alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued September 3, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-20-00393-CV

———————————

IN RE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, the Office of the Attorney General of Texas, filed a petition for writ 

of mandamus to compel the trial court to vacate its order staying the denial of real 

party in interest, C.J.P.’s, renewal of his vehicle registration.1 On June 15, 2020, the 

Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss the petition. Real party in interest filed 

1 The underlying case is In the Interest of __, Minor Child, cause number 

7219*RH99, pending in the 300th District Court of Brazoria County, Texas, the 

Honorable Patrick Bulanek presiding.
2

a response asserting that the petition should be denied because the issues within the 

petition are untimely and unripe and because the Attorney General has failed to 

exhaust all remedies. Real party in interest also agrees that the petition is moot 

because the Attorney General issued a notice of release of denial of vehicle 

registration and attached a copy of this notice.

Because both parties agree that the issues in this proceeding are moot and the 

petition should be dismissed, the Court grants the motion. We dismiss the petition. 

All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Kelly, Goodman, and Countiss.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3117

To initiate planning and design for a replacement facility at Fort Campbell,

Kentucky, for the purpose of providing educational opportunities for

military personnel and their dependents.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 22, 1993

Mr. BARLOW introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Appropriations

A BILL

To initiate planning and design for a replacement facility

at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, for the purpose of providing

educational opportunities for military personnel and their

dependents.

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

3 That the following sums are appropriated, out of any

4 money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, for the

5 fiscal year ending September 30, 1994, for military con6 struction functions administered by the Department of

7 Defense, and for other purposes, namely:
2

HR 3117 IH

1 MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY

2 For study, planning, design, architect and engineer

3 services for a replacement facility at Fort Campbell, Ken4 tucky, to provide educational opportunities for military

5 personnel and their dependents, $1,000,000 to remain

6 available until September 30, 1998.

Æ
#### BABCOCK COMPANY BUILDERS and Allstate Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. C. J. CLARINGTON and the Florida Indusdustrial Relations Commission, Respondents.

No. 41486.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 4, 1971.

Certiorari denied.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 23**

 

**CONSENTOF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-122136, 333-122137,333-03201, 333-71631, 333-75187, 333-75189 and 333-118033 on Form S-8 ofour reports dated November 30, 2005, relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements and financial statement schedule of Courier Corporation,and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting appearing in and incorporated by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-Kof Courier Corporation for the year ended September 24, 2005.

 

DELOITTE &TOUCHE LLP

Boston, Massachusetts

November 30, 2005

 

----
# C_2012231EN.01000101.xml

| 2.8.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 231/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2.8.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/1

---

Interest rate applied by the European Central Bank to its main refinancing operations (1):

1

0,75 % on 1 August 2012

Euro exchange rates (2)

2

1 August 2012

2012/C 231/01

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,2298 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 96,20 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4418 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,78750 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,3189 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2013 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 7,3850 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,358 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 280,38 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,6967 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1058 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,5938 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,2112 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,1691 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,2320 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 9,5359 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,5145 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,5315 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 386,34 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 10,1682 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 7,8322 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,5160 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 11 618,25 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 3,8301 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 51,298 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 39,7770 |
| THB | Thai baht | 38,726 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5221 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 16,3514 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 68,2220 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,2298

JPY

Japanese yen

96,20

DKK

Danish krone

7,4418

GBP

Pound sterling

0,78750

SEK

Swedish krona

8,3189

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2013

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

7,3850

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,358

HUF

Hungarian forint

280,38

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,6967

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1058

RON

Romanian leu

4,5938

TRY

Turkish lira

2,2112

AUD

Australian dollar

1,1691

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,2320

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

9,5359

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,5145

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,5315

KRW

South Korean won

1 386,34

ZAR

South African rand

10,1682

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

7,8322

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,5160

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

11 618,25

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

3,8301

PHP

Philippine peso

51,298

RUB

Russian rouble

39,7770

THB

Thai baht

38,726

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5221

MXN

Mexican peso

16,3514

INR

Indian rupee

68,2220

---

(1)  Rate applied to the most recent operation carried out before the indicated day. In the case of a variable rate tender, the interest rate is the marginal rate.

1

(2)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

2

Source:

---
# C_2014028EN.01000701.xml

| 31.1.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 28/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

31.1.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 28/7

---

Notice for the attention of the persons to whom measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2014/49/CFSP, and in Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 81/2014 concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia apply

2014/C 28/05

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

The following information is brought to the attention of the persons that appear in the Annex to Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP, as amended by Council Decision 2014/49/CFSP (1), and in Annex I to Council Regulation (EU) No 101/2011, as implemented by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 81/2014 (2) concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia.

1

2

The Council of the European Union has decided that the persons that appear in the above-mentioned Annexes should continue to be included in the list of persons and entities subject to restrictive measures provided for in Council Decision 2011/72/CFSP concerning restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities in view of the situation in Tunisia.

The persons concerned may submit a request to the Council, together with supporting documentation, that the decision to include them on the above-mentioned list should be reconsidered, to the following address:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

E-mail: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The attention of the persons concerned is also drawn to the possibility of challenging the Council's decision before the General Court of the European Union, in accordance with the conditions laid down in Article 275, second paragraph, and Article 263, fourth and sixth paragraphs, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

---

(1)  OJ L 28, 31.1.2014, p. 38.

1

(2)  OJ L 28, 31.1.2014, p. 2.

2

---
September 23, 2015 

Dear Mr. Holzer: 

This letter is to inform you that the following information is missing from your petition 

(Docket No. FAA−2015−2803). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) to process your petition. 

 Describe the aircraft make(s), model(s), and type(s) (i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, 

lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operation. The description(s) should include the 

maximum weight (including payload). This information can be located in the 

aircraft manual(s). 

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at 

www.regulations.gov and submit any proprietary information to the FAA Headquarters or 

electronically via email to 333exemptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any 

further, we must receive the information described above by 10/7/15. If we do not receive the 

information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst
# C_2013339EN.01000401.xml

| 20.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 339/4 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

20.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 339/4

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

19 November 2013

2013/C 339/03

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,3502 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,89 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4585 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,83850 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 8,9613 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,2333 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,2285 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 27,368 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 296,96 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7028 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,1829 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,4488 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,7149 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,4341 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,4092 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 10,4668 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 1,6195 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 1,6787 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 425,20 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 13,6524 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 8,2274 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,6428 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 15 658,94 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 4,2916 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 58,754 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 44,1623 |
| THB | Thai baht | 42,656 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 3,0623 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 17,4365 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 83,9550 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,3502

JPY

Japanese yen

134,89

DKK

Danish krone

7,4585

GBP

Pound sterling

0,83850

SEK

Swedish krona

8,9613

CHF

Swiss franc

1,2333

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,2285

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

27,368

HUF

Hungarian forint

296,96

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7028

PLN

Polish zloty

4,1829

RON

Romanian leu

4,4488

TRY

Turkish lira

2,7149

AUD

Australian dollar

1,4341

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,4092

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

10,4668

NZD

New Zealand dollar

1,6195

SGD

Singapore dollar

1,6787

KRW

South Korean won

1 425,20

ZAR

South African rand

13,6524

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

8,2274

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,6428

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

15 658,94

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

4,2916

PHP

Philippine peso

58,754

RUB

Russian rouble

44,1623

THB

Thai baht

42,656

BRL

Brazilian real

3,0623

MXN

Mexican peso

17,4365

INR

Indian rupee

83,9550

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
**Exhibit 3.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION**

 

**OF**

 

**NEW MOUNTAIN GUARDIAN (LEVERAGED), L.L.C.**

 

Dated as of October 29, 2008

 

This Certificate of Formation for New Mountain Guardian (Leveraged), L.L.C. is being duly executed and filed by the undersigned, as an authorized person, to form a limited liability company under the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (6 Del. C. §§ 18-101, *et seq.*).

 

1.             The name of the limited liability company formed hereby is New Mountain Guardian (Leveraged), L.L.C. (the “Company”).

 

2.             The address of the registered office of the Company in the State of Delaware is c/o RL&F Service Corp., One Rodney Square, 10th Floor, Tenth and King Streets, Wilmington, New Castle County, Delaware 19801.  The name and address of the registered agent of the Company is RL&F Service Corp., One Rodney Square, 10th Floor, Tenth and King Streets, Wilmington, New Castle County, Delaware 19801

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Formation of New Mountain Guardian (Leveraged), L.L.C. as of the date first above written.

 

 
|   | MANAGING MEMBER:                  |
|--------|-----------------------------------|
|   |                              |
|   | NEW MOUNTAIN   GUARDIAN AIV, L.P. |
|   |                              |
|   |                              |
|   | By:                               | New Mountain   Investments III, L.L.C., |
|   |                              | its General Partner |
|   |                              |   |
|   |                              |   |
|   |                              | By: | /s/ Steven B.   Klinsky |
|   |                              |   | Steven B. Klinsky |

 

----

 

**STATE OF DELAWARE**

 

**CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT**

 

1.                                       Name of Limited Liability Company:  New Mountain Guardian (Leveraged), L.L.C.

 

2.                                       The Certificate of Formation of the limited liability company is hereby amended as follows:

 

The name of the Limited Liability Company shall be changed from “New Mountain Guardian (Leveraged), L.L.C.” to “New Mountain Finance Holdings, L.L.C.”

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate on the 11th day of May, A.D. 2011.

 

 
|   | By:    | /s/ Paula Bosco      |
|--------|--------|----------------------|
|   |   | Authorized Person(s) |

 

----
#### Henning RYFOSS, Petitioner, v. Carol J. RYFOSS, Respondent.

No. 1270.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

March 22, 1967.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Mildred Hersh, Respondent, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Appellants. Mildred Hersh, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondents.

[735 NYS2d 527]

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about June 8, 2001, which, to the *259extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted plaintiffs motion to set aside the verdict insofar as to order a new trial on the issue of damages only, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Such trial shall commence forthwith. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered January 22, 2001, which denied plaintiffs motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot.

While defendants are correct that, after a jury is discharged, jurors may not impeach their verdict *(see, Sharrow v Dick Corp.,*86 NY2d 54, 60-61), “[a] special verdict is not inviolate and may be set aside under certain circumstances” such as where the verdict is the demonstrable result of juror confusion *(Wingate v Long Is. R.R.,*95 AD2d 671, 672). Here, the record establishes that the trial court failed to instruct or clarify to the jury that, in making its determination of damages, it should not have taken into consideration the apportionment of liability. Also contributing to the jury’s confusion in this regard was the verdict sheet, which in questions 7 and 10 referred to the “full dollar amount of damages” while requesting the jury simply to set forth damages without reference to the full dollar amount in question 9. The jury manifested its confusion by requesting clarification and guidance on the use of its apportionment of liability but the trial court’s response was nonresponsive. The lack of proper instructions respecting the jury’s use of its apportionment findings in reaching its award of damages was brought to the court’s attention before the jury rendered its verdict and was discharged, and thus a curative instruction could have been given. Accordingly, even without considering the jurors’ letters and affidavit, the record properly raises for our consideration the issue of whether the jurors’ verdict accurately reflects the amount of damages the jurors intended plaintiff to receive *(see, Hoffman v Domenico Bus Serv.,*183 AD2d 807).

In light of the jury verdict as to liability, the appeal from the order denying plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is moot. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Sullivan, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> UT
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      2242200
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                          0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                          393400
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                        394300
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                  174400
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3204300
<COMMON>                                           400
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                       738700
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                             451400
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 1190500
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      22900
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                            991500
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                   0
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                       0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                        0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                  999400
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  3204300
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      1257500
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                             97800
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                      917700
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     1015500
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                         242000
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                               11800
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                  253800
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         94400
<NET-INCOME>                                    159400
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        900
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                   158500
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        132600
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                        92100
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                          261100
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.85
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     3.85
        

</TABLE>
#### Michael CIOPPA and Francine Cioppa a/k/a Francine Meyer, Appellants, v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY OF WASHINGTON, D. C., a foreign corporation, and Louis Lento, Appellees.

No. 71-798.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 8, 1972.

Adams, George & Wood, Wicker, Smith, Pyszka, Blomqvist & Davant, Miami, for appellants.

Bradford, Williams, McKay, Kimbrell, Hamann & Jennings, Miami, Pozen, Post-coe, Gold & Gold, Miami and Hugh Morris, for appellees.

Before SWANN, C. J., and PEARSON and BARKDULL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Pennsylvania Thresh. and Farmers’ Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Traister, Fla.App.1965, 173 So.2d 153; Coleman v. Atlantic National Insurance Company, Fla.App.1964, 166 So.2d 620; and Dike v. American Family Mutual Insurance Company, 284 Minn. 412, 170 N.W.2d 563.
Exhibit 99.1

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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of New World Restaurant Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company") for the
period ending October 1, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony D. Wedo, as Principal Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)   the
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

|May 14, 2003 |  |                                                                                                                                      
|------------ |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|             |  | /s/ANTHONY D. WEDOAnthony D. Wedo Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer
(Principal Executive Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer)

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

---

QuickLinks