alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO. 12-19-00300-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: JOHN DOGGETT, M.D., 

INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR OF THE 

ESTATE OF JERRY LLOYD 

DOGGETT,

RELATOR

§

§

§

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

Relator, John Doggett, M.D., independent executor of the Estate of Jerry Lloyd Doggett, 

filed this original proceeding seeking a writ of mandamus directing Respondent to vacate an order 

signed on March 7, 2019. Because Respondent signed the order outside her plenary power and 

the order materially changed substantive adjudicative portions of a 2016 judgment, on November 

13, this Court conditionally granted Relator’s petition and directed Respondent, the Honorable 

Janice Stone of the County Court at Law in Cherokee County, Texas, to vacate the 2019 order. 

See In re Doggett, No. 12-19-00300-CV, 2019 WL 5956676 (Tex. App.—Tyler Nov. 13, 2019, 

orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). By an order signed on November 14, Respondent complied with 

this Court’s opinion and order, rendering this proceeding moot. Accordingly, we dismiss Relator’s 

petition for writ of mandamus as moot. 

Opinion delivered November 27, 2019.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J.

(PUBLISH)
COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

NOVEMBER 27, 2019

NO. 12-19-00300-CV

JOHN DOGGETT, M.D., INDEPENDENT EXECUTOR

OF THE ESTATE OF JERRY LLOYD DOGGETT,

Relator

V.

HON. JANICE STONE,

Respondent

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ON THIS DAY came to be heard the petition for writ of mandamus filed by John 

Doggett, M.D., Independent Executor of the Estate of Jerry Lloyd Doggett; who is the relator in 

appellate cause number 12-19-00300-CV and a party in trial court cause number 10698, pending 

on the docket of the County Court at Law of Cherokee County, Texas. Said petition for writ of 

mandamus having been filed herein on September 4, 2019, and the same having been duly 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the writ should not issue, it is therefore 

CONSIDERED, ADJUDGED and ORDERED that the said petition for writ of mandamus be, and 

the same is, hereby dismissed as moot.

By per curiam opinion.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS



The Board of Directors
NYMAGIC, INC.:


We consent  to  incorporation  by  reference  in  registration  statements  (No.
33-10780, 2-94924 and 33-88342) on Form S-8 of NYMAGIC, INC. of our report dated
February 17, 1998 relating to the consolidated  balance sheets of NYMAGIC,  INC.
and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related  consolidated
statements of income,  shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the years
in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, and related  schedules,  which
report  appears in the December 31, 1997 Annual  Report on Form 10-K of NYMAGIC,
INC.




KPMG Peat Marwick LLP
New York, New York
March 30, 1998
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 146 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.146
                                          Agreed to May 26, 2001        

                      One Hundred Seventh Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
             the third day of January, two thousand and one

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That when the House adjourns on the legislative day of Friday, May 25, 
2001, or Saturday, May 26, 2001, on a motion offered pursuant to this 
concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader or his designee, it stand 
adjourned until 2 p.m. on Tuesday, June 5, 2001, or until noon on the 
second day after Members are notified to reassemble pursuant to section 
2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and that when 
the Senate recesses or adjourns at the close of business on Saturday, 
May 26, 2001, Sunday, May 27, 2001, or Tuesday, May 29, 2001, on a 
motion offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority 
Leader or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until noon on 
Tuesday, June 5, 2001, or until such time on that day as may be 
specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to 
recess or adjourn, or until noon on the second day after Members are 
notified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader of the 
Senate, acting jointly after consultation with the Minority Leader of 
the House and the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify the 
Members of the House and the Senate, respectively, to reassemble 
whenever, in their opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
  Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

  Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, David J. Keefe, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 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 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 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 registrants 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 the 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.



|                        |  |                                     
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------
|Date: November 14, 2005
|                        | 
|By:                     |  | /s/    DAVID J. KEEFE               
|                        |  | David J. Keefe                      
|                        |  | Chief Executive Officer and Director
#### STATE ex rel. Rose Mary KELLY v. Hon. Judge Miriam G. WALTZER, Criminal District Court, Sec. “A”.

No. 87-KH-0153.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 6, 1987.

In re Kelly, Rose Mary; applying for writ of mandamus; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “A,” Nos. 283-859, 283-933, 283-938.

Granted. The trial court is ordered to furnish relator copies of his *Boykin*transcripts in 283-859A, 283-933A, and 283-938A.
**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

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of American Patriot Financial Group, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Jerry A. Simmerly, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and ExchangeAct of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
|   | /s/ Jerry A. Simmerly   |
|--------|-------------------------|
|   | Jerry A. Simmerly       |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |
|   | August 14, 2008    |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 63 (Monday, April 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 19678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7825]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of General Medical Sciences; Notice of Closed 
Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of General Medical 
Sciences Special Emphasis Panel; NIH Loan Repayment Program for 
Clinical and Pediatric Research.
    Date: April 27, 2012.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Natcher Building, 45 
Center Drive Room 3An18B, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Margaret J. Weidman, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of General 
Medical Sciences, National Institutes of Health, 45 Center Drive 
Room 3An18B, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-594-3663, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2e594b474a434f40434f6e404749435d0040474600494158"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="ccbba9a5a8a1ada2a1ad8ca2a5aba1bfe2a2a5a4e2aba3ba">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.375, 
Minority Biomedical Research Support; 93.821, Cell Biology and 
Biophysics Research; 93.859, Pharmacology, Physiology, and 
Biological Chemistry Research; 93.862, Genetics and Developmental 
Biology Research; 93.88, Minority Access to Research Careers; 93.96, 
Special Minority Initiatives, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: March 27, 2012.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-7825 Filed 3-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IV

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 152

Encouraging States bordering the Great Lakes, and the Canadian Province

of Ontario to prohibit off-shore drilling in the Great Lakes for oil

and gas, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JUNE 5, 2001

Mr. ROGERS of Michigan submitted the following concurrent resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on Resources, and in addition to the Committee on International Relations, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Encouraging States bordering the Great Lakes, and the Canadian Province of Ontario to prohibit off-shore drilling

in the Great Lakes for oil and gas, and for other purposes.

Whereas the water resources of the Great Lakes Basin are

precious public natural resources, shared and held in

trust by the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin,

and the Canadian Province of Ontario;

Whereas the environmental dangers associated with off-shore

drilling in the Great Lakes for oil and gas outweigh the

potential benefits of such drilling;
2

•HCON 152 IH

Whereas in accordance with the Submerged Lands Act (43

U.S.C. 1301 et seq.), each State that borders any of the

Great Lakes has authority over the area between that

State’s coastline and the boundary of Canada or another

State;

Whereas the States of Illinois, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin each have a statutory prohibition of

off-shore drilling in the Great Lakes for oil and gas;

Whereas the States of Indiana, Minnesota, and Ohio do not

have such a prohibition; and

Whereas the Canadian Province of Ontario does not have

such a prohibition, and drilling for and production of gas

occurs in the Canadian portion of Lake Erie: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That the Congress encourages—

3 (1) the States of Illinois, Michigan, New York,

4 Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to continue to prohibit

5 off-shore drilling in the Great Lakes for oil and gas;

6 (2) the States of Indiana, Minnesota, and Ohio

7 and the Canadian Province of Ontario to enact a

8 prohibition of such drilling; and

9 (3) the Canadian Province of Ontario to require

10 the cessation of any such drilling and any production

11 resulting from such drilling.

Æ
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-22-00015-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-005622-1

Before Sudderth, CJ.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

LAVELL FAIRBANKS, Appellant

V.

HILLCREST APARTMENTS, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant’s brief was due May 5, 2022, but he did not file a brief. See Tex. R. 

App. P. 38.6(a). On June 6, 2022, we notified Appellant that his brief had not been 

filed, and we warned that we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, 

within ten days, Appellant filed a brief along with an accompanying motion 

reasonably explaining the brief’s untimeliness. See Tex. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 

42.3(b). More than ten days have passed, but we have not received a response.

Because Appellant has failed to file a brief as the Rules of Appellate Procedure 

require, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 

42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: July 21, 2022
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 22-0082

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

JOSHUA JAMES HOWELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including November 21, 2022, within which to prepare, 

file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 13 2022

10/13/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0082
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Juan Carlos Alvarez

- Ramirez , Appellant

No. 06

- 23

- 00204

- CR v.
The State of Texas , Appellee Appeal from the 290th District Court of Bexar County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 2022CR9625 ). Panel consists of Chief Justice Stevens and Justices van Cleef and Rambin. Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice van Cleef

.

As stated in the Court’s opi nion of this date, we find there was partial error in the judgment s of the court below. Therefore, we modify (1) the j udgment as to c ount II to reflect “22.011(a)(2)(B) PC” as the “ Statute for Offense, ” (2) the judgment as to c ount III to reflect “22.011(a)(2)(A) PC” as the “ Statute for Offense, ” and (3) the judgment as to c ount IV to reflect “43.25(b) PC” as the “ Statute for Offense ” and “2 nd degree felony” as the “ Degree of Offense. ”

W e affirm the trial court’s judgment as to c ount I , without modification, and we affirm the judgments as to counts II, III, and IV, as modified

. We further order that the appellant, Juan Carlos Alvarez

- Ramirez , pay all costs of this appeal.

RENDERED JULY 24, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE COURT SCOTT E. STEVENS CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
Regulatory Evaluation 

Docket No. FAA- cJ,o 1£" -1~fo Directorate Identifier: 

(lyou make chongl!s 10 1he values in the !able helmr. you must ensure the LOIO!s update ccording~v. !( 

they do not. click (or Tah) into am/then oul ofthe changed cell. 

Estimated Costs: 

Action Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance) (e.g., Inspection, Work-hours Labor Parts Cost Total Costs Number of Total Cost replacement) (include cost (labor + u.s. for U.S. Fleet Do not include oncondition costs here access, testing, (@$85/h parts) Registered 

and close-up) our) Products 

Crack inspection on 

the front face of the 

third stage turbine 5.0 $0 9 

wheel between two 

balancing plugs 

The known number of products in com_Qliance: 

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $3,825 

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $ 

On-Condition Costs: 

Action Work-hours Labor cost Parts Cost Cost per Product 

(include access, (@$85/hour) (e.g., Inspection, testing, and close- replacement) up) 
Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs): 

Executive Order 12866: 

Could the AD be considered a "significant regulatory action"? 0 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures: 

fs the AD significant? ~ 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act: 

YES* D NO~ 

YES*0 NO~ 

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer. ~ 

YES O NO~ 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska: 

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? ~ 

YES*0 NO~ 

*Explanation:
* 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. 95-40070 Conference Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus EARL JOSEPH HINES, JR., Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:94-CR-99-3

- - - - - - - - - - August 22, 1995 Before KING, JOLLY, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *Earl Joseph Hines, Jr., challenges the district court's twolevel upward adjustment for obstruction of justice. He argues that his failure to advise law enforcement officers and the probation officer that he had given a codefendant money to buy drugs was not material to the offense, that this omission did not impede the investigation of the case, and that the GovernmentNo. 95-40070 -2- failed to prove that he intended to impede the administration of justice. A district court's finding that a defendant has obstructed justice under § 3C1.1 is a factual finding reviewed for clear

error. United States v. Storm , 36 F.3d 1289, 1295 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1798 (1995). "Section 3C1.1 provides for the enhancement of a defendant's offense level `[i]f the defendant willfully obstructed or impeded, or attempted to obstruct or impede, the administration of justice during the investigation, prosecution, or sentencing of the instant offense.'" United States v. Cabral-Castillo , 35 F.3d 182, 186 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1157 (1995). The adjustment may be appropriate when the defendant provides materially false information to a probation officer. § 3C1.1, comment. n.3(h). Material evidence, as used within § 3C1.1, means evidence that " if believed , would tend to influence or affect the issue under determination." § 3C1.1, comment. (n.5)(emphasis added). Contrary to Hines' argument, his statements to the probation officer directly affected an issue under determination: the role of each defendant and their respective guideline calculations. Hines' repeated attempts to minimize his role in the offense demonstrate that he made the statements willfully. The district court did not clearly err in increasing Hines' offense level for obstruction of justice. Accordingly, the district court's judgment is AFFIRMED.