me, and retain a copy for your own records.
 	
		
	 
	Sincerely,

	 
	 

	 
	PLY GEM INDUSTRIES, INC.

	 
	 

	 
	By:  /s/ Gary E. Robinette

	 
	Name:  Gary E. Robinette

	 
	Title:  President and Chief Executive Officer

	 
	 

	 
	 

	 
	 

	Acknowledged and Agreed:
	 

	 
	 

	 
	 

	/s/ John Buckley
	 

	John Buckley
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-40149 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ARMANDO VASQUEZ-GARCIA, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. B-99-CR-320-2

-------------------- December 13, 2000 Before DAVIS, STEWART, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Armando Vasquez-Garcia appeals his guilty-plea conviction for possession with intent to distribute approximately one kilogram of cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. He argues that his plea was involuntary due to his counsel’s representation that the 60-month minimum mandatory sentence was inapplicable to his case and that he would receive a sentence less than the minimum mandatory
sentence.No. 00-40149 -2- When a defendant pleads guilty to a criminal offense, hewaives several constitutional rights. The record of the guiltyplea hearing therefore must affirmatively reflect that the plea is knowing and voluntary. Boykin v. Alabama , 395 U.S. 238, 243 (1969). The voluntariness of a defendant’s guilty plea is reviewed de novo . United States v. Amaya , 111 F.3d 386, 388 (5th Cir. 1997). Even if it is assumed that counsel erroneously advised Vasquez-Garcia that the minimum mandatory sentence was inapplicable to his case and that he would receive a sentence less than the 60-month minimum mandatory sentence, such erroneous information is insufficient to establish that Vasquez-Garcia’s plea was involuntary. “[R]eliance on the erroneous advice of counsel relative to the sentence likely to be imposed does not render a guilty plea unknowing or involuntary.” United States v. Santa Lucia , 991 F.2d 179, 180 (5th Cir. 1993). As long as the defendant understood the length of time he might possibly receive, he was aware of the plea’s consequences. Id

. The district court’s admonishments with regard to the correct statutory range of Vasquez-Garcia’s sentence at the plea hearing and Vasquez-Garcia’s sworn acknowledgment that heunderstood the possible range of punishment show that VasquezGarcia’s plea was knowing and voluntary.
AFFIRMED.
##### 



Exhibit 10.35
 NOTE
 $5,000,000
    
    New York, New York
July 26, 2007
         - 1 -




---



##### 



THE
BORROWER HEREBY WAIVES, TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THE RIGHT TO
TRIAL BY JURY IN ANY ACTION, PROCEEDING OR COUNTERCLAIM, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
RELATING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO THE LOAN EVIDENCED HEREBY, THIS NOTE, OR THE OTHER LOAN
DOCUMENTS OR ANY ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF LENDER, ITS OFFICERS, EMPLOYEES, DIRECTORS OR AGENTS IN
CONNECTION HEREWITH OR THEREWITH.
  THIS NOTE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED AND ENFORCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE
STATE OF NEW YORK WITHOUT REGARD TO ITS RULES PERTAINING TO CONFLICTS OF LAWS.
 Rio Vista Energy Partners L.P.By: Rio Vista GP LLC, its General PartnerBy:
Name:
    
    /s/ Ian Bothwell

Ian BothwellTitle:
    
    Acting Chief Executive Officer
  - 2 -
#### Joanne MacIntyre et al., Respondents, v Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 180]

—In an action, *inter alia,*for a judgment declaring that the defendants are required to pay the cost of treating the plaintiff Joanne MacIntyre for chronic Lyme disease, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), dated May 2, 1994, which, after a hearing, granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction enjoining the appellant from denying payment for the treatment proposed by the plaintiff Joanne MacIntyre’s doctor.

Ordered that the order is reversed, without costs or disbursements, and the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

It is well settled that in order to be entitled to a preliminary injunction, a movant must clearly demonstrate (1) the likelihood of ultimate success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury absent a granting of the preliminary injunction, and (3) a balancing of the equities in the movant’s favor *(see, e.g., Doe v Axelrod,*73 NY2d 748; *Doe v Poe,*189 AD2d 132). A preliminary injunction should not be granted, absent extraordinary circumstances, if the status quo would be disturbed and the plaintiff would thereby receive the ultimate relief requested *(see, Bachman v Harrington,*184 NY 458, 464; *Rosa Hair Stylists v Jaber Food Corp.,*218 AD2d 793; *Morgan v New York Racing Assn.,*72 AD2d 740, 741; *Ash v Holdeman,*5 AD2d 1017, 1018). When, as here, there are sharply contested issues of fact that can only be determined at trial, the plaintiffs have failed to satisfy their heavy burden of proving a clear right to preliminary injunctive relief, which, in effect, would grant the plaintiffs the ultimate relief that they request *(see, Merrill Lynch Realty Assocs. v Burr,*140 AD2d 589, 593; *Zurich Depository Corp. v Gilenson,*121 AD2d 443; *Family Affair Haircutters v Detling,*110 AD2d 745). Balletta, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.
No. 53618.

Suit 4611.

#### United States *v.*Enrique C. Lineiro.

C. D. 1126 reversed June 28, 1949. C. A. D. 410.