alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-20106

__________________
SHIRLEY CLARK LA BLANCHE and GEORGE DERRELL LA BLANCHE, Petitioners-Appellants,

versus WILLIAM T. HARMON, Judge, Respondent-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 95-MC-26

- - - - - - - - - - September 15, 1995 Before JOLLY, DAVIS and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * IT IS ORDERED that the appellants' motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED, because their appeal from the denial of mandamus relief lacks arguable merit and is therefore frivolous. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2. AppellantsNo. 95-20106 -2- are warned that the filing of future frivolous appeals will result in sanctions against them. The appellants were named the defendants in a felony case filed in a Texas state court. The trial judge and a state appellate court denied their applications for the judge's recusal. Appellants then sought to achieve that result by filing a petition for mandamus in the United States district court. They now request the appointment of counsel to represent them on appeal. "[A] federal court lacks the general power to issue writs of mandamus to direct state courts and their judicial officers in the performance of their duties where [as in this case] mandamus is the only relief sought." Moye v. Clerk, DeKalb County Superior Court , 474 F.2d 1275, 1276 (5th Cir. 1973). In Howell v. Supreme Court of Texas , 885 F.2d 308, 309-13 (5th Cir. 1989), cert. denied , 496 U.S. 936 (1990), this court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to review Texas Supreme Court justices' refusal to recuse or disqualify themselves in a state court civil proceeding. Accordingly, this appeal is frivolous as a matter of law.
MOTION FOR COUNSEL DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED.
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            
            
            U.S. Air Force
                    U.S. Air Force
        Search
                    Search AF.mil:
                        Search
                Search AF.mil:
                    Search
    News
    
        Commentaries

    Features

    Photos

    Art

    Air Force TV

    Radio

    Week in Photos

    Coronavirus Disease 2019

    Air Force Art Collection





    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Adjunct Professors

    Fact Sheets

    Commander's Call Topics    
        CCT Archive

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    The Book

    Speeches Archive    
        Former AF Top 3 Viewpoints and Speeches

    Air Force Warrior Games 2019

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    DoD Warrior Games

    Portraits in Courage    
        Portraits In Courage Vol. I

    Portraits In Courage Vol. II

    Portraits In Courage Vol. III

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IV

    Portraits In Courage Vol. V

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VI

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VIII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IX

    Portraits In Courage Vol. X

    Chapman MoH

    The Air Force We Need

    Events 2021

    Focus on Priorities

    Empowered Airmen

    State Licensure Portability

    CSAF Leadership Library    
        CSAF Leadership Library Bookshelf

    2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List





    AF Sites
    
        Social Media Sites

    Site Registration





    AF Content Management





    Careers





    Contact Us  
 Home
  News
  Photos
 Air Force Photos Search
 Search
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Full Size (1.15 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 Quick Links
                            Join the Air ForceSite MapQuestionsContact UsRSSFOIAIGAF SitesAccessibilityEEOLink DisclaimerStrategic APRSuicide PreventionSAPRUSA.govNo FEAR ActOSI Tip Line
                    Connect
                    Official United States Air Force Website
                        Subscribe to USAF News and Information
          Submit
<PAGE>







                                  Exhibit 3.2
  First Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation of InterWest Bancorp, Inc.









<PAGE>

                FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION
                           OF INTERWEST BANCORP, INC.



         Articles of Amendment of the Articles of Incorporation of InterWest
Bancorp, Inc., a Washington corporation (the "corporation"), are hereby executed
by the corporation pursuant to the provisions of Title 23B RCW, Title 32 RCW,
and the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the corporation as follows:

         NAME OF THE CORPORATION.
         The name of the corporation is InterWest Bancorp, Inc.

         AMENDMENT.

         The following amendment has been adopted by the corporation:

         ARTICLE IV.

         ARTICLE IV is amended to read as follows:

         ARTICLE IV. CAPITAL STOCK. The total number of shares of all classes of
capital stock which the corporation has authority to issue is 30,000,000 shares
of common stock of no par value. The consideration for the issuance of any such
shares shall be paid in full before their issuance, which consideration shall be
determined by the Board of Directors, subject only to any limitations imposed by
law at the time of such issuance. Upon payment of such consideration in exchange
for which the Board of Directors has authorized the issuance of any such shares,
the shares issued shall be fully paid and nonassessable. Upon authorization by
the Board of Directors, the corporation may issue its own shares in exchange for
or in conversion of its outstanding shares or distribute its own shares, pro
rata to its shareholders or the shareholders of one or more classes or series,
to effectuate stock dividends or splits, and any such transaction shall not
require consideration.

         The holders of the common stock shall exclusively possess all voting
power. Each holder of shares of common stock shall be entitled to one vote for
each share held by such holder, and there shall be no right to cumulate votes
for the election of directors or for any other purpose. Each share of common
stock shall have the same relative rights as and be identical in all respects
with all the other shares of common stock.

<PAGE>

         The foregoing amendment was adopted by more than a majority vote of a
quorum of the Board of Directors of the corporation, without shareholder action,
at a regular board meeting held on July 21, 1996, at which a quorum was present
and voting. Shareholder action was not required under RCW 23B.10.020(1) and (4),
RCW 32.32.490(2)(a) and (c), and the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the
corporation.


         DATED this 21st day of July, 1998.




                                               /s/ B.R. Beeksma
                                               -----------------------------
                                               B.R. Beeksma, Chairman

Attested by:







/s/ Margaret Mordhorst
-----------------------------
Margaret Mordhorst, Secretary
#### George J. CONDAS and Mary Condas Lehmer, Trustee in Trust, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Ray H. WILLESEN and Faye L. Willesen, his wife, Defendants and Respondents.

No. 18414.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Nov. 15, 1983.

J. Lade Heaton, Salt Lake City, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Allen H. Tibbals, Salt Lake City, for defendants and respondents.

DURHAM, Justice:

This is an appeal from the denial of a motion to set aside a summary judgment quieting title to real property in the respondents. We affirm.

The following material facts are not disputed by the parties. The appellants and respondents own land in Salt Lake County, which until 1980 was separated by a 33-foot strip of land. The 33-foot strip had been dedicated as a street (St. Johns Street) in 1908 by respondents’ predecessors in interest. The street was never actually built, and Salt Lake County passed an ordinance vacating its ownership of the property in 1980. From approximately 1929 until 1979, a fence was located along the eastern edge of St. Johns Street. Appellants and their predecessors in interest occupied the land west of the fence, including St. Johns Street itself, and respondents and their predecessors in interest occupied the land east of the fence.

The appellants contend that they have acquired equitable title to the disputed strip of property under the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence. From at least 1929 until 1979, they or their predecessors in interest occupied and used the property in question. The undisputed facts show that St. Johns Street separated the property owned by appellants from that owned by respondents throughout the period during which appellants claim to have established a boundary by acquiescence. During that period of time, Salt Lake County was the fee simple owner of the dedicated property. U.C.A., 1953, § 57-5-4. It is therefore obvious that one of the essential requirements of the doctrine of boundary by acquiescence — that the parties be “adjoining” landowners — has not been met in this case. “Without contiguity there can be no boundary by acquiescence.” *Smith v. DeNiro,*25 Utah 2d 295, 296, 480 P.2d 480, 481 (1971) (footnote omitted). Appellants’ contentions therefore fail, and the judgment of the district court was correct.

Pursuant to U.C.A., 1953, § 27-12-102.5, the vacation of a county road “operate[s] ... as a revocation of the acceptance thereof.” The parties have both assumed in this appeal that, since respondents’ predecessors in interest originally dedicated all of the property for St. Johns Street, the county’s revocation of acceptance results in a reversion of the entire strip to respondents if a boundary by acquiescence cannot be shown. No issue respecting this assumption is raised on appeal, and we therefore make no *116ruling regarding it. The summary judgment of the trial court quieting title to the entire 33 feet, formerly St. Johns Street, in respondents is affirmed in its entirety. Costs to respondents.

HALL, C.J., and OAKS, STEWART and HOWE, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 31.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


I, Jon Suk, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Mystica Candle
     Corp.;

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 period presented in this
     quarterly report;

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
9th day of February, 2006.


/s/ Jon Suk
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
Affirm and Opinion Filed March 7, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00309-CR 

KADE BRIAN LANDERS, Appellant 

V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 59th Judicial District Court 

Grayson County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 072955 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Miskel 

Opinion by Justice Miskel 

Kade Brian Landers appeals his conviction for sexual assault of a child. See

TEX. PENAL CODE 22.011(a)(2)(A). Landers pleaded guilty, and the trial court 

assessed a twenty-year sentence. 

Appointed counsel filed a motion to withdraw and a brief under Anders v. 

California in which he stated that after thorough review, he has found no grounds 

for appeal with potential merit. 386 U.S. 738, 744–45 (1967). Counsel’s brief and 

motion meet the requirements of Anders by presenting a professional evaluation of 
 –2– 

the record demonstrating why there are no arguable grounds for relief. See Stafford 

v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 510 n.3 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). 

In compliance with Kelly v. State, counsel (1) notified Landers of his motion 

to withdraw, (2) provided him a copy of the motion and the brief, (3) informed him 

of his right to file a pro se response, (4) informed him of his right to seek 

discretionary review should this court hold the appeal frivolous, and (5) took 

concrete measures to facilitate his review of the appellate record. See 436 S.W.3d 

313, 319 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). This court afforded Landers the opportunity to 

file a response, but he did not do so. 

After appointed counsel files a motion to withdraw on the ground that an 

appeal is frivolous, we are obligated to undertake an independent examination of the 

record to determine whether there is any arguable ground that may be raised. See 

Stafford, 813 S.W.2d at 511. Only then may we grant counsel’s motion to withdraw. 

See Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 82–83 (1988). 

After review, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. We find 

nothing in the record that might arguably support an appeal. 

 
 –3– 

We grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm the judgment. 

Do Not Publish 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b) 

220309F.U05 

 

/Emily Miskel/

EMILY MISKEL 

JUSTICE 
 –4– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

KADE BRIAN LANDERS, 

Appellant 

No. 05-22-00309-CR V. 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 59th Judicial 

District Court, Grayson County, 

Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 072955. 

Opinion delivered by Justice Miskel. 

Justices Molberg and Pedersen, III 

participating. 

 Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. 

Judgment entered this 7th day of March, 2023.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

MATTHEW C. COTTEN,

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 13

- 00053

- CR

Appeal from the

432nd Criminal District Court

of Tarrant County, Texas

(TC# 1227020D )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.
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 Income Opportunity
Realty Investors, Inc. (the Company), on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Daniel J. Moos, President and
Chief Executive Officer of the Company (Principal Executive Officer) and Gene S. Bertcher, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



|               |  |                                                                                                                   
|-------------- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|March 31, 2011 |  | /s/    DANIEL J.
MOOS                                                                                             
|               |  | Daniel J. Moos President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive
Officer)                                
|               | 
|March 31, 2011 |  | /s/    GENE S.
BERTCHER                                                                                           
|               |  | Gene S. Bertcher Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
OFPICE OF AIR AND RADIATION

David Moody, Ph.D., Manager Carlsbad Field Office U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 3090 Carlsbad. NM 88221-3090

Dear Dr. 1Vloody:

On December 8, 2006, the Department of Energy (DOE), Carlsbad Field Office (CBFO) requested the Environmentai Proteetion Ageney's (EPA) approval of a Super High Efficiency Neutron Counter (SuperHENC), non-destructive assay (NDA) system, for contact-handled (CH) transuranic waste used by the Central Characteriz.ation Project (CCP) at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL).

In the baseline inspeetion report (Docket no. A-98-49;1I-A4-59), EPA identified the addition of a new NDA system as a Tier 1 ehange, which requires EPA approval prior iniplementation. Aecording to the requirements of 40 CFR 194.8 (b), DOE appropriately requested approval of the SuperHENC for CH waste as a Tier I change to the iNL-CCP CH baseline approval.

EPA conducted an on-site evaluation of the INL-CCP SuperHENC system on January 23- 24, 2007. EPA's inspection of the SuperHENC included an examination of the procedures, a review of the calibration records, a demonstration of the SuperHENC, replicate measurements run at EPA's request, and an examination of Batch Data Reports (BDR) for the SuperHENC. EPA's inspection did not identify any findings or concerns requiring a response related to the use of the SuperHENC for the characterization of CH transuranic waste components. EPA's inspection report for the SuperHENC is enclosed and wi11 be placed in the Agency's public docket.

EPA has determined that the SuperHENC system used by INL•CCP is adequate for the characterization at IN -CCP. This approvai does not niake any changes to the tiering table provided with the baseline approval. Changes to the approved components of the SuperHENC system at INL-CCP, must follow the tiering requirements described in the baseline inspection report issued for the INL-CCP CH program (Doeket no. A-98-49; II-A4-59, Dated November 1, 2005).

Iniernet Address (UR!) e httpY/www.epa.gov

ReoyciediReoyalabie 0 Printed wlth Vegetable Oit Based Inks on 100 % Posteonsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled PaperIf you have any questions regarding this approval, please contact Ed Feltcorn at

(202) 343-9422 or Rajani Joglekar at (202) 343-9462.

Enclosures

cc: Electronic Distribution Frank Marcinowski, DOE HQ Lloyd Piper, CBFO Vernon Daub, CBFO Ava Holland, CBFO Courtland Fesmire, CBFO Norma Castaneda, CBFO Martin Navarrete, CBFO Dennis Miehls, CBFO Allison Pangle, CTAC Wayne Ledford, CTAC
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

ALMONDNET, INC., 

Appellant

v.

META PLATFORMS, INC., AMAZON.COM, INC., 

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., AMAZON.COM 

SERVICES LLC, 

Appellees

______________________

2024-1427

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark 

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2022-

01064.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. 

P. 42 (b).

Case: 24-1427 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 07/15/2024
2 ALMONDNET, INC. V. META PLATFORMS, INC.

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

July 15, 2024

Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: July 15, 2024

Case: 24-1427 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 07/15/2024
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Francis C. EVERAGE.

No. 88-KK-3009.

Supreme Court of Louisiana

May 19, 1989.

In re Everage, Francis C; applying for reconsideration of writ denial of January 27, 1989, 536 So.2d 1253; to the 24th Judicial District Court; No. 79-2422; Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal, No. 88-KW-0828, Parish of Jefferson, Div. B.

*1387Not considered. See Rule 9, Section 6 of Supreme Court Rules.

DENNIS, J., would grant the reconsideration.