alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-18-00535-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN RE JESUS RODRIGUEZ AGUERO, M.D., DECEASED

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Rodriguez, Contreras, and Benavides

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Contreras1

Relator Jesus Rodriguez Aguero, M.D., deceased, filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus in the above cause on September 25, 2018. Through this original proceeding, 

relator seeks to compel the trial court to vacate its “Order Transferring Proceeding to a 

Statutory Probate Court Pursuant to Section 34.001 of the Texas Estates Code.” See 

TEX. EST. CODE ANN. § 34.001 (West, Westlaw through 2017 1st C.S.). We deny relief.

To obtain relief by writ of mandamus, a relator must establish that an underlying 

order is void or a clear abuse of discretion and that no adequate appellate remedy exists. 

 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); TEX.

R. APP. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016) (orig. proceeding); In 

re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding); 

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839–40 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). An abuse of 

discretion occurs when a trial court’s ruling is arbitrary and unreasonable or is made 

without regard for guiding legal principles or supporting evidence. In re Nationwide Ins. 

Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d at 712; Ford Motor Co. v. Garcia, 363 S.W.3d 573, 578 (Tex. 

2012). We determine the adequacy of an appellate remedy by balancing the benefits of 

mandamus review against the detriments. In re Essex Ins. Co., 450 S.W.3d 524, 528 

(Tex. 2014) (orig. proceeding); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d at 136. 

Mandamus is appropriate when a probate court transfers a case to itself without 

statutory authority, as alleged here, on grounds that it has actively interfered with another 

court's jurisdiction. In re Reliant Energy, Inc., 159 S.W.3d 624, 626 (Tex. 2005) (orig. 

proceeding) (per curiam); In re SWEPI, L.P., 85 S.W.3d 800, 809 (Tex. 2002) (orig. 

proceeding); In re Estate of Aguilar, 435 S.W.3d 831, 833 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2014, 

orig. proceeding); see also In re Mares, No. 13-15-00549-CV, 2016 WL 362783, at *3 

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi Jan. 28, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). 

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, 

the response filed by Charlotte and Bruce Philbrick, the reply, the record, and the 

applicable law, is of the opinion that the relator has failed to meet his burden to obtain 

relief. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 

.

DORI CONTRERAS

Justice

Delivered and filed the 26th

day of November, 2018.
EXHIBIT 31.2
 CERTIFICATIONS
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of IASIS Healthcare 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 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(s) 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)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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
functions):
    /s/ John M. DoyleJohn M. DoyleChief Financial Officer
[Nos. 13927-1-III; 13963-8-III.

Division Three.

July 2, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Javier Felipe Martinez, *Appellant. The*State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Ruben Bernardo Salas, *Appellant.*

Appeals from judgments of the Superior Court for Franklin County, Nos. 93-1-50169-1 and 93-1-50170-5, Carolyn A. Brown, J., entered February 23, 1994. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Thompson, J., concurred in by Schul-theis, A.C.J., and Munson, J.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**Certification      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

|  | 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,                and |
|--|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  | 2. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial conditions and results of operations of                Registrant. |
|--|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Dated:                August 13, 2008 | /s/                Howard Katz         |
|---------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
|                                  | Chief                Executive Officer |

----
Attachment N:

Sample WasteWise Challenge Registration Forms
SUSTAINABLE ATHLETICS CHALLENGE

REGISTRATION FORM

Organization Information

Organization Name:

Athletic Division:

Athletic Conference:

Game Information

Game Date:

Opponent:

Stadium Name:

Stadium Capacity:

Waste Reduction Plans 

Please check the boxes to indicate what areas you intend to target with your waste reduction 

activities.

Pre-Game Events 

Parking Lot / Tailgating 

Back-of-House / Retail / Concessions 

Concourse 

Fan Seating Area - During Game 

Fan Seating Area - After Game 

Other 

Submit
SUSTAINABLE ATHLETICS CHALLENGE

REPORTING FORM

Please enter the weight of materials in the appropriate fields below. Actual weights should always be 

used. If actual weights are impossible to obtain, weight estimates may be substituted following the 

process outlined in the rules here. If you do not have weight data for a particular material, please leave 

that field blank.

Official Attendance: people 

Weights 

Please enter the weights of materials that were collected in the appropriate fields below. If you 

do not have weight data for a particular material, leave that field blank.

Paper: pounds 

Bottles and Cans: pounds 

Corrugated cardboard: pounds 

Mixed Recyclable Materials: pounds (do not include weights reported in 

other material categories) 

Organics: pounds

Composting: pounds 

 Donation: pounds 

 Trash: pounds 

Additional Comments 

Please enter any additional information that you would like to share about your activities in the 

box(es) below.

Pre-Game Events

Parking Lot / Tailgating

Back-of-House / Retail / Concessions
SUSTAINABLE ATHLETICS CHALLENGE

Concourse

Fan Seating Area - During Game

Fan Seating Area - After Game

Other Activities

Save
Mr. Guy R. Donaldson 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency- Region 6 

1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200 

Dallas, TX 75202-2733 

Re: Supplemental 502 Modeling Analysis 

NRG Parish and Limestone Plants 

Dear Mr. Donaldson: 

NRG Texas Power LLC ("NRG") respectfully offers the enclosed materials 

supplementing our prior demonstration that the W .A. Parish and Limestone power 

plants do not cause or contribute to violations of the 1-hour S02 national ambient 

air quality standard ("NAAQS"). 

NRG is a subsidiary of NRG Energy, Inc., a Fortune 250 company and one of 

the country's largest power generation and retail electricity businesses. NRG 

Energy's power plants provide about 52,000 megawatts of generation capacity and 

its retail businesses serve more than 3 million customers throughout the country. 

In Southeast Texas, NRG owns more than 11,000 MW of generation capacity from 

nine electric generating stations. NRG supports clean energy resources and 

technologies critical to our transition to a sustainable, low carbon society. We 

appreciate the opportunity to make this submittal. 

As described in the attached report, NRG believes that we have addressed 

feedback from EPA staff regarding our prior S02 demonstration for the Parish and 

Limestone plants. We have also confirmed the stack heights and other 

characteristics that should be used for air quality modeling relating to these plants. 

These refinements and changes continue to demonstrate that the areas around the 

Parish and Limestone plants are in fact compliant with the 1-hour S02 NAAQS and 

should be designated attainment. This view is consistent with the results of 

multiple reasonable air quality modeling scenarios for each plant. 

As also described in the attached report, NRG has also reviewed and 

evaluated the additional information provided to EPA by the Sierra Club relating to 

the Parish plant. Our analysis suggests that any of a variety of appropriate 

corrections or refinements to the Sierra Club's modeling serves to further confirm 

that the air around Parish is clean and compliant with the S02 NAAQS. We 

respectfully disagree with the January 2016 submittal in which the Sierra Club 

suggests that our air quality modeling is insufficient to demonstrate compliance. 

{00140737.1/LTR} -1-
Air Program Manager 

Gulf Coast Region 

cc: 

Attachment 

{00140737.1/ LTR} -2-
THE VISUAL AIDS ON THE FOLLOWING 

PAGES ARE FOR REFERENCE ONLY AND 

NOT INTENDED FOR OFFICIAL USE.

TO PURCHASE OFFICIAL VISUAL AIDS PLEASE CONTACT 

THE SPECIALTY CROPS INSPECTION DIVISION’S 

EQUIPMENT AND FORMS DEPOT 

USDA, AMS, FVP, SCI

831 MITTEN ROAD, ROOM 200

BURLINGAME, CA 94010

PHONE: 650-552-9073

FAX: 650-552-9147

EQUIPMENT CATALOG
CAULIFLOWER 

DAMAGED BY ENLARGED BRACTS – NOT U.S. NO. 1. 

Ca

(Prev
CAULIFLOWER 

ENLARGED BRACTS. GRADE U.S. NO. 1. 

Ca

(Prev
CAULIFLOWER 

ENLARGED BRACTS. GRADE U.S. NO. 1. 

Ca

(Prev
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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 on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Initial Review Group Neuroscience Review Subcommittee.                    

*Date:*                         June 13, 2012.                    

*Time:*                         8 a.m. to 8 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.                    

*Contact Person:*                         Beata Buzas, Ph.D. Scientific Review Officer, National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, 5635 Fishers Lane, RM 2081, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-443-0800,                         *bbuzas@mail.nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, Alcohol Research Center Grants; 93.701, ARRA Related Biomedical Research and Research Support Awards., National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Dated: April 10, 2012.

Jennifer S. Spaeth,

Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2012-9217 Filed 4-16-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
JUDGMENT

Court of Appeals 

 

First District of Texas 

NO. 01-14-00363-CR

RICHARD PAUL SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 185th District Court of Harris County. 

(Tr. Ct. No. 1388225).

This case is an appeal from the final judgment signed by the trial court on April 17, 

2014. After submitting the case on the appellate record and the arguments properly raised 

by the parties, the Court holds that the trial court’s judgment contains no reversible error. 

Accordingly, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment.

The Court orders that this decision be certified below for observance.

Judgment rendered April 7, 2015.

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Bland, and Massengale. Opinion delivered by Justice 

Massengale.
#### Wilbert Jessie HARRIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Alan N. CHARNES, Director of the Department of Revenue and Motor Vehicle Division, State of Colorado, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 80CA0259.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

Aug. 14, 1980.

Weltzer & Worsted, Louis A. Weltzer, David L. Worsted, Denver, for plaintiff-appellant.

J. D. MacFarlane, Atty. Gen., Richard F. Hennessey, Deputy Atty. Gen., Mary J. Mullarkey, Sol. Gen., Mary C. Snow, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for defendant-appellee.

PIERCE, Judge.

Plaintiff appeals a judgment affirming the decision by the Department of Revenue’s Motor Vehicle Division to suspend his driver’s license for failure to submit to a blood, urine, or breath test as required by § 42-4-1202, C.R.S.1973 (1979 Cum.Supp.). We affirm the judgment.

The principal allegation of error submitted by the plaintiff is that the proceedings leading to his conviction were conducted by two different hearing officers. At the conclusion of the initial hearing, the hearing officer found, upon sufficient evidence, that the police officer had reasonable grounds to believe that defendant had been driving under the influence of, or was affected by, alcohol. He reserved ruling on the advisement under the implied consent law, and continued the matter to permit defendant to procure an additional witness. Because the first hearing officer was hospi*997talized at the time further proceedings were scheduled, a second hearing officer was assigned to hear the remainder of the case.

The second hearing officer took testimony regarding the advisement, and, after reviewing the record as to the first hearing, reaffirmed the findings of the first hearing officer as to the reasonable grounds for requesting the test and further found (1) that the defendant was fully advised as to the implied consent law and had thereafter refused all chemical tests; and (2) that there was no evidence of a medical nature presented to warrant refusal of the chemical test on statutory grounds.

The procedure used in this case satisfies both statutory requirements and due process. *Big Top, Inc. v. Hoffman,*156 Colo. 362, 399 P.2d 249 (1965); § 24-4-105(3), C.R.S.1973; *see King’s Mill Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. v. Westminster,*192 Colo. 305, 557 P.2d 1186 (1976); and *Olshaw v. Buchanan,*186 Colo. 362, 527 P.2d 545 (1974).

Plaintiff relies upon *Colorado State Board of Nurse Examiners v. Hohu,*129 Colo. 195, 268 P.2d 401 (1954). That case is inapposite because it involved a violation by the Board of statutory requirements relating to the revocation of a nursing license. That element is not present in the case before us because § 24-4-105(3), C.R.S.1973, specifically provides for the substitution of hearing officers.

We have reviewed the other allegations presented by plaintiff and find them to be without merit.

Judgment affirmed.

COYTE and RULAND, JJ., concur.
ACCEPTED

03-14-00529-CV

4765120

THIRD COURT OF APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

4/6/2015 9:50:42 AM

JEFFREY D. KYLE

CLERK NO. 03-14-00529-CV 

JEROME J. ISAAC AND MICHELLE P. ISAAC, 

Appellants, 

v. 

VENDOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, INC.; MORTGAGE 

ELECTRONIC 

REGISTRATION SYSTEMS, INC. AND CITIMORTGAGE, INC., 

Appellees. 

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 9.4(i)(3) 

I certify that this document was produced using Microsoft Word 2010 and 

Adobe Acrobat X and contains 3,960 words, as determined by the computer's 

software word-count function, excluding the sections of the document listed in 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4(i)(l). 

Is/Chris Ferguson 

Chris Ferguson 

 FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/6/2015 9:50:42 AM JEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk
**CERTIFICATIONS**
I, Thomas Kirchner, certify that: 

  1) I have reviewed this quarterly report onForm 10-QSB of FalconTarget, Inc.;  

  2) Based on my knowledge, this quarterlyreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterlyreport;  

  3) Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in thisquarterly report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of theregistrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterlyreport;  

  4) The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:  

  a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to bedesigned under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; 

  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presentedin this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the periodcovered by this report based upon such evaluation; and  

  c) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and  

  5) The registrant’s other certifyingofficers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation,to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent function):  

  a) All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal controlswhich are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation and  

  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role inthe registrant’s internal controls over financial reporting. 

Date: May 15, 2006

By:   /s/   Thomas Kirchner 

    Thomas Kirchner

    Chief Executive Officer
III 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 105 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 27, 2020 

Received 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Permitting the remains of the Honorable John Lewis, late 

a Representative from the State of Georgia, to lie in 

state in the rotunda of the Capitol. 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That in recognition of the long and distin3 guished service rendered to the Nation by the Honorable 

4 John Lewis, late a Representative from the State of Geor5 gia, his remains shall be permitted to lie in state in the 

6 Rotunda of the Capitol from July 27, 2020, through July 

7 29, 2020, and the Architect of the Capitol, 

2 

HCON 105 RDS 

1 under the direction of the President pro tempore of the 

2 Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

3 shall take all necessary steps for the accomplishment of 

4 that purpose. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 24, 2020. 

Attest: CHERYL L. JOHNSON, 

Clerk.
# C_2004106EN.01009101.xml

| 30.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 106/91 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 106/91

---

(2004/C 106/184)

Last publication of the Court of Justice in the Official Journal of the European Union

OJ C 94, 17.4.2004

OJ C 94, 17.4.2004

Past publications

OJ C 85, 3.4.2004

OJ C 71, 20.3.2004

OJ C 59, 6.3.2004

OJ C 47, 21.2.2004

OJ C 35, 7.2.2004

OJ C 21, 24.1.2004

These texts are available on:

| | EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex |
| --- | --- |

EUR-Lex: http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex

| | CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex |
| --- | --- |

CELEX: http://europa.eu.int/celex

http://europa.eu.int/celex

---