alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DENIED and Opinion Filed September 23, 2022

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 22 - 00944 - CV IN RE WILLIE JAMES C HAPPLE , Relator Original Proceeding from the 134th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 22 - 09749 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III Before the Court is relator’s September 22, 2022 petition for wr it of mandamus. We deny the petition. Relator’s petition fails to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure in multiple respects. Relator’s petition does not include any of the following as required by rule 52.3: the iden tity of the parties and co unsel; a table of contents; an index of authorities; a statement of the case; a statement of jurisdiction; the issues or points presented; a statement of facts with record references; a clear and concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the appendix or record ; and a prayer with a short conclusion that clearly stat e s the– 2

–

nature of the relief sought

. See T EX . R. A PP . P . 52.3 (a)

– (c), (d)(1)

– (3) , (e)

– ( i ). As a result, it is not clear what relief relator is seek ing from this Court. Further, r elator bears the burden of providing the Court with a sufficient record to show he is entitled to relief. Walker v. Packer , 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Relator’s petition is not properly certified. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(j) ; In re Butler , 270 S.W.3d 757, 758 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding). A lthough relator has filed some unauthenticated documents, the petition is not supported by an appendix with certified or sworn copies of documents showi ng the matter complained of, T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3 (k)(1)(A) , and relator did not file a record with his petition containing a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in the underlying proce eding, T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.7(a)(1) ; Butler , 270 S.W.3d at 75 9

. Without a certified petition and authenticated record, relator has not carried his burden. See Butler , 270 S.W.3d at 75 8

– 59. Accordingly, we deny the petition.

220944f.p05 /Bill Pedersen, III/ / BILL PEDERSEN, III JUSTICE
Before the First Division,

March 11, 1942

No. 47002.

#### Protest 29263-K of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that the horns in question are about 5 inches long, cone-shaped, and measure about *1%*inches at the bottom, that they have a harmonica reed in the mouthpiece, and that they are in chief value of base metal, not plated. Two witnesses testified for the plaintiff that these articles are chiefly used as noisemakers at night clubs and at parties attended by adults. One witness testified that he had seen them used by children, but that they were chiefly used by adults. No testimony was introduced by the defendant. It was found that the presumption of correctness attaching to the classification by the collector had been clearly overcome by the evidence adduced. The protest was therefore sustained.
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1579 

To amend title 37, United States Code, to provide that the basic allowance 

for housing in effect for a member of the National Guard is not reduced 

when the member transitions between active duty and full-time National 

Guard duty without a break in active service. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To amend title 37, United States Code, to provide that 

the basic allowance for housing in effect for a member 

of the National Guard is not reduced when the member 

transitions between active duty and full-time National 

Guard duty without a break in active service. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Guard Basic 

5 Allowance for Housing Equity Act’’. 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1579 IS

1 SEC. 2. NO REDUCTION IN BASIC ALLOWANCE FOR HOUS2 ING FOR ARMY NATIONAL GUARD AND AIR 

3 NATIONAL GUARD MEMBERS WHO TRANSI4 TION BETWEEN ACTIVE DUTY AND FULL5 TIME NATIONAL GUARD DUTY WITHOUT A 

6 BREAK IN ACTIVE SERVICE. 

7 Section 403(g) of title 37, United States Code, is 

8 amended by adding at the end the following new para9 graph: 

10 ‘‘(6) The rate of basic allowance for housing to be 

11 paid a member of the Army National Guard of the United 

12 States or the Air National Guard of the United States 

13 shall not be reduced upon the transition of the member 

14 from active duty to full-time National Guard duty, or from 

15 full-time National Guard duty to active duty, when the 

16 transition occurs without a break in active service.’’. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6542
GLENN A. FROEMAN, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus PARRIS N. GLENDENING; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson E. Legg, District Judge. (CA-95- 1875-L) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: August 5, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Glenn A. Froeman, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Regina Hollins Lewis, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order dismissinghis action seeking injunctive relief to stay an order of restitution imposed by the state court. We have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Froeman v. Glendening , No. CA-95-1875-L (D. Md. Mar. 28, 1996). 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 32.2

               CERTIFICATION BY THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
                         COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
                           PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                 THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)

         I, Michael D. Davidson, am Chief Financial Officer of Competitive
Technologies, Inc. (the Company).

         This certification is being furnished pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection
with the filing of the Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter
ended April 30, 2004 (the Report).

         I hereby certify 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 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
              or 78o(d)); and

         2.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
              material respects, the financial condition and results of
              operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods
              covered by the Report.

Date: June 14, 2004                         /s/ Michael D. Davidson
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Michael D. Davidson
                                            Chief Financial Officer of
                                            Competitive Technologies, Inc.


                                    Page 30
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,860
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,702
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (1,141)
<INVENTORY>                                      2,130
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,364
<PP&E>                                          43,209
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (3,853)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 479,160
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          124,158
<BONDS>                                        343,812
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           59,481
<PREFERRED>                                     59,266
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,747
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   479,160
<SALES>                                        161,355
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               161,355
<CGS>                                          119,873
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  119,873
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   912
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,313
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,291)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       295
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,291)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    485
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,101)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
No. *65755.*

#### A. & A. Food Products, Inc., and Chas. H. Asche & Co., Inc. *v.*United States,

protest 60/1165 (New York).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of bread similar in all material respects to that the subject of *United States*v. *Nordic Baking & Importing Co., Inc.*(47 C.C.P.A. 78, C.A.D. 733), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>

TYPE
TEXT
ARTICLE  5
CIK   0001117705
NAME NOVAMEX USA LTD

<S>                      <C>
PERIOD-TYPE             06-MOS
FISCAL-YEAR-END                                 JUN-30-2000
PERIOD-END                                      DEC-31-2000
CASH                                                    817
SECURITIES                                                0
RECEIVABLES                                          19,261
ALLOWANCES                                                0
INVENTORY                                                 0
CURRENT-ASSETS                                       20,078
PP&E                                                 18,357
DEPRECIATION                                              0
TOTAL-ASSETS                                         38,436
CURRENT-LIABILITIES                                 371,525
BONDS                                                     0
PREFERRED-MANDATORY                                       0
PREFERRED                                                 0
COMMON                                                  332
OTHER-SE                                          (337,008)
TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY                           38,436
SALES                                                     0
TOTAL-REVENUES                                            0
CGS                                                       0
TOTAL-COSTS                                               0
OTHER-EXPENSES                                       31,552
LOSS-PROVISION                                            0
INTEREST-EXPENSES                                         0
INCOME-PRETAX                                        29,990
INCOME-TAX                                                0
INCOME-CONTINUING                                         0
DISCONTINUED                                              0
EXTRAORDINARY                                             0
CHANGES                                                   0
NET-INCOME                                           29,990
EPS-BASIC                                             0.003
EPS-DILUTED                                           0.003
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MULBERRY SQUARE ELDER CARE 

AND REHABILITATION CENTER,

Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 546 MAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 11th day of February, 2019, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED.
EXHIBIT 21.1



SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT



|     |  |                                                             |  |           
|---- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------
|NAME |  | STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION OFINCORPORATION OR ORGANIZATION
|1.   |  | ClassroomDirect.com, LLC                                    |  | Delaware  
|     |  |                                                            
|2.   |  | Childcraft Education Corp.                                  |  | New York  
|     |  |                                                            
|3.   |  | Bird-in-Hand Woodworks, Inc.                                |  | New Jersey
|     |  |                                                            
|4.   |  | Frey Scientific, Inc.                                       |  | Delaware  
|     |  |                                                            
|5.   |  | Sportime, LLC                                               |  | Delaware  
|     |  |                                                            
|6.   |  | Sax Arts & Crafts, Inc.                                     |  | Delaware  
|     |  |                                                            
|7.   |  | Global Video, LLC                                           |  | Wisconsin 
|     |  |                                                            
|8.   |  | New School, Inc.                                            |  | Delaware  
|     |  |                                                            
|9.   |  | Premier Agendas, Inc.                                       |  | Washington
|     |  |                                                            
|10.  |  | Premier School Agendas, Ltd.                                |  | Canada    
|     |  |                                                            
|11.  |  | Amalgamated Widgets, Inc.                                   |  | Wisconsin 
|     |  |                                                            
|12.  |  | Select Agendas, Corp.                                       |  | Canada    
|     |  |                                                            
|13.  |  | Califone International, Inc.                                |  | Delaware
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 151 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 151

  To eliminate certain provisions relating to Texas and the Education 
                               Jobs Fund.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

             January 25 (legislative day, January 5), 2011

 Mrs. Hutchison (for herself and Mr. Cornyn) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, 
                     Education, Labor, and Pensions

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To eliminate certain provisions relating to Texas and the Education 
                               Jobs Fund.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Fairness for Texas Schools Act of 
2011''.

SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO TEXAS.

    Section 101 of Public Law 111-226 (124 Stat. 2389) is amended by 
striking paragraph (11).
                                 <all>
```
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Ability One Customer Appreciation Day

By Dana ThornburyDLA Land and Maritime Public Affairs

                COLUMBUS, Ohio  –              
On Wednesday, June 7, Ability One held its annual Customer Appreciation Day.  Vendors provided samples of products to customers and the store provided complimentary snacks.

Base Supply Center manager Sari Glick said they host this event annually as a way to thank customers for supporting their mission to employee Americans that are blind and visually impaired.

The store is located in building 11, section 13 on the Defense Supply Center Columbus.

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

DLA L&MPeople with Disability Program L&MAbility OneBase Supply CenterCustomer Appreciation DayCulture L&M
# C_2016145EN.01002701.xml

| 25.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 145/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 145/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 10 March 2016 — credentis v OHIM — Aldi Karlslunde (Curodont)

(Case T-53/15) (1)

1

((Community trade mark - Opposition proceedings - Application for Community word mark Curodont - Earlier national word mark Eurodont - Relative ground for refusal - Likelihood of confusion - Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009))

(2016/C 145/33)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: credentis AG (Windisch, Switzerland) (represented by: D. Breuer, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral and J. Ivanauskas, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court: Aldi Karlslunde K/S (Karlslunde, Denmark) (represented by: N. Lützenrath, U. Rademacher, C. Fürsen and N. Bertram, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of OHIM, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of OHIM of 13 November 2014 (case R 353/2014-1), relating to opposition proceedings between Aldi Karlslunde K/S and credentis AG.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders credentis AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders credentis AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 107, 30.3.2015.

1

---
#### Eugenia BURAS and Larry Buras, Jr. v. Earl JACKSON, Transit Management of Southeast Louisiana, Regional Transit Authority and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company.

No. 98-C-0825.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 8, 1998.

In re Buras, Eugenia;—Plaintiffs); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “L”, *55No. 95-18391; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 97CA-1072.

Denied.

CALOGERO, C.J., not on panel.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6200

AINSWORTH C. JACKSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION; GEORGE SNYDER,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III,

District Judge. (5:07-hc-02084-D)

Submitted: July 15, 2008 Decided: July 31, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ainsworth C. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny,

Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

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

PER CURIAM:

Ainsworth C. Jackson, a federal prisoner and District of

Columbia Code offender, seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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). 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 Jackson 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
304(m) CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE EPA-HQ- OW-20 10 - 0824 DCN CBM00 6 64A1 THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION (CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.