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

9, 2019.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14- 19 -00526- CV

IN RE JOHNATHAN SIMMS, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS Co unty Civil Court at Law No. 1 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1103691



### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On July 5, 2019, relator Johnathan Simms filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in this c ourt. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221 ( Supp. ); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this c ourt to compel the Honorable George Barnstone, Judge of the County Civil Court at Law No 1, in Harris County, Texas,2

to vacate his order dated April 16, 2019 , gra n ting real pa rty in interest Jennifer Dao ’s
motion for new trial. The new trial is preferentially set for July 17, 2019.
Relator also filed a motion for temporary relief, asking our court to stay the trial set for July 17, 2019, pending a decision on the petition for writ of mandamus.
See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10.
Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a)(2) requires the relator to file with
the petition “a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained.” See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7.
Because relator has not provided our court with a transcript of the hearing on the motion for new trial or a statement that that no testimony was adduced at the hearing in connection with the matter complained, as required by Rule52.7(a)(2), we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. Relator’s motion for temporary relief is rendered moot by the denial of relator’s request for mandamus relief.

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Spain and Poissant.
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT****TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT****TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**     In connection with the filing of the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December31, 2006 (the “Report”) by Cash Systems, Inc. (“Registrant”), I, Michael D. Rumbolz, the ChiefExecutive Officer of the Registrant, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:     1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended, and     2. The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.         By:                                             /s/ Michael D. Rumbolz    Michael D. Rumbolz    Chief Executive Officer   Dated: May 14, 2007
#### Andrew Rick LOPEZ, Plaintiff—Appellant, v. D. PETERSON; et al., Defendants—Appellees,

No. 01-16900.

D.C. No. CV-98-02111-LKK/PAN.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 19, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument, and denies Lopez’s request for oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Andrew Rick Lopez appeals pro se the district court’s 41(b) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that prison officials violated his constitutional rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal, *Ghazali v. Moran,*46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir.1995) (per curiam) (dismissal for violation of local rule), and the district court’s denial of a motion for appointment of counsel, *Wilborn v. Escalderon,*789 F.2d 1328, 1331 (9th Cir.1986).

The district court determined that Lopez’s first amended complaint stated a claim. Lopez later moved for leave to amend to add new defendants and claims. The district court granted Lopez leave to amend, cautioning that the claims in his second amended complaint should relate to the claims in his first amended complaint. In the same order, the district court dismissed Lopez’s first amended complaint.

The district court erred by dismissing Lopez’s first amended complaint, after expressly holding that it stated a claim. *See Ghazali,*46 F.3d at 53. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s dismissal and remand for reinstatement of the first amended complaint.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Lopez’s motion for appointment of counsel because he failed to show exceptional circumstances. *See Wilborn,*789 F.2d at 1331,

*871In light of our ruling, we need not reach any other issues raised in this appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATIONS

I, Cathy B. Taylor, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial
statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
quarterly report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer 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 registrant and we 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and;

5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

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 registrant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 registrants internal control over financial reporting.



/s/ Cathy B. TaylorName:

Cathy B. TaylorTitle:

President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:

November 13, 2007


A signed original of this Certification has been provided to Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. and will be
retained by Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32(b)**

 

**DPL Inc.**

** **

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

 

The undersigned officerof DPL Inc. (the “Issuer”) hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Issuer’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2008, which this certificate accompanies, fully complies with the requirementsof Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained therein fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuers asof the dates and for the periods expressed therein.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adoptingthe signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thisstatement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, hasbeen provided to the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuers and furnishedto the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

Signed:

 

 
|  /s/  John J. Gillen                                           |   |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|  John  J. Gillen                                               |
|  Senior  Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |

 

Date: October 29,2008

 

The foregoing certificateis being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is notbeing filed as part of the Issuer’s Annual Report or as a separate disclosuredocument.

 

1

----
EXHIBIT A
UkC-U3-2003 WED 02:05 PN BOILERMAKERS LOCAL 182 FAX NO, 8012819990 P. 01 

September 17, 2003 

lnternational Brotherhood of Boilermakers 

Lodge No. 182 

47047 South 300 West 

Murray, Utah 84107 

Attention: Mr. Brad R. John - Business Manager 

Subject: CB&l Provo Plant 

Reference: Boilermaker letter dated August 27, 2003 

CB&I letter dated August 28,2003 

Dear Brad: 

Because of the dramatic fall off of orders for our products during the last year and 

our forecast that future orders will decline even further, the Company has been 

forced to consider the temporary closing of production at the Provo facility. Our 

analysis is that this facility cannot be operated profitably by the Company given 

the level of business that we have forecasted. 

In light of this, we are providing you with this notice of the contemplated decision. 

We are not happy to communicate this to you, but economic conditions have 

forced the Company to confront this reality. 

We are of course, available to discuss with the Un~on this proposed deciston and 

the effects of this decision on the employees. 

Sincerely, 

Steve Owens 

Vice-president 

Manufacturing and Contract Services 

CB&l Industrial 

Cc: Mr. Steven W. Eames - lnternational Representative
#### PALM BEACH TANK & CULVERT COMPANY and Fireman’s Fund American Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Johnnie JONES and the Industrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 43391.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 30, 1973.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, BOYD, McCAIN and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
254 La. 846

#### WAGUESPACK PRATT, INC. v. Anna S. BURGLASS, divorced wife of Joseph DeSALVO, and Tess M. Crager, Executrix of the succession of Robert L. Crager.

No. 50104.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 10, 1969.

In re: Mrs. Anna Burglass DeSalvo Dunker applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 225 So.2d 269.

Writ refused. No error of law in the judgment complained of.
258 La. 586

#### Prior A. McCALLUM and Marie Belle McCallum v. STATE of Louisiana, Through the DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS.

No. 51406.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 14, 1971.

In re: State of Louisiana, Through the Department of Highways applying for cer-tiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Avoyelles.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal we find no error of law in its judgment.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted. The court has held as a matter of law that a motorist who disregarded six (6) warning signs beginning 1500' from a T intersection or dead end, who saw the stop sign at the intersection and ran through at 60 m. p. h. was not con-tributorily negligent.

McCALEB, C. J., concurs in the views of BARHAM, J.
================================================================================

EXHIBIT  32.1

                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 Annual Report of Cyberfund, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I, Mark G. Hollo, Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and Exchange Act of 1934; and

      (2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
            material respects, the financial condition and result of operations
            of the Company.



Date: April 5, 2007

/s/ Mark G. Hollo
----------------------------------------
Mark G. Hollo
Chief Executive Officer










--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Devon A. KELLY, Jr. v. VILLAGE OF GREENWOOD et al.

No. 61649.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 17, 1978.

In re: Village of Greenwood, etc., et al applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit. Parish of Caddo. 357 So.2d 1182.

Writ granted.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
**Exhibit 31.1****SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION**I, Robert W. Cunningham, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Swift Transportation Co., Inc.; and2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport.Date: April 30, 2007         /s/ Robert W. Cunningham   Robert W. Cunningham   Chief Executive Officer and President(Principal Executive Officer)
255 La. 789

#### TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION CORPORATION v. Grady J. SOILEAU et al.

No. 50458.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 24, 1970.

In re: Texas Gas Transmission Corporation applying for writ of certiorari.

Writ refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> BD

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                               20,346,863              25,219,444
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                          6,996,472               7,321,993
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,343,335              32,541,437
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                     767,052                 592,405
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,576,283              31,949,032
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,343,335              32,541,437
<TRADING-REVENUE>                                4,836               3,471,890
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                         1,118,910               1,364,326
<COMMISSIONS>                                1,936,603               2,636,241
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<COMPENSATION>                                       0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (58,822)               3,699,252
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                    (58,822)               3,699,252
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (58,822)               3,699,252
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.39)                   20.37
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.39)                   20.37


</TABLE>
U.S. Department of Transportation Office of the Secretary ofTransportation

March 3, 2015 Mr. JohnR. Mietus, Jr. 6701 Democracy Blvd Suite 300 Bethesda, MD 20817 RE: DocketDOT-OST-2014-0012 Applications ofEastern Air Lines Group, Inc. for certificates ofPublic Convenience and Necessity DearMr. Mietus 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE Washington DC 20590

We have completed our initial review ofthe information you filed on behalfofEastern Air Lines Group, Inc. ("Eastern"), requesting authority to engage in interstate and foreign charter air transportation ofpersons, property, and mail. We have determined that we will need additional and/or clarifying informationbefore we may complete ourreview. Therefore, we askthat youplease provide the following: 1. Please provide information regarding Series B stock. Such description should include: the number of shares outstanding by class or series, convertibility into other classes or series of stock, representation on the board of directors, voting rights, entitlementto dividend, consequences offailure to pay such dividends, and liquidationpreferences. 2. Please provide information regarding ownership and control protections Eastern has put in place to prevent non-U.S. citizens from exceeding the numerical requirements ofthe Statute. 3. Please provide the citizenship ofboardmember Mr. Manuel Diaz. The information provided pursuant to this Information Request should be accompaniedbythe following certification: The contents ofthis application and the attached exhibit (s) are true and correctto the best ofmy knowledge and belief. Pursuant to Title 18 United States Code Section 1001, I [the individual signing the application, who shall be aprincipal owner, senior officer, or internal counsel ofthe applicant], in my individual capacity and as the authorized representative of the applicant, have not in any manner knowingly and willfully falsified, concealed or failed to disclose any2 material fact or made any false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or knowingly used any documents which contain such statements in connection with the preparation, filing or prosecution of the application. I understand that an individual who is found to have violated the provisions of 18 U.S.C section 1001 shall be fined or imprisoned not more than five years, orboth.

In the meantime, as is the Department's practice, further processing ofyour application will be deferred pending receipt ofthis material. Thank you for your cooperation inthis matter. If you have any questions regarding this letter or the requested information, please contactme at (202) 366-9998 or via email at Catherine.O'Toole@dot.gov. Sincerely,



# CJ6@JGCatherine J. O'Toole Analyst, Air CarrierFitness Division Office ofAviationAnalysis

cc: DocketDOT-OST-2014-0012 Mr. Edward

### J. Wegel President and CEO Eastern Air Lines Group, Inc. Miami International Airport Miami FL 33142 Mr. PatMcLaughlin Mr. Brian Karns Federal AviationAdministration SouthFlorida CMO
255 La. 155

#### Grady STEWART, et al. v. Michael Patrick McCARTHY, et al.

No. 50274.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1970.

In re: Grady Stewart applying for cer-tiorari, or'writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of Rapides. 228 So.2d 215.

Writs refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal there appears no err- or of law in its judgment.
#### Michael HAZOURI, a minor, through his next friend N. M. Hazouri, and N. M. Hazouri, Petitioners, v. Jeffrey MAILLET and Peninsular Fire Insurance Company, a corporation, Respondents.

No. R-53.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 8, 1973.

*71David R. Lewis, of Blalock, Holbrook, Lewis, Paul & Bennett, Jacksonville, for petitioners.

Marion R. Shepard and John M. McNatt, Jr., of Mathews, Osborne & Ehrlich, and Davisson F. Dunlap and Ellis E. Neder, Jr., of Sears, Dunlap & Neder, Jacksonville, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners seek a writ of common law certiorari from an order granting respondent, Peninsular Fire Insurance Company, a separate trial from that of respondent, Jeffrey Maillet.

Certiorari is a discretionary writ issued only where the trial court acts without or in excess of jurisdiction, or where an interlocutory order does not conform to the essential requirements of law and may reasonably cause material injury that cannot be corrected by the remedy of appeal. When the alleged error is procedural, as in this case, the petitioner must demonstrate that the error is fundamental error. Nonfundamental errors of procedure cannot be the subject of a proceeding for writ of certiorari even though the error might be reversible on appeal. We do not feel that the error alleged here is fundamental error or that the trial court’s order will cause petitioner material injury. Gulf Cities Gas Corporation v. Cihak, 201 So.2d 250 (2 Fla.App.1967).

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied without prejudice to petitioners’ raising the issue upon appeal from final judgment,

SPECTOR, C. J., and RAWLS and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JAMES GEATHERS,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 61 EAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 31st day of July, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.