alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo 

 

No. 07-22-00093-CV 

 

IN RE MOHAMMAD MAHMOOD, RELATOR 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

April 19, 2022 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before QUINN, C.J., and PIRTLE and DOSS, JJ. 

Relator Mohammad Mahmood, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus with this Court seeking to compel the Honorable Daniel H. Mills, sitting by 

assignment as judge of the 368th District Court of Williamson County in trial court cause 

number 19-3679-FC1, to disqualify opposing counsel and recuse himself. We dismiss 

the original proceeding for want of jurisdiction.

Appellate courts may issue writs of mandamus against a judge of a district or 

county court in its geographic district and may issue writs necessary to enforce its 

jurisdiction. TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(a), (b). Mahmood directs his mandamus 

petition against the judge of the 368th District Court of Williamson County. The latter is 
2

not a court located within the geographic district for the Seventh Court of Appeals, but,

instead, one located within the district of the Third Court of Appeals. See TEX. GOV’T 

CODE ANN. § 22.201(d), (h). Thus, we lack authority to issue a writ a mandamus against 

the judge of the 368th District Court unless the writ is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.

Although Mahmood has an appeal presently pending before this Court, i.e. In the 

Interest of A.M., cause number 07-22-00011-CV, that appeal was transferred from the 

Third Court of Appeals by the Texas Supreme Court pursuant to its docket equalization 

efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001. The transfer did not carry with it any 

jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus in a separate original proceeding. See In re 

Barnes, No. 06-17-00042-CV, 2017 Tex. App. LEXIS 2784, at *2 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 

Mar. 31, 2017, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.); Misc. Docket No. 21-9153 (Tex. Dec. 22, 

2021) (“It is specifically provided that the cases ordered transferred by this Order shall, in 

each instance, not include original proceedings . . . .”). And, Mahmood has not shown 

how the relief sought via the pending application for a writ of mandamus is necessary to 

enforce our appellate jurisdiction in cause number 07-22-00011-CV. See In re Jackson, 

No. 08-20-00026-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 1003, at *2-3 (Tex. App.—El Paso Feb. 5, 

2020, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (dismissing original proceeding where relator failed to 

show that mandamus was necessary to preserve the court’s appellate jurisdiction over a 

transferred appeal).

For these reasons, we dismiss Mahmood’s petition for writ of mandamus and 

accompanying motion for temporary relief for want of jurisdiction.

Per Curiam

Pirtle, J., concurs in the result.
DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

HEADQUARTERS AIR FORCE FLIGHT STANDARDS AGENCY 

GLOBAL ACCESS FOR AMERICA

16 Oct 12

MEMORANDUM FOR HQ FAA/AGC-10

FROM: HQ AFFSA/A3OF

 5901 Air Guard Dr.

 Bldg 1001, Rm 121

 Oklahoma City, OK 73179

SUBJECT: Title 14 CFR Exemption 5305 (Regulatory Docket FAA-2000-8419)

1. Exemption 5305 was granted to the United States Air Force on 26 April 1991. As amended 

to 5305I, it exempts the USAF from the provisions of 14 CFR Section 91.209 (a) (1) and (b) 

through 30 April 2013. The requirement for USAF aircraft to conduct airborne counternarcotics 

training operations in support of drug law enforcement and drug traffic interdiction without 

lighted aircraft position or anticollision lights remains unchanged. On behalf of the USAF, we

request a 3-year extension in accordance with Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 11.

2. If you have questions or need further information, please contact me at (405) 734-8424 or 

email: hqaffsa.a3of@tinker.af.mil. I appreciate your assistance. 

WILLIAM D. HART, Lt Col, USAF

Chief, Flight Standards Division
<PAGE>

                                                                    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 Quarterly Report of uWink, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nolan K. Bushnell,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 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 results of operations of
         the Company.


August 1, 2006                                         By: /s/ NOLAN K. BUSHNELL
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Nolan K. Bushnell
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 6, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8221-8222]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-02347]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
    The meetings 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 Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Clinical Trial Planning 
Grants (R34 Clinical Trial Not Allowed) and Investigator Initiated 
Extended Clinical Trial (R01 Clinical Trial Required).
    Date: March 14, 2024.
    Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of

[[Page 8222]]

Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Tara Capece, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National 
Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Rockville, MD 
20852, 240-191-4281, [email protected].

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Clinical Trial Planning 
Grants (R34 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).
    Date: March 21, 2024.
    Time: 2:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, 
National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 
20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Tara Capece, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National 
Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, MSC 9823, Rockville, MD 
20852, 240-191-4281, [email protected].

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 1, 2024.
Lauren A. Fleck,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2024-02347 Filed 2-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```
II

★(Star Print)

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 531

To authorize a circuit judge who has taken part in an in banc hearing

of a case to continue to participate in that case after taking senior

status, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

MARCH 10 (legislative day, MARCH 6), 1995

Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. SIMON) introduced the following bill; which

was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To authorize a circuit judge who has taken part in an in

banc hearing of a case to continue to participate in

that case after taking senior status, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.

4 The last sentence of section 46(c) of title 28, United

5 States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘as a member’’ and

6 all that follows through the period and inserting the fol7 lowing: ‘‘as a member of an in banc court—
2

•S 531 IS1S

1 ‘‘(1) reviewing a decision of a panel of which

2 such judge was a member; or

3 ‘‘(2) continuing to participate in the decision of

4 a case or controversy that was heard or reheard by

5 the court in banc at a time when such judge was in

6 regular active service.’’.

Æ
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION

(Pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350



The undersigned hereby certifies that, to the best of
his knowledge, (i) the foregoing Annual Report on Form 10-KSB filed by Yadkin Valley Company (the Registrant) for the year ended December 31, 2003, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



|                     |  |                                            
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------------
|Date: March 29, 2004 |  | /S/ David S. Perry                         
|                     |  | David S. Perry, President                  
|                     |  | (principal executive and financial officer)
Exhibit 23(b)

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-60975) and
Form S-8 (File Nos, 2-91950, 33-18278, 33-39215, 333-47268, 33-56420, 33-53303, 333-51073,
333-93803, 333-93805 and 333-102321) of Mandalay Resort Group of our report dated January 21, 2003 relating to the financial statements of Elgin Riverboat
ResortRiverboat Casino, which appears in this Form 10-K/A of Mandalay Resort Group for the year ended January 31, 2002.

PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP

Chicago,
Illinois
March 28, 2003

---

QuickLinks
**EXHIBIT32.2**

**CERTIFICATIONSPURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

**(18U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

In connection withthe accompanying quarterly report of Whittier Energy Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2006, (the “Report”), I, GeoffreyM. Stone, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify that to myknowledge:

(1)   TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o (d)); and

(2)   Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| Date: November 14, 2006 | */s/ Geoffrey M. Stone*                                 | * * |
|-------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|----------|
|                    | Geoffrey M. Stone                                       |
|                    | Vice President of Finance and Chief Accounting  Officer |

 

----
II

104TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 283

To extend the deadlines under the Federal Power Act applicable to two

hydroelectric projects in Pennsylvania, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JANUARY 26 (legislative day, JANUARY 10), 1995

Mr. SPECTER (for himself and Mr. SANTORUM) introduced the following bill;

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

A BILL

To extend the deadlines under the Federal Power Act applicable to two hydroelectric projects in Pennsylvania, and

for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR PROJECT

4 NUMBER 4474

5 Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of

6 the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory

7 Commission (referred to in this Act as the ‘Commission’),

8 upon the request of the licensees for Commission Project

9 No. 4474, is authorized, in accordance with the good faith,
2

S 283 IS

1 due diligence, and public interest requirements of section

2 13 of the Federal Power Act and the Commission’s proce3 dures under such section, to extend until April 15, 2001,

4 the time required for the licensees to commence construc5 tion of such project.

6 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR PROJECT NUMBER

7 7041.

8 Notwithstanding the time limitations of section 13 of

9 the Federal Power Act, the Federal Energy Regulatory

10 Commission (referred to in this Act as the ‘Commission’),

11 upon the request of the licensees for Commission Project

12 No. 7401, is authorized, in accordance with the good faith,

13 due diligence, and public interest requirements of section

14 13 of the Federal Power Act and the Commission’s proce15 dures under such section, to extend until April 15, 2001,

16 the time required for the licensees to commence construc17 tion of such project.

Æ
STE 12.31.2011 EX10.1












Exhibit 10.1




        
AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO STERIS CORPORATION
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN DOCUMENT
(as Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009)




WHEREAS, STERIS Corporation has adopted the STERIS Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan Document (as Amended and restated Effective January 1, 2009), and desires to further amend the Plan;
    
NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is amended as of the date of execution specified below as follows:


		
	1.
	A new Section 17.9 is added to the Plan providing as follows: 




“17.9 Compensation Deferral Freeze
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, Employees, including but not limited to Active Participants and Participants, may not defer, and no Participant Deferral Credits shall be given for (i) base salary otherwise payable to them in calendar year 2012 or any succeeding calendar year or (ii) commissions, bonuses or other Performance Based Compensation otherwise payable to them in respect of the 2013 fiscal year or of any succeeding fiscal year.”


		
	2.
	Terms used herein that are defined in the Plan shall have the meanings specified in the Plan.




		
	3.
	Except as modified hereby, the STERIS Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan Document (as Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009) shall remain in full force and effect.




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, STERIS has caused this Amendment No. 1 to be executed this 4th day of November, 2011.


STERIS Corporation


By: /s/ William L. Aamoth 
      William L. Aamoth,
      Vice President and Corporate Treasurer
EXHIBIT 32.1


CERTIFICATION


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





In connection with the Amendment No.  5 to the Annual Report on 10-K of Sen Yu International Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) for the year ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Zhenyu Shang, Chief Executive Officer of the company, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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:   October 13 , 2011





By:  /s/ Zhenyu Shang


Name: Zhenyu Shang


Title: Chief Executive Officer











This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the company and will be retained by the company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32

PUBLIC MEDIA WORKS, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Public Media Works, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending November 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Report), I, Corbin Bernsen, Chief Executive Officer and principal financial officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(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: January 16, 2007 |  | /s/ Corbin Bernsen                                     
|                       |  | Corbin Bernsen                                         
|                       |  | Chief Executive Officer and principal financial officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Nina Moore McAFEE, alias Virginia Moore McAfee, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 35232.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 23, 1963.

Henry Stollenwerck, Dallas, for appellant.

Henry Wade, Dist. Atty., H. D. Nicholson and Emmett Colvin, Jr., Asst. Dist. Attys., Dallas, and Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY, Presiding Judge.

The offense is unlawfully carrying a pistol; the punishment, a fine of $400.

Trial was before the court and facts which are sufficient to sustain the conviction were stipulated.

The sole ground for reversal is the overruling of appellant’s plea of former jeopardy based upon a judgment of conviction in Criminal District Court for assault with a prohibited weapon, a two year suspended sentence being assessed.

The indictment in said cause alleged that the appellant herein “did, while then and there unlawfully carrying on and about her person a pistol, wilfully and upon E. M. Lovell make an assault.”

In the absence of any allegation that the assault charged was made with the pistol, the indictment alleged no offense which the District Coitrt had jurisdiction to try.

 Jeopardy will attach only upon a good and sufficient accusatory pleading. Jurisdiction of the court trying the prior cause is an essential prerequisite where jeopardy is pleaded. Ogle v. State, 43 Tex. Cr.R. 219, 63 S.W. 1009; 10 Tex.Jur.2d, Criminal Law, Sec. 121.

*942The District Court being without jurisdiction to enter the judgment of conviction pleaded in bar of this prosecution, the question of whether a conviction for assault with a prohibited weapon would bar a subsequent prosecution for unlawfully carrying such weapon need not be decided.

We observe however that we have held that a conviction for murder by accident while driving drunk would constitute a bar to a subsequent prosecution for such drunk driving. Such holding would appear to be analogous. See Paxton v. State, 151 Tex. Cr.R. 324, 207 S.W.2d 876.

The judgment is affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

GREGORY M. COTICCHIA,

Petitioner

v.

MALCOVERY SECURITY, LLC,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 78 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

GREGORY M. COTICCHIA,

Petitioner

v.

MALCOVERY SECURITY, LLC,

Respondent

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 79 WAL 2022

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 18th day of July, 2022, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Ray SOLIZ, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28260.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 13, 1956.

William Lawrence Scarborough, Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

DICE, Commissioner.

The conviction is for statutory rape; the punishment, five years’ confinement in the penitentiary.

An examination of the statement of facts reflects that it only contains the testimony presented by the state up to the time it rested its case and appellant moved for an instructed verdict of not guilty. It further appears that the testimony of the appellant, as a witness in his own behalf and another witness called by him, together with the-state’s testimony in rebuttal, is not included *in the*statement of facts.

The certificate of the official court reporter certifies that the instrument only contains a transcript of the testimony admitted in evidence up to the time the state-rested its case, and the agreement signed', by counsel for the state and the appellant which appears in the instrument contains the following: “We further agree that this, record shall be filed as the Statement of Facts on appeal in this cause as an incomplete Transcript with the understanding that it is incomplete. And not all the evidence in the case.”

Appellant contends that the evidence is; insufficient to support the conviction on the ground that the prosecutrix was shown to-be an accomplice and her testimony was. not corroborated.

In the absence of a statement of facts containing all the evidence adduced' upon the trial we are unable to pass upon the question of the sufficiency of the evidence.

We observe, however, that a prose-cutrix in a rape case is not an accomplice-witness and a conviction for statutory rape can be sustained upon her uncorroborated' testimony. Branch’s P.C., Sec. 1774; Cook v. State, 88 Tex.Cr.R. 659, 228 S.W. 213; and Gill v. State, 107 Tex.Cr.R. 115, 295 S.W. 190.

The proceedings appear regular *and'*therefore the judgment of conviction is- . affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.