alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NUMBER 13-22-00438-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

IN RE AMAZON.COM, INC. AND AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC.

 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Benavides and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Benavides1

Relators Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon Logistics, Inc. filed a petition for writ of 

mandamus seeking to set aside a September 1, 2022 order denying relators’ motion to 

compel an independent medical examination of the real party in interest, Apoelinar Daniel 

Waters. See generally TEX. R. CIV. P. 204. This Court granted relators’ emergency motion 

to stay and requested that Waters file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus. 

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.”); id. R. 

47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8, 52.10(b). Waters has now filed an unopposed 

amended emergency motion to lift the stay previously imposed in this case and to dismiss 

the petition for writ of mandamus as moot. According to the motion, Waters has agreed 

to submit to an independent medical examination and accordingly, requests that we lift 

the stay and dismiss this original proceeding as moot.

The Court, having examined and fully considered Waters’s motion, is of the opinion 

that it should be granted. See Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 162 (Tex. 

2012) (“A case becomes moot if, since the time of filing, there has ceased to exist a 

justiciable controversy between the parties—that is, if the issues presented are no longer 

‘live,’ or if the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.”); In re Kellogg 

Brown & Root, Inc., 166 S.W.3d 732, 737 (Tex. 2005) (orig. proceeding) (“A case 

becomes moot if a controversy ceases to exist between the parties at any stage of the 

legal proceedings, including the appeal.”); see generally In re Contract Freighters, Inc., 

646 S.W.3d 810, 813 (Tex. 2022) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam). We grant the 

unopposed motion, lift the stay previously imposed in this case, and dismiss this petition 

for writ of mandamus as moot. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8, 52.10(b).

GINA M. BENAVIDES

Justice

Delivered and filed on the

12th day of October, 2022.
#### James *Felton*GRANT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28697.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 12, 1956.

No attorney for appellant of record on appeal.

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

' PER CURIAM.

Embezzlement of property of the value of $40 is the offense; the punishment, ten days in jail.

The record before us contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JORDAN BAYLE,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 28 MM 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 2nd day of April, 2018, the Petition for Leave to File Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc is GRANTED. Although counsel was negligent, 

Petitioner is entitled to a counsel-filed allocatur petition. Counsel is DIRECTED to file a 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal within 15 days.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 Michael V. Shustek, as Chief Executive Officer of Vestin Mortgage, Inc., the
sole Manager of Vestin Fund I, LLC (the Registrant), and Lance K. Bradford,
as Chief Financial Officer of Vestin Mortgage, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. §1350, that  (1)
    
    the Registrants Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), fully complies with the
applicable requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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 Registrant. Dated: May 17, 2004
    /s/ Michael V. ShustekMichael V. Shustek*Chief Executive Officer
of Vestin Mortgage, Inc.,
Manager of the Registrant Dated: May 17, 2004
    /s/ Lance K. BradfordLance K. Bradford*Chief Financial Officer
of Vestin Mortgage, Inc.,
Manager of the Registrant * Michael V. Shustek and Lance K. Bradford function, respectively, as the
equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the
Registrant for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350. 32
# C O U R T O F A P P E A L S S E C O N D D I S T R I C T O F T E X A S

F O R T W O R T H N O
. 2
- 0 9
- 3 8 0
- C R R U D O L P H A N T H O N Y G A R Z A A P P E L L A N T V
. T H E S T A T E O F T E X A S S T A T E

- - - - - - - - - - F R O M T H E 3 7 1 S T D I S T R I C T C O U R T O F T A R R A N T C O U N T Y

- - - - - - - - - - 

### M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N 1 

### A N D J U D G M E N T

- - - - - - - - - - W e h a v e c o n s i d e r e d t h e “ A p p e l l a n t ' s M o t i o n T o W a i v e A n d D i s m i s s A p p e a l A n d T o W i t h d r a w N o t i c e O f A p p e a l
. ” T h e m o t i o n c o m p l i e s w i t h r u l e 4 2
. 2 ( a ) o f t h e r u l e s o f a p p e l l a t e p r o c e d u r e . T e x . R
. A p p . P
. 4 2
. 2 ( a )
. N o d e c i s i o n o f t h i s c o u r t h a v i n g b e e n d e l i v e r e d b e f o r e w e r e c e i v e d t h i s m o t i o n , w e g r a n t t h e m o t i o n a n d d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l
. S e e i d
. ; T e x . R
. A p p . P
. 4 3
. 2 ( f )
. P E R C U R I A M P A N E L : M C C O Y , M E I E R , a n d L I V I N G S T O N , J J
. D O N O T P U B L I S H T e x . R
. A p p . P
. 4 7
. 2 ( b )

1

 S e e T e x . R
. A p p . P
. 4 7
. 4
.D E L I V E R E D : F e b r u a r y 4 , 2 0 1 0
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1359 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1359

 To amend section 105 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
  1974 to temporarily increase the limit on the portion of community 
 development block grants amounts for certain entitlement communities 
                 that may be used for public services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 4, 2011

 Ms. Ros-Lehtinen (for herself, Ms. Wilson of Florida, Mr. Rivera, Ms. 
Wasserman Schultz, and Mr. Diaz-Balart) introduced the following bill; 
       which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend section 105 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 
  1974 to temporarily increase the limit on the portion of community 
 development block grants amounts for certain entitlement communities 
                 that may be used for public services.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Temporary CDBG Public Services 
Flexibility Act of 2011''.

SEC. 2. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN PUBLIC SERVICES CAP.

    Paragraph (8) of section 105(a) of the Housing and Community 
Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5305(a)(8)) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and'' after ``paragraph,''; and
            (2) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the 
        following: ``, and except that, of any amount of assistance 
        under this title (including program income) in each of fiscal 
        years 2011 and 2012 to any unit of general local government 
        that, based on information of the United States Bureau of the 
        Census for 2009, has a population exceeding 250,000 but not 
        exceeding 800,000, has a land area of less than 75 square 
        miles, and among cities having a population exceeding 250,000 
        ranks among the 25 having the highest poverty rates, such unit 
        of general local government may use not more than 25 percent in 
        each such fiscal year for activities under this paragraph''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6004

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus DAVE ANDRAE TAYLOR, a/k/a Indian, a/k/a Nicholas, a/k/a Spike, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-99-145-2) Submitted: July 21, 2004 Decided: August 26, 2004 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dave Andrae Taylor, Appellant Pro Se. Robert E. Trono, Brian Ronald Hood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Dave Andrae Taylor seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his motion filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and dismissing it as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). See Reid v. Angelone , 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004) (“[Section] 2253(c) requires that a habeas petitioner obtain a [certificate of appealability] in order to appeal the denial of a Rule 60(b) motion.”). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Taylor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. To the extent that Taylor’s notice of appeal and appellate brief can be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See- 3 - United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 124 S. Ct. 496 (2003). We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE COMPANY INCLUDED IN ITS
FORM 10-Q FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          56,675
<SECURITIES>                                    34,070
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,738
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                93,667
<PP&E>                                          16,883
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (7,766)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 109,952
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,827
<BONDS>                                          1,391
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       189,662
<OTHER-SE>                                     (98,760)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   109,952
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,572
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   31,625
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 276
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14,039)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (14,039)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (14,039)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     1.15
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.15


</TABLE>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MICHAEL B. SELIG,

 Petitioner

 v.

ERIC SMITH, SHELIA SELIG-SMITH

SLOYER, AND RAYMOND D. SLOYER,

 Respondents

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 723 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Commonwealth Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This Schedule contains summary information extracted from the Form 10-K of APL
Limited for the year wnded December 27, 1996 and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1996
<CASH>                                         102,370
<SECURITIES>                                   180,628
<RECEIVABLES>                                  242,460<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     29,220
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               616,482
<PP&E>                                       1,949,065
<DEPRECIATION>                                 825,846
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,880,178
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          390,556
<BONDS>                                        696,347
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        24,564
<OTHER-SE>                                     478,275
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,880,178
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,739,126
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,598,432<F2>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              63,516
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                104,176
<INCOME-TAX>                                    34,722
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    69,454
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.67
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.67
<FN>
<F1>The Allowance for Doubtful Accounts, included in Receivables, amounted to
$19,830 at December 27, 1996.
<F2>The Provision for Doubtful Accounts, included in Total-Costs, amounted to
$6,144 for the 52 weeks ended December 27, 1996.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-3026

_____________________________

DAVID FLINT,

Petitioner,

v.

FLORIDA COMMISSION ON 

OFFENDER REVIEW,

Respondent.

___________________________

Petition for Writ of Certiorari—Original Jurisdiction.

 

January 5, 2018

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

JAY, WINSOR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

David Flint, pro se, Petitioner.

Rana Wallace, General Counsel, and Mark Hiers, Assistant 

General Counsel, Tallahassee, for Respondent.
### NUMBER 13

- 11

- 00 0 81

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

IN RE MONICA MICHELENA

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Perkes

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 1

Relator, Monica Michelena

, filed a petition for writ of mandamus in th e above

cause on February 15 , 2011, seeking to compel the trial court to transfer venue of a suit

affecting the parent

- child relationship from Hidalgo County, Texas, to Cameron County,

Texas

. See T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN . § 155.204 (Vernon 2008). By order issued on

February 17, 2011, the Court requested that the real party in interest, Robert Michelena,

file a response to the petiti on for writ of mandamus, and such response was duly filed

on February 28, 2011.

1 See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”); T EX

. R. A PP

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

Currently pending before the Court is relator’s motion to supplement the record.

The Court hereby grants the motion to supplement the record. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

52.7(a)(2) , (b).

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

mandamus and the response thereto, is of the opinion that relator has not shown h erself

entitled to the relief sough t . Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is deni ed

.
See id. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

D elivered and filed the 10th day of March, 2011

.
EXHIBIT 3.5

                                                     FEDERAL IDENTIFICATION
                                                             NO. 04-2464749

                      THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
                           William Francis Galvin
                        Secretary of the Commonwealth
            One Ashburton Place, Boston, Massachusetts 02108-1512

                            ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT
                  (General Laws, Chapter 156B, Section 72)

We,                           Peter J. Murphy,
President

and                         Jill Pollack Kutchin,               Clerk

of                           Parlex Corporation
                         (Exact name of corporation)

located at        One Parlex Place, Methuen, Massachusetts
              (Street address of corporation in Massachusetts)

certify that these Articles of Amendment affecting articles numbered:

            3
      (Number those articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and/or 6 being amended)

of the Articles of Organization were duly adopted at a meeting held on
August 30, 2000, by vote of 3,576,574 shares of Common Stock of 6,277,386
shares outstanding.

(1) being at least a majority of each type, class or series outstanding and
entitled to vote thereon

To change the number of shares and the par value (if any) of any type,
class or series of stock which the corporation is authorized to issue, fill
in the following:

The total presently authorized is:

WITHOUT PAR VALUE STOCKS    WITH PAR VALUE STOCKS

TYPE NUMBER OF SHARES       TYPE          NUMBER OF SHARES    PAR VALUE

Common:                     Common:          10,000,000          $ .10
Preferred:                  Preferred:        1,000,000          $1.00

Change the total authorized to:

WITHOUT PAR VALUE STOCKS    WITH PAR VALUE STOCKS

TYPE NUMBER OF SHARES       TYPE          NUMBER OF SHARES    PAR VALUE


<PAGE>


Common:                     Common:          30,000,000          $ .10
Preferred:                  Preferred:        1,000,000          $1.00


The foregoing amendment(s) will become effective when these Articles of
Amendment are filed in accordance with General Laws, Chapter 156B, Section
6 unless these articles specify, in accordance with the vote adopting the
amendment, later effective date not more than thirty days after such
filing, in which event the amendment will become effective on such later
date.

Later effective date: ______________________

SIGNED UNDER THE PENALTIES OF PERJURY, this 30th day of August, 2000.

/s/ Peter J. Murphy, President
    Peter J. Murphy

/s/ Jill Pollack Kutchin, Clerk
    Jill Pollack Kutchin


<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          23,074
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  956,626
<ALLOWANCES>                                   336,660
<INVENTORY>                                    130,517
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               780,895
<PP&E>                                          67,435
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,138
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 883,871
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          692,473
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       170,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      21,398
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   883,871
<SALES>                                      1,461,196
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,461,196
<CGS>                                          355,613
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,026,429
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (3,233)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 75,921
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             75,921
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    75,921
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     .006
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     .006
        

</TABLE>