alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### COCKE v. SMITH, District Clerk.

No. 8186.

Supreme Court of Texas.

April 5, 1944.

P. O. Lopp, of Dallas, for relator.

Claud C. Westerfeld, of Dallas, for respondent.

FOLLEY, Commissioner.

In the above cause Chas. M. Cocke, who was appointed independent executor under the will of Mamie A. Grubbs, deceased, filed an original application in this court for writ of mandamus to compel the District Clerk of Dallas County to furnish him a transcript of the proceedings in Cause No. 73320-E in the 101st District Court of Dallas County for use on appeal to the Court of Civil Appeals at Dallas, without requiring him to execute an appeal bond. At a former date we granted the writ of mandamus. 179 S.W.2d 954.

Upon further consideration of this matter by this court upon its own motion, we are of the opinion that we are without jurisdiction to grant such writ.

Article V, Section 3 of our Constitution, Vernon’s Ann.St. provides, among other things, that “The Legislature may confer original jurisdiction on the Supreme Court to issue writs of quo warranto and mandamus in such cases as may be specified, except as against the Governor of .the State.”

Revised Statutes, Article 1733, reads as follows: “The Supreme Court or any Justice thereof, shall have power to issue writs of procedendo, certiorari and all writs of quo warranto or mandamus agreeable to the principles of law regulating such writs, against any district judge, or Court of Civil Appeals or judges thereof, or any officer of the State Government, except the Governor.”

In the case of Travis County v. Jourdan, 91 Tex. 217, 42 S.W. 543, this court held that it did not have jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against county officers nor any district officers, except a district judge. Under the above authority we are of the opinion that we were without jurisdiction to grant the writ of mandamus against the District Clerk in this case.

See also the following authorities: 28 Tex.Jur. 592 et seq.; Bostic v. County Judge of Rockwall County, 108 Tex. 421, 195 S.W. 186; Turner v. Cotton, County Judge, 93 Tex. 559, 57 S.W. 35; Betts v. Johnson et al., 96 Tex. 360, 73 S.W. 4.

It is therefore ordered that our former judgment in this cause granting the mandamus be, and the same is, hereby set aside. It is further ordered that the mandate heretofore issued out of this court in this cause be, and the same is, hereby recalled, and the application for the writ of mandamus is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 222 (Thursday, November 16, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 69295]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29338]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-3251-000]


Exelon Generating Company, L.L.C.; Notice of Issuance of Order

November 9, 2000.
    Exelon Generating Company, L.L.C. (Exelon) filed with the 
Commission a rate schedule under which Exelon will engage in wholesale 
electric power and energy transactions at market-based rates. In its 
filing, Exelon also requested certain waivers and authorizations. In 
particular, Exelon requested that the Commission grant blanket approval 
under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and 
assumptions of liabilities by Exelon. On November 8, 2000, the 
Commission issued an Order Granting Market-Based Rate Authority, 
Accepting Tariffs, Service Agreement And Power Purchase Agreement, And 
Waiving Code of Conduct (Order), in the above-docketed proceeding.
    The Commission's November 8, 2000 Order granted the request for 
blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the conditions found in 
Ordering Paragraphs (C), (D), and (F):
    (C) Within 30 days of the date of issuance of this order, any 
person desiring to be heard or to protest the Commission's blanket 
approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities by 
Exelon should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214.
    (D) Absent a request to be heard within the period set forth in 
Ordering Paragraph (C) above, Exelon is hereby authorized to issue 
securities and assume obligations and liabilities as guarantor, 
indorser, surety or otherwise in respect of any security of another 
person; provided that such issue or assumption is for some lawful 
object within the corporate purposes of Exelon, compatible with the 
public interest, and reasonably necessary or appropriate for such 
purposes.
    (F) The Commission reserves the right to modify this order to 
require a further showing that neither public nor private interests 
will be adversely affected by continued Commission approval of Exelon's 
issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities * * *.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is December 8, 2000.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for 
assistance).

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-29338 Filed 11-15-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

 FORT WORTH DIVISION

THOMAS S. OLIVAS, §

 § 

Petitioner, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-385-O

 §

BOBBY LUMPKIN, Director, §

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division, et al. §

 §

Respondent. §

 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

Now pending is Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file a reply. ECF No. 17. 

After review and consideration of the motion, the Court finds that the motion should be granted. 

It is therefore ORDERED that Petitioner’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 17) is 

GRANTED, such that Petitioner shall have until October 3, 2022 to file any response to the 

Respondent’s answer. 

SO ORDERED this 6th day of September, 2022. 

Case 4:22-cv-00385-O Document 18 Filed 09/06/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 6883
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Richard Bricault and Nancy Bricault, Respondents, April 6, 2016<br><br>against<br><br>Andrew Lockwood and College Funding Specialists, Appellants.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Helen Voutsinas, J.), entered on October 21, 2011. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, awarded plaintiffs the principal sum of $1,695.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.</p><p>Plaintiffs commenced this small claims action to recover $1,695 of the total sum paid to defendant College Funding Specialists for consultations with its owner, defendant Andrew Lockwood, regarding college financial aid for their daughter and for assistance in the preparation and filing of college financial aid forms. Following a nonjury trial, the District Court found in plaintiffs' favor, and a judgment awarding plaintiffs the principal sum of $1,695 was entered on October 21, 2011.</p><p>In a small claims action, our review is limited to a determination of whether "substantial justice has . . . been done between the parties according to the rules and principles of substantive law" (UDCA 1807; <i>see</i> UDCA 1804; <i>Ross v Friedman</i>, 269 AD2d 584 [2000]; <i>Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d 125 [2000]). Furthermore, the determination of a trier of fact as to issues of credibility is given substantial deference, as a trial court's opportunity to observe and evaluate the testimony and demeanor of the witnesses affords it a better perspective from which to assess their credibility (<i>see Vizzari v State of New York</i>, 184 AD2d 564 [1992]; <i>Kincade v Kincade</i>, 178 AD2d 510, 511 [1991]). This deference applies with greater force to judgments rendered in the Small Claims Part of the court (<i>see Williams v Roper</i>, 269 AD2d at 126).</p><p>As the judgment in this case provided the parties with substantial justice (<i>see</i> UDCA 1804, 1807), the judgment is affirmed.</p><p>Iannacci, J.P., Tolbert and Garguilo, JJ., concur.</p><br>Decision Date: April 06, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
Exhibit 99.1




Annual Servicer’s Certificate


Provided by Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation


to Holders of Notes and Certificates









NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION




OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE


The undersigned, Michael J. McConnell, Vice President of NISSAN MOTOR ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, a California corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, in his capacity as such corporate officer, as follows:
  (1)           The undersigned has caused a review, under his supervision, to be made of i) the activities; and ii) the performance under the Agreement (as defined below), of the Company during the 12-month reporting period ended March 31, 2016 (the “Reporting Period”); and
  (2)           To the best of the undersigned’s knowledge, based upon such review, the Company has fulfilled its obligations in all material respects under the Agreement throughout the Reporting Period.
  This Officer’s Certificate is being furnished pursuant to Section 4.09(a) of that certain Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of April 14, 2015 (the “Agreement”), by and among the Company, in its individual capacity and as servicer, Nissan Auto Receivables Corporation II, as seller, and Nissan Auto Receivables 2015-A Owner Trust.
  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to such terms in the Agreement.


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand effective as of the 15th day of June, 2016.




/s/Michael J. McConnell________________


Michael J. McConnell


Vice President
Department of the Treasury Quarterly FOIA Report

Fiscal Year 2023, Quarter Q1

1. Ten Oldest Pending Requests: 10

2. Ten Oldest Requests Closed: 0

3. Agency Component Abbreviations

Component 

Abbreviation Component Name

BEP Bureau of Engraving and Printing

DO Departmental Offices

FinCEN Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

Fiscal Service Bureau of the Fiscal Service

IRS Internal Revenue Service - Headquarters Office

MINT United States Mint

OCC Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

TIGTA Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

TTB Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

Agency / 

Component

Number of requests 

backlogged

Number of requests 

processed

Number of requests 

received

BEP 17 17 9
DO 1296 122 141

FinCEN 44 26 43

Fiscal Service4 58 59

IRS 1061 1503 1708

MINT 814 16

OCC 12 384 364

TIGTA2 56 54

TTB199
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6227
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DEREK LAVELLE STATEN, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (8:01- cr-00284-PJM; 8:05-cv-00144-PJM) Submitted: September 28, 2006 Decided: October 5, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Derek Lavelle Staten, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Derek Lavelle Staten seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Staten has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Staten’s motion for stay and 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
EXHIBIT 35.1





SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT





I, Alyson M. Mount, Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer of Entergy New Orleans, Inc. (the “Servicer”), certify that:





(a) A review of the Servicer's activities during the reporting period covered by this Report on Form 10-K and of its performance under that certain Storm Recovery Property Servicing Agreement dated as of July 22, 2015 between Entergy New Orleans Storm Recovery Funding I, L.L.C., as the Issuing Entity, and the Servicer (the “Servicing Agreement”) has been made under my supervision.





(b) To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Servicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.





Date: March 29, 2017





Entergy New Orleans, Inc., as servicer





By:  /s/ Alyson M. Mount


Name:  Alyson M. Mount


Title:  Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7971 

SHAWN THOMAS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-05-415-2)

Submitted: April 27, 2006 Decided: May 5, 2006

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shawn Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Shawn Thomas, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the

district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-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 Thomas

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 the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Treasury

###### Fiscal Service

# AGENCY:

Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of the Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This is Supplement No. 4 to the Treasury Department Circular 570; 2000 Revision, published June 30, 2000, at 65 FR 40868.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-6696.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given that the Certificate of Authority issued by the Treasury to the above named Company, under the United States Code, Title 31, Sections 9304-9308, to qualify as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds is terminated effective immediately.

The Company was last listed as an acceptable surety on Federal bonds at 65 FR 40879, June 30, 2000.

With respect to any bonds currently in force with above listed Company, bond-approving officers may let such bonds run to expiration and need not secure new bonds. However, no new bonds should be accepted from the Company. In addition, bonds that are continuous in nature should not be renewed.

The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at http://www.fms.tres.gov/​c570/​index.html. A hard copy may be purchased from the Government Printing Office (GPO), Subscription Service, Washington, DC, telephone (202) 512-1800. When ordering the Circular from GPO, use the following stock number: 048-000-00536-5.

Questions concerning this notice may be directed to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West Highway, Room 6A04, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

Dated: October 30, 2000.

Wanda J. Rogers,

Director, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Financial Management Service.

[FR Doc. 00-28588 Filed 11-7-00; 8:45 am]

                BILLING CODE 4810-35-M                      ( print page 67037)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>

THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONSOLIDATED
BALANCE SHEET AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF INCOME FILED AS PART OF THE
ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K

</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,330
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,655
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                10,612
<PP&E>                                         149,540
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,254
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 122,322
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           19,676
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            56
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,364
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   122,322
<SALES>                                         35,702
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                35,702
<CGS>                                            9,077
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   33,632
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    55
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 724
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,320
<INCOME-TAX>                                       519
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                801
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                       (1,233)
<NET-INCOME>                                      (432)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.07)


</TABLE>
TEOAF Directive 16 1 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR ASSET FORFEITURE 

DIRECTIVE NO. 16 

DATE: October 27, 2021 

SUBJECT: Acknowledgements and Advice on Equitable Sharing Requests 

1. PURPOSE. This Department of the Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture (TEOAF) Directive 

establishes Treasury policy pertaining to notices to state and local law enforcement agencies that apply 

for an equitable share of forfeited assets. 

2. SCOPE. This Directive applies to all equitable sharing requests that are submitted to agencies 

participating in the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF). 

3. POLICY. TEOAF administers the federal equitable sharing program and requires that TFF member 

agencies provide accurate and timely updates on the equitable sharing process to all recipient state and 

local agencies. 

4. SEIZING AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES. The seizing agency (i.e., the TFF participating agency that 

is processing the equitable sharing request) must provide participating state and local agencies with 

point-of-contact information and notify the agencies of the status of their equitable sharing request at key 

points in the equitable sharing process. 

5. PROCEDURES.

A. Upon the Receipt of an Equitable Sharing Request – Within 30 days of the receipt of an equitable 

sharing request, the receiving TFF participating agency shall provide the submitting state or local agency 

with a written notice of receipt and point-of-contact information for future updates. 

B. Upon Issuance of Payment – Within 30 days of receiving TEOAF notification that a payment has 

been made, the involved TFF participating agency shall provide the recipient state or local agency with 

written notice that includes the payment amount, the asset identification number related to the payment, 

and the payment transmittal date. 

C. Communication Effort – TFF participating agencies may create their own communications to meet 

the requirements contained in this Directive. 

6. AUTHORITY. 31 U.S.C. § 9705; Treasury Directive 15-04, "Delegations Relating to the Treasury 

Forfeiture Fund,” October 10, 2017; and Treasury Order 102-14, "Delegation of Authority with Respect to 

the Department of the Treasury Forfeiture Fund," October 18, 2021. 

7. INFORMATION CONTACT. Any inquiries pertaining to this Directive should be directed to TEOAF’s 

Equitable Sharing Team at (202) 622-9600. 

8. CANCELLATION. TEOAF Directive No. 16, “Equitable Sharing – Acknowledgements and Advice on 

Sharing Requests,” September 16, 1994 (revised 1/12/2016), is hereby superseded. 

9. EFFECTIVE DATE. October 27, 2021. 
TEOAF Directive 16 2 

/S/ 

John Farley 

Director 

TEOAF