alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-15-00217-CV

In re Kirt Allen Esthay

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM CONCHO COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator, Kirt Allen Esthay, an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

has filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see

also Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. In his petition, Esthay asks us to issue a writ of mandamus directed to the

Runnels County Sheriff and the Concho County District Clerk.

By statute, this Court has the authority to issue a writ of mandamus against “a judge

of a district or county court in the court of appeals district” and other writs as necessary to enforce

our appellate jurisdiction. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221. Neither the Runnels County Sheriff nor 

the Concho County District Clerk is a party against whom we may issue a writ of mandamus. Nor

has Esthay demonstrated that the exercise of our writ power is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. 

We have no jurisdiction to grant Esthay any relief. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus

is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field

Filed: April 15, 2015

2
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1526 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1526

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 200 Israel Road Southeast in Tumwater, Washington, as the ``Eva G. 
                         Hewitt Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 5, 2019

   Mr. Heck (for himself, Ms. DelBene, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. 
  Newhouse, Mrs. Rodgers of Washington, Mr. Kilmer, Ms. Jayapal, Ms. 
 Schrier, and Mr. Smith of Washington) introduced the following bill; 
      which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Reform

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 200 Israel Road Southeast in Tumwater, Washington, as the ``Eva G. 
                         Hewitt Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. EVA G. HEWITT POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 200 Israel Road Southeast in Tumwater, Washington, shall be 
known and designated as the ``Eva G. Hewitt Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Eva G. 
Hewitt Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

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 MasTec, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, C. Robert Campbell, Executive Vice
President - 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:

(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 results of operations
of the Company.



|                        |  |                                                                                  
|----------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: February 23, 2011 |  | /s/ C. Robert Campbell                                                           
|                        |  | Name: C. Robert Campbell
Title: Executive Vice President/ Chief Financial Officer

The certification set forth above is being furnished as an Exhibit solely pursuant to Section 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of the Annual Report of MasTec,
Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2010, or as a separate disclosure document of the Company or the certifying officers.
# C_2016202EN.01039901.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/399 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/399

---

Article 27

Workers' right to information and consultation within the undertaking

Workers or their representatives must, at the appropriate levels, be guaranteed information and consultation in good time in the cases and under the conditions provided for by Union law and national laws and practices.

---
# L_2012112EN.01006001.xml

| 24.4.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 112/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

24.4.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 112/6

---

ANNEX IV

List referred to in Article 16 of the Act of Accession: other permanent provisions

List referred to in Article 16 of the Act of Accession: other permanent provisions

4.   FISHERIES

FISHERIES

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Part Three, Title VII, Chapter 1, Rules on competition

Without prejudice to the procedures concerning existing aid provided for in Article 108 of the TFEU, aid schemes and individual aid granted to activities linked to the production of, and trade in, fisheries products and products derived therefrom listed in Annex I to the TEU and the TFEU, put into effect in Croatia before the date of accession and still applicable after that date, shall be regarded as existing aid within the meaning of Article 108(1) of the TFEU subject to the following conditions:

| — | the aid measures shall be communicated to the Commission within a period of four months from the date of accession. This communication shall include information on the legal basis for each measure. Existing aid measures and plans to grant or alter aid communicated to the Commission prior to the date of accession shall be deemed to have been communicated on the date of accession. The Commission shall publish a list of such aid.
  Those aid measures shall be regarded as ‘existing’ aid within the meaning of Article 108(1) of the TFEU for a period of three years from the date of accession.
  Within a period of three years from the date of accession Croatia shall, where necessary, amend those aid measures in order to comply with the guidelines applied by the Commission. After that period, any aid found to be incompatible with those guidelines shall be considered as new aid. |
| --- | --- |

—

the aid measures shall be communicated to the Commission within a period of four months from the date of accession. This communication shall include information on the legal basis for each measure. Existing aid measures and plans to grant or alter aid communicated to the Commission prior to the date of accession shall be deemed to have been communicated on the date of accession. The Commission shall publish a list of such aid.

Those aid measures shall be regarded as ‘existing’ aid within the meaning of Article 108(1) of the TFEU for a period of three years from the date of accession.

Within a period of three years from the date of accession Croatia shall, where necessary, amend those aid measures in order to comply with the guidelines applied by the Commission. After that period, any aid found to be incompatible with those guidelines shall be considered as new aid.

---
Goody's Family Clothing, Inc.
Knoxville, Tennessee

We have made reviews,  in accordance with standards  established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim consolidated
financial information of Goody's Family Clothing,  Inc. and subsidiaries for the
periods  ended  October 31, 1998 and November 1, 1997 as indicated in our report
dated  November 17, 1998;  because we did not perform an audit,  we expressed no
opinion on that information.

We are aware  that our  report  referred  to above,  which is  included  in your
Quarterly  Report  on Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  October  31,  1998,  is
incorporated by reference in Registration  Statements Nos.  33-32357,  33-51210,
33-68520, 333-00052 and 333-09595 on Form S-8 and 333-32409 on Form S-3.

We also are aware that the aforementioned report,  pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the  Securities  Act of  1933,  is not  considered  a part  of the  Registration
Statements  prepared  or  certified  by an  accountant  or a report  prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
December 3, 1998





<PAGE>
#### Osher Katzman, Appellant, v New York City Transit Authority et al., Respondent.

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), entered September 20, 1990, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for injuries suffered as the result of an assault that occurred on a bus of the defendant Transit Authority driven by the defendant Paulette Anderson. The plaintiff had felt another passenger trying to take his wallet, and when he protested, the other individual began to hit him. The bus travelled for approximately one and one-half blocks before Anderson was able to reach a telephone to call the police.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, we find that the defendants were properly granted summary judgment. Even if we were to adopt the plaintiffs argument that a special relationship existed between the defendants and himself *(see generally, Cuffy v City of New York,*69 NY2d 255, 260), that relationship merely established the existence of a duty of reasonable care which the plaintiff was required to show was violated *(see, Rabadi v County of Westchester,*160 AD2d 858; *Axon v New York City Tr. Auth.,*120 AD2d 475). The plaintiff failed to show any lack of reasonable care on the part of the defendants *(see, Weiner v Metropolitan Transp. Auth.,*55 NY2d 175; *cf., Crosland v New York City Tr. Auth.,*68 NY2d 165). Mangano, P. J., Kooper, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.
# C_2012326EN.01004701.xml

| 26.10.2012 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 326/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.10.2012

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 326/1

---

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

PART SEVEN

GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS

GENERAL AND FINAL PROVISIONS

Article 352

(ex Article 308 TEC)

(ex Article 308 TEC)

1.   If action by the Union should prove necessary, within the framework of the policies defined in the Treaties, to attain one of the objectives set out in the Treaties, and the Treaties have not provided the necessary powers, the Council, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, shall adopt the appropriate measures. Where the measures in question are adopted by the Council in accordance with a special legislative procedure, it shall also act unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

2.   Using the procedure for monitoring the subsidiarity principle referred to in Article 5(3) of the Treaty on European Union, the Commission shall draw national Parliaments' attention to proposals based on this Article.

3.   Measures based on this Article shall not entail harmonisation of Member States' laws or regulations in cases where the Treaties exclude such harmonisation.

4.   This Article cannot serve as a basis for attaining objectives pertaining to the common foreign and security policy and any acts adopted pursuant to this Article shall respect the limits set out in Article 40, second paragraph, of the Treaty on European Union.

---
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

AMERIPRISE FINANCIAL SERVICES 

INCORPORATED, subsidiary of 

Ameriprise Financial Incorporated,

Plaintiff-counterdefendant-Appellee,

 v.

IJEAMAKA EKWEANI, Wife; HENRY 

EKWEANI, Husband,

Defendants-counterclaimants-Appellants.

Nos. 15-15866

15-16417

D.C. No. 2:14-cv-00935-DGC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

David G. Campbell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 8, 2017**

Before: LEAVY, W. FLETCHER, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

In these consolidated appeals, Ijeamaka and Henry Ekweani appeal pro se 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

MAR 20 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-15866 

from the district court’s summary judgment and order granting attorney’s fees in 

Ameriprise Financial Services, Inc.’s (“AFSI”) declaratory judgment action. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. N. Cty. Commc’ns 

Corp. of Ariz. v. Qwest Corp., 824 F.3d 830, 836 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment for AFSI and entered 

a declaratory judgment because AFSI demonstrated the Ekweanis’ knowledge of 

an existing right to arbitrate, acts inconsistent with that right, and prejudice to 

AFSI. See Martin v. Yasuda, 829 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir. 2016) (a party seeking 

to prove waiver of a right to arbitration must demonstrate knowledge of an existing 

right to compel arbitration, acts inconsistent with that existing right, and prejudice 

to the opposing party).

Contrary to the Ekweanis’ contentions, the district court had subject matter 

jurisdiction over this action because the “underlying substantive controversy” 

involved arbitration of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims. Vaden v. Discover 

Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 62 (2009); see also Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family 

Ventures, LLC, 134 S. Ct. 843, 848 (2014) (when determining declaratory 

judgment jurisdiction, courts must look to “whether a coercive action brought by 

the declaratory judgment defendant . . . would necessarily present a federal 
3 15-15866 

question” (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). 

The district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding $25,000 in 

attorney’s fees because the district court considered each of the factors set forth in 

Associated Indemnity Corp. v. Warner, 694 P.2d 1181, 1184 (Ariz. 1985) (in 

banc). See Med. Protective Co. v. Pang, 740 F.3d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 2013) 

(standard of review).

AFSI’s request for attorney’s fees, set forth in its answering brief in Appeal 

No. 15-16417, is denied.

15-15866: AFFIRMED.

15-16417: AFFIRMED.
In the Supreme Court of Georgia

 Decided: April 20, 2015

S15A0513. BROWN et al. v. HAMILTON, EXR.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the court below is affirmed without opinion pursuant

to Supreme Court Rule 59.

Affirmed without opinion. All the Justices concur.
# C_2016202EN.01035001.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/350 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/350

---

38.   Declaration on Article 252 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union regarding the number of Advocates-General in the Court of Justice

Declaration on Article 252 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union regarding the number of Advocates-General in the Court of Justice

The Conference declares that if, in accordance with Article 252, first paragraph, of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Court of Justice requests that the number of Advocates-General be increased by three (eleven instead of eight), the Council will, acting unanimously, agree on such an increase.

In that case, the Conference agrees that Poland will, as is already the case for Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom, have a permanent Advocate-General and no longer take part in the rotation system, while the existing rotation system will involve the rotation of five Advocates-General instead of three.

---
ACjOS" •<v

APR 1a^

-S!

T;~>£ S:iS>^

4-14-15" „

Av AjAme is "Babbit, Mowa* Aiud Avy tD.cs,

j&W\W k -IST«svrt.^is is *w SecOfU0 |e4Jeit

O. oocacII^i houo boa uuUI '.+ 4-a£c -&* lAe

CoUfc*- ^PPe^l ~Vt> tfSut vHoei* OPiA.'o^ ,V

M, «W -;!, 6e P^ .a hole/ ^ ^

"£-+>• Accuse 4^,s ,', |W«Wac 4^E PlZoCeJS

Wou

e/z.

r-ll-~?G "fccC*
Exhibit 32.4

 

Certification of the Chief Financial Officer

 

Pursuant to 18 US.C. Section, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the

Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

 

 

I, Michael S. Sarner, Chief Financial Officer of Capital Southwest Corporation, certify that, to my knowledge:

 

|  | 1. |  | The Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Capital Southwest Corporation on Form 10-K for the year ended March 31, 2016 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (“accompanied 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 accompanied report fairly presents, in all material respects, the consolidated financial condition and results of operations of Capital Southwest Corporation. |
|--|----|--|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

|                          |   |                                       |
|-------------------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------|
| Date:  December 12, 2016 | By:    | /s/ Michael S. Sarner                      |
|                          |   | Michael S. Sarner

Chief Financial Officer |

 

 

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Patrick Delace, Appellant.

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.), rendered January 5, 1988, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (eight counts), robbery in the second degree (four counts), criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (four counts), under Indictment No. 597/87, upon a jury verdict, and two judgments of the same court, both rendered February 25, 1988, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree under Indictment No. 587/87, and assault in the second degree under Indictment No. 2412/87, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgment under Indictment No. 597/87 is reversed, on the law, and a new trial is ordered; the facts have been considered and are determined to have been established; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgments under Indictment Nos. 587/87 and 2412/87 are reversed, the defendant’s pleas of guilty to those indictments are vacated, and the matters are remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings on the indictments.

The record reveals that, during the trial of Indictment No. 597/87, the prosecution was in possession of written notes concerning a police interview with a prosecution witness who *689subsequently testified at trial. However, the existence of these notes was not disclosed until after trial. Inasmuch as the notes constituted *Rosario*material, the prosecution’s failure to turn them over during trial constituted per se reversible error *(see, People v Martinez,*71 NY2d 937; *People v Ranghelle,*69 NY2d 56). Accordingly, we reverse and remit the matter for a new trial.

Moreover, we find that defendant’s pleas of guilty on Indictment No. 587/87 and Indictment No. 2412/87, having been induced by the understanding that the sentences would be concurrent with the sentence imposed for his conviction under Indictment No. 597/87, now set aside, must be vacated *(see, People v Fuggazzatto,*62 NY2d 862, 863; *People v Clark,*45 NY2d 432, 440).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental *pro se*brief, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 15 Goodys Family Clothing, Inc.
Knoxville, Tennessee We have made a review, in accordance with standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States), of the unaudited interim condensed
consolidated financial information of Goodys Family Clothing, Inc. and
Subsidiaries as of and for the periods ended October 30, 2004 and November 1,
2003 as indicated in our report dated November 17, 2004; because we did not
perform an audit, we expressed no opinion on that information. We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended October 30, 2004, is
incorporated by reference in Registration Statements Nos. 333-32357, 33-51210,
33-68520, 333-00052 and 333-09595 on Form S-8. We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of the Registration
Statements prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or
certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act. /s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Atlanta, Georgia
November 17, 2004