alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-23-00192-CR

__________________

IN RE RAYMOND PEOPLES JR.

__________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

Criminal District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Through a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus filed as an original 

proceeding with this Court, Raymond Peoples Jr. complains that the trial court 

refused to file an application for a writ of habeas corpus under article 11.08 of the 

Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. He asks this Court to compel the trial court to 

accept his writ application. Peoples has not shown that he is currently under 

indictment for a criminal case filed in the Criminal District Court of Jefferson 

County, nor has he shown that he is currently acting as pro se in the trial court and
2

is not represented by counsel.1 Accordingly, we deny the petition for a writ of 

mandamus without prejudice. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on July 18, 2023

Opinion Delivered July 19, 2023

Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Wright, JJ.

1 We note that the mandamus petition suffers from notable defects. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 52. Peoples fails to identify the real party in interest or certify that he 

served a copy of his mandamus petition on the respondent and on the real party in 

interest. See id. at 52.2, 52.3(a); see also Tex. R. App. P. 9.5. The petition lacks the 

information required by Rule 52.3(b) – (h). We use Rule 2, however, to look beyond 

these deficiencies to reach an expeditious result. See Tex. R. App. P. 2.
C. M., SR. FATHER OF C. M.,

JR., minor child

,

Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF

CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 2399

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 15 , 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Karen A. Gievers , Judge

.

Terry P. Roberts of Law Office of Terry P. Roberts, Tallahassee , for Appellant.

Kelley Schaeffer, Guardian ad Litem Program, Sanford , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LEWIS, ROWE, and KELSEY, JJ., CONCUR.
[Cite as State v. Lanier , 128 Ohio St.3d 339, 2011-Ohio-5.]

T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLEE , v . L ANIER , A PPELLANT . [Cite as State v. Lanier , 128 Ohio St.3d 339, 2011-Ohio-5.] Judgment of the court of appeals vacate d in part, and cause remanded to the court of appeals for application of State v. Johnson. (Nos. 2009-0232 and 2009-0328

— Submitted January 4, 2011

— Decided January 5, 2011.)
C ERTIFIED by and A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Hamilton County, No. C-080162, 180 Ohio App.3d 376, 2008-Ohio-6906.

__________________ {¶ 1} Sua sponte, case No. 2009-0232 is dismissed as having been improvidently certified. {¶ 2} In case No. 2009-0328, the portion of the court of appeals’ judgment addressing appellant’s third a ssignment of error below is vacated, sua sponte, on the authority of State v. Johnson , 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for application of our decision in State v. Johnson

. {¶ 3} Oral argument in these cases scheduled for January 18, 2011, is accordingly canceled.
O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , C UPP , and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., concur.

__________________ Joseph T. Deters, Hamilton County Pr osecuting Attorney, and Scott M. Heenan, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Roger W. Kirk, for appellant. Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Terrence K. Scott, Assistant Public Defender, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Ohio Public Defender.

______________________
#### NATIONAL BENEV. SOC. v. JACKSON.

No. 3888.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

June 19, 1941.

Ramsey & Ramsey, of San Augustine, for appellant.

Fisher & Fisher, of San Augustine, for appellee.

COMBS, Justice.

Appellant having failed to file bond in accordance with a former order of this court, the appeal is dismissed.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

ROBERT HOPKINS, III,

Plaintiff,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

Defendant.

No. 3:22-CV-00706-C

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING CROSS-MOTION 

TO AMEND SCHEDULING ORDER

Upon consideration of Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay Future Deadlines and Defendant’s 

Cross-Motion to Amend Scheduling Order, Defendant’s Motion is hereby GRANTED. 

Specifically:

• The deadlines in this Court’s Scheduling Order, ECF No. 12, are hereby 

STAYED pending decision on Defendant’s forthcoming motion for 

summary judgment.

• Briefing on Plaintiff’s motion to compel, should he choose to file one, is 

hereby STAYED pending decision on Defendant’s forthcoming motion 

for summary judgment.

• All discovery and other proceedings in this matter are hereby STAYED 

pending decision on Defendant’s forthcoming motion for summary 

judgment.

• Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in this matter shall be due by 

3:00 p.m. on Friday, August 11, 2023.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: _________________ ____________________

SAM R. CUMMINGS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00706-C Document 17-1 Filed 05/24/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 397
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 66787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28504]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 
20549.

Extension:
    Rule 10b-10; SEC File No. 270-389; OMB Control No. 3235-0444.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a 
request for extension of the previously approved collection of 
information discussed below.
    Rule 10b-10 requires broker-dealers to convey basic trade 
information to customers regarding their securities transactions. This 
information includes: the date and time of the transaction, the 
identity and number of shares bought or sold, and the trading capacity 
of the broker-dealer. Depending on the trading capacity of the broker-
dealer, the Rule requires the disclosure of commissions as well as 
markup and markdown information. For transactions in debt securities, 
the Rule requires the disclosure of redemption and yield information. 
The Rule potentially applies to all of the approximately 5,300 firms 
registered with the Commission that effect transactions on behalf of 
customers.
    The confirmations required by Rule 10b-10 are generally processed 
through automated systems. It takes approximately 1 minute to generate 
and send a confirmation. It is estimated that broker-dealers spend 56 
million hours per year complying with rule 10b-10.
    The Commission staff estimates the costs of producing and sending a 
confirmation to be approximately 89 cents. The amount of confirmations 
sent and the cost of sending each confirmation varies from firm to 
firm. Smaller firms generally send fewer confirmations than larger 
firms because they effect fewer transactions.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid control number.
    Written comments regarding the above information should be directed 
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, D.C. 20503; and (ii) Michael E. Bartell, 
Associate Executive Director, Office of Information Technology, 
Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 Fifth Street, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20549. Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this 
notice.

    Dated: October 31, 2000.
Margaret H. McFarland,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-28504 Filed 11-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 21

- 6358

DAVID ERNEST MALINZAK , Petitioner

- Appellant ,

v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA , Respondent

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina , at Greensboro

. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. ( 1:20

- cv - 00320

- WO

- LPA )

Submitted : April 14, 2022 Decided: April 26, 2022

Before NIEMEYER , RICHARDSON, and HEYTENS , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.

David Ernest Malinzak , Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Porter Babb, Sr., Special Deputy Attorney General , NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE , Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:
David Ernest Malinzak seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely Malinzak ’s 28 U. S.C. § 2254 petition. See Gonzalez v. Thaler , 565 U.S. 134, 148 & n.9 (2012) (explaining that § 2254 petition s are subject to one

- year statute of limitations, running from latest of four
commencement dates enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253( c)(1)(A). 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). When , as here, the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez , 565 U.S. at 140

- 41 (citing Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000))

. We have independently revie wed the record and conclude that Malinzak has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in t he materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

STATE OF TEXAS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., et al.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00780-M

ORDER

Before the Court is the Joint Advisory Regarding the Parties’ Resolution of the Matter of 

Jurisdictional Discovery and the Joint Motion for Stay of Deadlines. ECF No. 49. The Motion 

is GRANTED. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the deadline to answer or otherwise respond to the Amended 

Complaint for both Defendants and Defendant-Intervenors is stayed and held in abeyance while 

the parties engage in their reciprocal jurisdictional discovery process. It is hereby ORDERED 

that the parties shall file a Joint Status Report outlining their progress and anticipated timeline on 

the 15th day of each month, beginning with September 15, 2022. Nothing herein shall keep the 

Court from lifting the stay on its own motion.

SO ORDERED.

August 22, 2022.

BARBARA M. G. LYNN

CHIEF JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 50 Filed 08/22/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 865
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                              14,477
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            0
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    29,566
<PP&E>                                           4,785,285
<DEPRECIATION>                                      31,865
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   4,794,493
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,950,772
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         2,948,693
<OTHER-SE>                                               0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     4,794,493
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   201,259
<CGS>                                                    0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      220,590
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 105,377
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          0
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      0
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (124,363)
<EPS-BASIC>                                        (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0





</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS CORPORATION
AS OF MARCH 31, 1997 AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                         386,988
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                8,589,181
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                 12,403,569
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            23,771,242
<PP&E>                                      17,941,066
<DEPRECIATION>                                 994,981
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              48,020,037
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       24,306,650
<BONDS>                                     18,496,531
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          3
<COMMON>                                        12,668
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,845,185
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                48,020,037
<SALES>                                     22,968,393
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                       17,490,571
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,764,639
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             781,551
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                985,039
<INCOME-TAX>                                   389,546
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            595,493
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   595,493
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as Chief Financial Officer of American Bank Note
Holographics, Inc. (the Company), that the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report) fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of
the period covered by the Report and the results of operations of the Company for the period covered by the Report.



By:

/s/ Mark J. BonneyMark J. BonneyExecutive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Chief Accounting Officer


Date: April 30, 2007

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
statement required by Section 906, has been provided to American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. and will be retained by American Bank Note Holographics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.57

                                AMENDMENT TO THE
                               BORDERS GROUP, INC.
                              ANNUAL INCENTIVE PLAN

Effective as of May 20, 2004, the Borders Group, Inc. Annual Incentive Plan (the
"Plan"), approved by the shareholders of Borders Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
May 24, 2000, is hereby amended in the following particulars:

1.    The definition of "MSPP Participant" in Section 2 (j) of the Plan is
      hereby amended to read as follows:

            "'MSPP Participant'" shall mean a participant in the 2004 Long-Term
            Incentive Plan who has been granted stock purchase rights for the
            relevant Plan Year of the Plan; provided, however, that only
            officers shall be required to use a portion of their bonus to
            purchase shares under the 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan."

2.    The following definition shall be inserted at the end of Section 2 of the
      Plan:

            "(s) '2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan' shall mean the Borders Group,
            Inc. 2004 Long-Term Incentive Plan approved by the shareholders of
            Borders Group, Inc. on May 20, 2004."

3.    All references in the Plan to the phrase "Management Stock Purchase Plan"
      or "MSPP" are hereby deleted and replaced with the following: "2004
      Long-Term Incentive Plan."

Except as hereby amended, the Plan shall remain in full force and effect.

                                              Borders Group, Inc.

                                              By: /s/ Edward W. Wilhelm
                                                  --------------------------
                                                  Edward W. Wilhelm
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3258 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3258

 Making continuing appropriations for all departments and agencies of 
            the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 5, 2013

 Mr. Grayson introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 Making continuing appropriations for all departments and agencies of 
            the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

    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 ``Fiscal Sanity Act for 
Appropriations''.

SEC. 2. CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS.

    There is hereby appropriated for 365 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act--
            (1) for each project or activity for which budget authority 
        was provided in the Consolidated and Further Continuing 
        Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6), an amount equal to 
        the budget authority provided in such Act, as reduced pursuant 
        to the Presidential sequestration order dated March 1, 2013, to 
        remain available for a comparable period of availability; and
            (2) for entitlements and other mandatory payments whose 
        budget authority was provided in appropriations Acts for fiscal 
        year 2013, and for activities under the Food and Nutrition Act 
        of 2008, such amounts as may be necessary to maintain program 
        levels as they existed on September 30, 2013.
                                 <all>
```
| (logo) WELLS FARGO | **Corporate Trust Services**

  MAC R1204-010  9062 Old Annapolis Road  Columbia, MD 21045  Tel: 410 884 2000  Fax: 410 715 2380 |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Re: Annual Statement ofCompliance for Morgan Stanley Bank of America Merrill Lynch Trust 2015-C21,Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2015-C21

 

Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreementdated as of February 1, 2015 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, aduly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the yearending December 31, 2016 (the "Reporting Period"):

 

(a) A review of Wells Fargo'sactivities during the Reporting Period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and

 

(b) To the best of suchofficer's knowledge, based on such review, Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of itsobligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout theReporting Period.

 

 

February 27, 2017

 

 

/s/ Brian Smith

BRIAN SMITH

Vice President

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll  go far |
|------------------------|-------------------------------------|
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, September 24, 2019.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, September 24, 2019

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A20I0042. CONSTANCE OWENSBY v. JASON WILLIAMS.

Upon consideration of the Application for Interlocutory Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

17CV2913