alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Motion Granted; Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed July 6 , 2023

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 23

- 00397

- CV

MONIQUE MANDELL, LANEASE FULLER AND DEBRA JENNINGS , Appellant s

V.
AMERICAN NATIONAL BANK & TRUST, AND FATIMA BRELAND , App e llee s

On Appeal from the Probate Court No 3 Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 504405

- 401

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This is an attempted interlocutory appeal

. On June 11, 2023, appellant s filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. T he motion is granted.
We dismiss the appeal

.
PER CURIAM

Panel c onsists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and P oissant.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 15382]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6375]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

INTER-AMERICAN FOUNDATION BOARD MEETING


Notice of Sunshine Act Meetings

TIME AND DATE:  March 26, 2012, 9 a.m.-1:30 p.m.

PLACE: 901 N. Stuart Street, Tenth Floor, Arlington, Virginia 22203.

STATUS: Open to the public except for the portion specified as closed 
session as provided in 22 CFR 1004.4(f).

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 
    [ssquf] Approval of the Minutes of the December 12, 2011, Meeting 
of the Board of Directors
    [ssquf] Management Report
    [ssquf] IAF Fellows Mid-Year Conference
    [ssquf] Grantee Perception Report
    [ssquf] Next Meetings
    [ssquf] Executive Session

PORTIONS TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC: 
    [ssquf] Approval of the Minutes of the December 12, 2011, Meeting 
of the Board of Directors
    [ssquf] Management Report
    [ssquf] IAF Fellows Mid-Year Conference
    [ssquf] Grantee Perception Report
    [ssquf] Next Meetings

PORTIONS TO BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC: 
    [ssquf] Executive Session--Closed session as provided in 22 CFR 
1004.4 (f).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 
    <bullet> Paul Zimmerman, General Counsel, (703) 306-4320.

Paul Zimmerman,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2012-6375 Filed 3-13-12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7025-01-P
#### HEATING AND PLUMBING ENGINEERS, INC., Plaintiff, v. H.J. WILSON CO., INC., a Louisiana corporation, Defendant-Appellee, and Cross-Appellant, v. H.W. HOUSTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant, and Cross-Appellee.

No. 82CA1209.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. II.

Sept. 6, 1984.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 8, 1984.

Certiorari Denied April 15, 1985.

Editor’s Note:

The petition for writ of certiorari, for the above entitled opinion published at 698 P.2d 1364, was denied April 15, 1985.
Exhibit 32.2
SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

                            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 Brooklyn  Cheesecake & Desserts Company,
Inc. (the  "Company") on form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof, I
Anthony J. Merante  Vice-President  and Chief  Financial  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, that

      (iii) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and
            Section  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;
            and

      (iv)  the  information  contained  in the Report  fairly  present,  in all
            material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
            of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.

Date: April 15, 2005
                                     /s/ Anthony J. Merante
                                     -------------------------------------
                                     Anthony J. Merante
                                     Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer




A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section  906,  has been  provided to Brooklyn  Cheesecake & Desserts
Company,  Inc.  and will be  retained by and  furnished  to the  Securities  and
Exchange Commissions or its staff upon request.
#### Andreas T. Manolas, Respondent-Appellant, v 303 West 42nd Street Enterprises, Inc., Individually and Doing Business as Show World, Appellant-Respondent, et al., Defendants.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Evans, J.), entered April 17, 1990, which, *inter alia,*found in favor of the plaintiff, after jury trial, against defendant 303 West 42nd Street Enterprises, Inc., in the total amount of $210,319.38, unanimously modified on the law and the facts and a new trial ordered solely on the issue of punitive damages, without costs and disbursements, unless plaintiff within 20 days after service upon his attorney of a copy of this Court’s decision and order with notice of entry serves and files in the office of the clerk of the trial court, a written stipulation consenting to reduce the verdict in his favor for punitive damages to $50,000 and to the entry of an amended judgment in accordance therewith. If plaintiff, Andreas T. Manolas, so stipulates, the judgment, as so amended and reduced, is affirmed without costs and disbursements.

Plaintiff was injured following an altercation at defendant’s adult entertainment business. The jury determined, *inter alia,*that defendant’s employees pushed plaintiff through a window, causing physical injury, but that they were not acting within the scope of their employment when they caused plaintiff’s injuries. It was also determined that defendant maliciously prosecuted plaintiff, and that plaintiff sustained $2,500 in compensatory damages and $200,000 in punitive damages as a result.

*317After trial, defendant moved to set aside the punitive damage award as grossly excessive. The trial court, determining that the award was not so grossly excessive as to be a result of the jury’s passion *(Nardelli v Stamberg,*44 NY2d 500), declined to exercise its discretion to interfere with the award. We disagree. The jury awarded punitive damages in an amount almost eighty times that awarded for compensatory damages. It further appears that the amount of punitive damages was actuated by the jury’s passion as a result of plaintiffs ' attorney’s improper and prejudicial comments throughout the trial. Indeed, plaintiffs counsel incited the jury’s passion by attempting to try this case as one against the entire adult entertainment industry, and not merely against defendant.

Although plaintiff claims that defendant’s employees were acting within the scope of their employment as a matter of law, he never moved for a directed verdict on this issue and thus conceded that it presented a question for the jury. *(Miller v Miller,*68 NY2d 871; *Riviello v Waldron,*47 NY2d 297, 303.) The record reveals that the jury’s conclusion with regard to "scope of employment” was rational. *(See, Quadrozzi v Norcem, Inc.,*125 AD 559.)

We have considered the remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

      ( print page 15395)    
                    Notice is hereby given that, on February 23, 2012, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Southwest Research Institute—Cooperative Research Group on Mechanical Stratigraphy and Natural Deformation in Eagle Ford Formation and Equivalent Boquillas Formation, South-Central and West Texas (“Eagle Ford”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the parties to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: Hess Corporation, Houston, TX; Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Oklahoma City, OK; Newfield Exploration Co., The Woodlands, TX; and ConocoPhillips Company, Houston, TX. The general area of Eagle Ford's planned activity is to understand mechanical stratigraphy and natural deformation in Eagle Ford Formation and equivalent Boquillas Formation in South-Central and West Texas.

Patricia A. Brink,

Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2012-6282 Filed 3-14-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 23, 2017

p0522

Order 

Clerk

May 23, 2017

155433 & (13)(14)(15)(19)(20)(23)

(30)(34)(37)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 155433

COA: 336184

Kalamazoo CC: 2015-000503-FH

LANCE ADAM GOLDMAN,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the motions for immediate consideration, the motion to add 

new issues, and the motion for leave to supplement are GRANTED. The application for 

leave to appeal the February 10, 2017 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it 

is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be 

reviewed by this Court. The motion to expand the record and remaining motions for 

miscellaneous relief are DENIED.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-2368

TONY TYSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus LOUIS CALDERA, Secretary of the Army, The Pentagon, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (CA-00-411-2) Submitted: May 15, 2001 Decided: May 25, 2001 Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kenneth Michael Robinson, Cameron Robinson Kourtesis, Washington, D.C.; Sol Z. Rosen, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Lawrence R. Leonard, Managing Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Tony Tyson appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Louis Caldera, Secretary, Department of the Army, in his employment discrimination action because Tyson failed to timely file an Equal Employment Opportunity charge. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Tyson v. Caldera , No. CA-00-411-2 (E.D. Va. Oct. 10, 2000); see 29 C.F.R. § 1614, 105(a); Young v. National Ctr. for Health Serv. Research , 828 F.2d 235, 237 (4th Cir. 1987). We deny Tyson’s motion to stay this appeal pending resolution of a complaint pending with the District of Columbia Office of Bar Counsel. Wegrant Tyson’s counsel’s motion to withdraw from further representation. 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
#### Dr. Charles WASSERMAN and Leopold Mendler v. CHEVRON U.S.A., INC. and Custom Waterproofing and Roofing, Inc.

No. 89-C-0887.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 19, 1989.

In re Chevron U.S.A. Inc.; — Defendants); applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, No. 88-CA-0431; Parish of Jefferson, 24th Judicial District Court, Div. “G”, No. 342-624.

Prior report: La.App., 540 So.2d 585.

Denied.

CALOGERO, J., would grant the writ.
EXHIBIT 10.8

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT

THIS AMENDMENT,made this 31st day of January, 2001 ("Effective Date"), by and between APAC Customer
Services, Inc. (the "Company") and Peter M. Leger (the "Executive").

WHEREAS,the Company and the Executive have entered into a written Employment agreement effective as of September 21, 1999
("Employment Agreement");

WHEREAS,the parties desire to amend the Employment Agreement to (1) eliminate the Executive's right to participate in certain
plans, programs or perquisites, (2) eliminate one of the events with respect to which the Company may terminate the Executive's employment, and (3) increase the severance payable by the
Company to the Executive in certain events; provided that the Company and the Executive execute the attached Nonqualified Stock Options (the "Option Agreements") to reflect the option grant previously
made to the Executive; and

WHEREAS,the Company has agreed to make a payment to the Executive of $200,000;

NOW, THEREFORE,in consideration of the foregoing and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which the
Company and the Executive hereby acknowledge, the Company and the Executive agree as follows:





1

---



Location

Cross-ReferenceSection III

To "VIII.A-C"; From "III.A-D"Section IV.C(1)

To "VIII.A-B"; From "VIII.A-C"Section XVIII

To "VIII.F(3)"; From "VIII.G(4)"








*  *  *

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,this document has been executed by the Executive and on behalf of the Company this 31st day of January, 2001.

| | /s/PETER M. LEGERPeter M. Leger
| | -------------------------------
| | APAC CUSTOMER SERVICES, INC.   
| | By:                            
| | Its:                           

2

---
#### Thomas J. Leftwich *vs.*J. W. Day and another.

December 2, 1884.

Malicious Prosecution — Verdict Sufficiently Certain. — In an action for damages for malicious prosecution, the complaint alleging that plaintiff had incurred an expense of $150 in his defence thereto, and had been subjected to anguish of mind and mortification to his further damage, the-jury found the following verdict: “We, the jury in the above-entitled cause, find for the plaintiff $150. Damage, one cent.” *Held,*sufficiently certain to sustain a judgment thereon for plaintiff for $150.

Verdict as recorded Controls. — The form of the verdict as recorded by the clerk must control, it being that to which the jury presumably finally assented as their verdict.

Appeal by defendants from a judgment of the district court for Hennepin county, *Lochren,*J., presiding.

*Woolley d Reecl,*for appellants.

*Davenport & Tiñan*and *Wilson d Lawrence,*for respondent.

Mitchell, J.

This was an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution. The complaint alleges that by reason of this malicious prosecution the plaintiff had incurred an expenditure of $150 in his defence, and had been subjected to great annoyance, anguish of mind, and mortification, and then prays judgment for $10,150 damages. The jury found the following verdict: “We, the jury in the above-entitled cause, find for the plaintiff $150. Damage, one cent.”

Verdicts are to have a reasonable intendment, and to receive a reasonable construction, and are not to be avoided unless for necessity. However informal, a verdict is good if the finding of the matter in issue may be concluded from it, and the court can clearly understand it. Hilliard on New Trials, 133, 134; *Pettes*v. *Bingham,*10 N. H. 514. We think it sufficiently appears from the verdict that the jury awarded the plaintiff $150.01 damages; probably allowing him the $150 on account of his expense in defending himself from the malicious prosecution, and the one cent for his anguish of mind and mortification. But it certainly appears clearly that they awarded him $150, even if we reject the remainder of the verdict as superfluous. *513It follows that the verdict sustains the judgment, and consequently the clerk’s taxation of costs.

It is suggested that the usual dollar-mark found in the recorded verdict was not contained in the written verdict brought into court by the jury. The form of the verdict as recorded must govern. It is to the verdict as recorded by the clerk that the jury presumably assented.

Judgment affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2221 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2221

  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on camel hair, carded or 
                                combed.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

Mr. Lieberman (for himself and Mr. Dodd) introduced the following bill; 
     which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To extend the temporary suspension of duty on camel hair, carded or 
                                combed.

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

SECTION 1. CAMEL HAIR, CARDED OR COMBED.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.12.22 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to camel hair, carded or 
combed) is amended by striking ``12/31/2009'' and inserting ``12/31/
2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

In connection with the report of Razor Resources Inc. (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarter endingJanuary 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,Jordan Welsh, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Sect 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sect 1350), 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. 

 

/s/ Jordan Welsh                                    

Jordan Welsh, 

Chief Executive Officer

Dated: March 14, 2007
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23





                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


      We consent to incorporation by reference in the prospectus included in
Form S-8 Registration Statement (No. 33-63903) and the prospectus included in
Form S-8 Registration Statement (No. 333-03109) of our report, dated February
26, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Pharmacia &
Upjohn, Inc. and its subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and 1995 and for the
years ended December 31, 1996, 1995 and 1994, included or incorporated by
reference into this Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1996 of
Pharmacia & Upjohn, Inc.





COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.


Chicago, Illinois
March 28, 1997
## COURT OF APPEALS

SANDEE BRYAN MARION

CHIEF JUSTICE

KAREN ANGELINI

MARIALYN BARNARD

REBECA C. MARTINEZ

PATRICIA O. ALVAREZ

LUZ ELENA D. CHAPA

JASON PULLIAM

JUSTICES FOURTH COURT OF APPE ALS DISTRICT

CADENA

- REEVES JUSTICE CENTE R

300 DOLOROSA, SUIT E 3200

SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 7 8205

- 3037

WWW.TXCOURTS.GOV/4TH COA.ASPX KEITH E. HOTTLE

CLERK OF COURT

TELEPHONE

(210) 335

- 2635

FACSIMILE NO.

(210) 335

- 2762

August 5, 2015

Frank Y. Hill Jr.

Attorney At Law

P.O. Box 387

Boerne, TX 78006

* DELIV ERED VIA E

- MAIL * Steven A. Wadsworth

Assistant District Attorney

-

216th Judicial District

200 Earl Garrett St., Suite 202

Kerrville, TX 78028

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

RE: Court of Appeals Number: 04

- 14

- 00783

- CR

Trial Court Case Number: 5442

Style: Joseph Thomas Gabay v. The State of Texas

Dear Counsel:

The above cause has been set for formal submission ON BRIEFS ONLY before this

Court on Tuesday, September 8, 2015

, before a panel consisting of Justice Rebeca C. Martinez,

Justice Patricia O. Al va rez, and Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa

.

Very truly yours,

KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK

____________________________ Cynthia A. Martinez

Deputy Clerk, Ext. 53853
# Un ited S tates C ourt of A ppea ls For the Seventh Ci rcui

t Chicago, Illinois 60604 May 21, 2002
Before Ho n. Joe l M. Flau m , Chief Judge Ho n. Joh n L . Co ffe

y, Circuit Judge Ho n. D ani el

A. Man io n, Circuit Judge
No. 00-3 242 Rene Rodriguez, Pe titione r-App ellant

, v. Un ite d St ate s o f A m eri ca, Respond ent-Appel lee
. Appe al from the Un ite d States Dist rict Cour t for the Ea ster n Distr ict of Wisconsin No. 97 C 426 Th om as J. Cu

rr an , Judge
.

O R D E R The o pin ion o f thi s court i ssued

on April 11, 2002 is ame

nd ed as follows: A foo tno te i s adde

d at th e e nd of th e c arryove

r paragraph at the

top o f p.13 of the slip op inion, to r ead: Rodrig uez's Appre

ndi claim do es n ot be ne fit f rom our recent decis ion

in Ashley v

. United States, 266 F.3 d 671 (7th Cir. 200 1), where we he ld that the one-year s ta tut e of limitat ions in §22 55 does not app ly to Appre ndi claims b rou ght in initia l motions for co llate ral rev ie w. Rod rigue z’s Apprendi

claim is no t an in itial mo tion for co llate

ral rev ie w as i t was raised

in post -judgmen

t motion to amen

d his in iti al claim wh ich t he di stri ct c ou

rt d en ied i n a p rop er ex erc ise

of di scre tio n. Ashley does not apply in thi s case bec ause Rod

rigue z’s Appre ndi claim is a successi ve col lateral attack trigge

ring A EDPA’s gat e- keep in g f un cti on s. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255, ¶ 8.1. Petitio ne r-A pp ellant filed a pet ition for rehear ing en banc on Ap ril 25, 2 002. No

judge in re gu lar act ive service ha s r equested a vote on the petition for rehear ing en banc , a nd all of t he judges on the panel ha ve voted to d en y reh earing . The pe

tition is the refore DENIED.