alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DENY and Opinion Filed March 8, 2024

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-24-00238-CV

IN RE R. STEPHEN POLLEY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-13077

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Nowell, and Miskel

Opinion by Justice Nowell

On the Court’s own motion, we withdraw our memorandum opinion and

vacate our order dated March 6, 2024, and we issue this new memorandum opinion 

and order in their stead. The following is now the opinion of the Court. 

Before the Court are relator’s March 4, 2024 petition for writ of mandamus 

and motion for temporary relief. In his petition, relator seeks mandamus relief from 

the trial court’s February 26, 2024 order (1) declining to allow relator to supersede 

the injunctive relief included in the final judgment and (2) requiring real party in 

interest to post security instead. 
–2–

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to demonstrate that the trial 

court clearly abused its discretion and that he lacks an adequate remedy by appeal.

In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

proceeding). After reviewing the petition and the record, we conclude that relator’s 

remedy was to file a motion under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 24.4. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 24.4(a)(4) (providing that a party may, by motion filed in the appellate 

court, seek review of a trial court’s exercise of discretion under Rule 24.2(a)(3)). 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P.

52.8(a); see also In re Bittinger, No. 14-10-00697-CV, 2010 WL 3310208, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Aug. 23, 2010, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) 

(denying mandamus petition because relator’s remedy was to file Rule 24.4 motion 

in the pending appeal). Having denied the petition, we also deny as moot the motion 

for temporary relief.

240238f.p05 /Erin A. Nowell//

ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
No. 99-60581 

-1-

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 99-60581

Summary Calendar

 

DARREN TOLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

MARK STEED et al.,

Defendants;

MARK STEED, as trooper

for the Mississippi Highway

Safety Patrol,

Defendant-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 1:98-CV-224-D-A

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

May 2, 2000

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Darren Toler argues that the district court erred in

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging that without a

warrant or probable cause he was illegally arrested and his person

and property were illegally searched by defendant Steed. Toler

also argues that his constitutional rights were violated by

defendant Steed’s failure to advise him of the charge for which he

was being arrested. Having considered the parties’ briefs,

pleadings, and summary judgment evidence, we AFFIRM the district
No. 99-60581 

-2-

court’s opinion for essentially the same reasons as presented

below.

AFFIRMED.
Application for Exemption 14 CFR § 11.81 Section 333

I am a Documentary Filmmaker working on an a unique Agriculture Documentary that will help educate the public about a particular favorite food. From the farm to your kitchen table
- it's all about growi ng your food and Growing Peanut Butter. The film already has a section of footage from a camera mounted from regular aircraft. This footage helps to tell the story in order to better educate the public about this behind the scenes process. Unfortunately t he footage is too shaky and needs to be recreated using a UAV. The area normally flown in
- is very rural with few house s . The flight path would be well under 400 feet over trees and fields. I do intend to do other agriculture films and documentaries in the future as well. This approval would help me stay legal in my attempts to make sure that department is always covered. I am aware of the importance of following common sense procedures when piloting UAV aircraft. Considering this most footage obtained per approval of this application would be of the benefit to the public
. N ot only just for entrainment but education as well. The Production company is currently incorporated under the following with the included contact information. It would be preferre d if the approval could be applied under this name if at all possible. Barnhart Media LCC 2319 Hwy 88 Hephzibah, GA 30833 E
- mail: docquesting@gmail.com Phone: 706 871
-4436
#### Dickey *versus*Franklin Bank.

In trover, the conversion is sufficiently established, by proving that the defendant had claimed the property as his own, and attempted to dispose of it for his own benefit.

Trover for a promissory note of $200 given by Bourne to the plaintiff, and by the plaintiff indorsed in blank, — called note B.

The cause came on before Howard, J., and was submitted for decision by the full court upon the testimony; which was to the following effect.

Plaintiff owed the hank on a note called note A, wherein Dammon was a surety. Plaintiff held the note now in controversy, and sent it by Dammon to the bank, to have the amount of it indorsed upon note A. Dammon delivered it to the cashier, with directions how it should be applied. The cashier said he understood about it. It was never so applied, but the bank sued and collected the note A.

The plaintiff then, by his agent, demanded the note B of the president and of the cashier, but never obtained it.

The bank had a controversy and a reference with Bourne, *573and claimed to own the note B, and produced it before the referee, to offset it against Bourne. But that being resisted, the note was withdrawn from that controversy.

Paine, for defendant.

Trover will not lie. The action should be on the contract. The note became the property of the bank by purchase, and they were to apply it on the note against the plaintiff. Hence the bank claimed to own it and to offset it. If the bank did not pay for it, as agreed, they are liable in assumpsit. This would allow the bank to set off such claims as they may have against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff supposes the president and cashier had no authority to *purchase.*If so, had they the power to make the bank *convert*the note ? But it was within the official power of the cashier to make such a trade. There was then no conversion.' 17 Mass. 502 ; 24 Maine, 566.

But if the note was *not*purchased, the plaintiff’s remedy is against the cashier only. To illustrate ; suppose plaintiff had lodged with the cashier a bale of silk, with orders to appropriate the avails upon his note, which was not done. The remedy would not be against the bank? And such is the law in this case.

*Danforth,*for the plaintiff.

Shepley, C. J.,

orally.—The cashier had no author^ to receive the note for the bank, except by allowing it on the note A. This was not done, and it never became the property of the bank. The bank had the note in possession *;*claimed to own it, and attempted to apply it to their own benefit by a set-off against a debt due from themselves. This constituted a conversion. *Judgment for plaintiff.*
EXHIBIT 32.1


                                  CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                          AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Frederick M. Strader, as Chief Executive Officer of United Industrial
Corporation (the "Company") certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

                  a.    the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ended
                        June 30, 2003 as filed with the U.S. Securities and
                        Exchange Commission (the "Report") fully complies with
                        the requirements of Section 13a or 15(d) of the
                        Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

                  b.    the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
                        in all material respects, the financial condition and
                        results of operations of the Company.



Date: August 11, 2003                      /s/ Frederick M. Strader
                                           ---------------------------------
                                           Frederick M. Strader
                                           Chief Executive Officer
No. 43065.

#### Protests 921491-G, etc., of Chong Sing & Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the protests were sustained. *Great Pacific Co.*v. *United States*(T. D. 46921) and *United States*v. *Great Pacific Co.*(23 C. C. P. A. 319, T. D. 48192) followed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<CIK> 0000941138
<NAME> UNISOURCE ENERGY CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                    1,908,454
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    116,070
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         243,369
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       304,761
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,572,654
<COMMON>                                       641,089
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                            0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                          (399,522)
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 241,567
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                         1,183,198
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                    1,725
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    869,649
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                14,989
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 261,526
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                2,572,654
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      160,510
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           (2,559)
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     140,146
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     137,587
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         22,923
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               (729)
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  22,194
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        27,722
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,528)
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                          0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  (5,528)
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         (1,513)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.17)
        


</TABLE>
* 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

July 7, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-60865

Summary Calendar

GUSTAVO SEGUNDO QUINTERO-RESTREPO,

Petitioner,

versus

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondent.

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

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A79 471 197

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

Before SMITH, DeMOSS AND STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Gustavo Segundo Quintero-Estrepa (“Quintero”) has filed a petition for review of the Board

of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) affirmance of the Immigration Judge’s (IJ) denial of his application

for withholding of removal. He argues that substantial evidence does not support the IJ’s

determination that Quintero was not credible and that he was not eligible for withholding of removal.-2-

We may review the IJ’s decision, given that the BIA adopted the IJ’s findings. S ee Chun v.

INS

, 40 F.3d 76, 77 (5th Cir. 1994). Both the IJ’s credibility finding and the deter m ination that

Quintero was not eligible for withholding of removal are supported by substantial evidence; certainly

the evidence does not compel a contrary conclusion. S ee INS v. Elias-Zacarias

, 502 U.S. 478, 482

(1992); Mikkael v. INS

, 115 F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Lopez De Jesus v. INS

, 312 F.3d

155, 161 (5th Cir. 2002); Chun , 40 F.3d at 78.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
No. 39021.

#### Protests 689087-G, etc., of New York Merchandise Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Sullivan, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the merchandise in question was held dutiable at 30 percent under paragraph 1502, as follows: (1) uninfiated rubber balls, *United States*v. *Woolworth*(24 C. C. P. A. 338, T. D. 48770); (2) rubber footballs, Abstract 27179; and (3) tennis rackets, *Woolworth*v. *United States*(T. D. 48573) followed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                5
<MULTIPLIER>             1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                 DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                                    JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                      SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                                    317
<SECURITIES>                                              491
<RECEIVABLES>                                             964
<ALLOWANCES>                                               63
<INVENTORY>                                               740
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         2792
<PP&E>                                                    971
<DEPRECIATION>                                            884
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           2958
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                     652
<BONDS>                                                     0
<COMMON>                                                 2912
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                       0
<PREFERRED>                                                 0
<OTHER-SE>                                                  0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             2958
<SALES>                                                  3762
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                         3762
<CGS>                                                    1450
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                            1450
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         2229
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                            0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        (17)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                           100
<INCOME-TAX>                                                0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                       100
<DISCONTINUED>                                              0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                             0
<CHANGES>                                                   0
<NET-INCOME>                                              100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                             .01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                             .01
        

</TABLE>
Beacon 520FC, Beacon 520FCX

Complex strontium aluminate, rare earth doped
Before the Third Division,

August 16, 1940

No. 44209.

#### Protest 320-K of G. Marinos & Sons (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

No evidence was offered in support of the claims made. On the record presented the protest was overruled.
# C_2017402EN.01001901.xml

| 27.11.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 402/19 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.11.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 402/19

---

Order of the President of the Court of 29 August 2017 — European Commission v Republic of Austria

(Case C-347/15) (1)

1

(2017/C 402/24)

Language of the case: German

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 279, 24.8.2015.

1

---
Case: 2:12-cv-01181-EAS-EPD Doc #: 54 Filed: 11/15/13 Page: 1 of 1  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-12T14:50:48-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
EXHIBIT 10.23b



                 FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED ILLUMINATING COMPANY
                              1990 STOCK OPTION PLAN


This FIRST AMENDMENT,  effective  immediately  prior to the close of business on
the 20th day of July, 2000, to The United Illuminating Company 1990 Stock Option
Plan, as adopted January 22, 1990, (the "Plan"),

                              WITNESSETH THAT:

(1)  Pursuant to Section 10. of the Plan,  it is amended as set forth in Section
(2) below.

(2)  Section 6. is amended by adding  thereto  the following  sentence:  "In the
event of any  reorganization  in which all of the shares of the Company's Common
Stock are exchanged for shares of the common stock of another  corporation,  all
Stock Options  granted  hereunder and  outstanding  on the effective date of the
share exchange shall be  automatically  converted into stock options to purchase
shares of the other  corporation on identical terms,  and the other  corporation
shall assume this Plan,  and the Board of  Directors  of the other  corporation,
excluding any member of said Board who is, or within twelve (12) months prior to
the exercise of any discretion under this Plan has been an employee of the other
corporation,  its subsidiaries,  the Company or its  Subsidiaries,  shall be and
become  the  Administrator  of this  Plan  on the  effective  date of the  share
exchange."

(3) All the terms and conditions of the Plan, as amended  hereby,  are and shall
remain in full force and effect.


THE UNITED ILLUMINATING COMPANY



By    /s/Albert N. Henricksen
      --------------------------
      Albert N. Henricksen
      Its Group Vice President
      Support Services
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

            <S>     <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TOROTEL, INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES CONTAINED IN ITS QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-
QSB FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED OCTOBER 31, 1999, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                         6-MOS
<FISCAL YEAR-END>                               APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                    OCT-31-1999
<CASH>                                              127,000
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<NOTES AND ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLES>                    810,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         61,000
<INVENTORY>                                         248,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    745,000
<PP&E>                                            1,972,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                    1,520,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1,645,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1,663,000
<BONDS, MORTGAGES AND SIMILAR DEBT>               1,401,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                     0
<PREFERRED>                                               0
<COMMON STOCK>                                    1,442,000
<OTHER STOCKHOLDERS EQUITY>                      (2,861,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1,645,000
<SALES>                                           1,663,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1,663,000
<CGS>                                             1,205,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1,681,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    (18,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   56,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (56,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 (56,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (56,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          (.02)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32a

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002

In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Twin Disc, Incorporated (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission as of the date hereof (the Report), I,
Michael E. Batten, Chairman, 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/ MICHAEL E. BATTENMichael E. BattenChairman,
President and ChiefExecutive
OfficerFebruary 9, 2007

---