alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DENY; and Opinion Filed September 9, 2019.

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00912-CV

IN RE ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-04652

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Myers, Molberg, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Molberg

Before the Court is relator’s August 2, 2019 petition for writ of mandamus challenging the 

trial court’s March 1, 2019 order requiring relator to pay a sanction of $1,000 to Regenerative 

Ortho Spine Institute of Texas (ROSIT), a non-party. The March 1 order was based on relator’s

August 27, 2018 motion to compel and motion to show cause directed at ROSIT. Relator generally 

contends the trial court abused its discretion by (1) awarding sanctions based on the misconduct 

of a non-party records service, and (2) utilizing an improper burden of proof which required relator 

to show its motion to compel “was meritorious and ‘not self-defeating on its face.’” 

To be entitled to mandamus relief, relator must show both that the trial court has clearly 

abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. Co.

of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). After reviewing the petition and 

the mandamus record, we conclude relator has not shown it is entitled to the relief requested.
–2–

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a) 

(the court must deny the petition if the court determines relator is not entitled to the relief sought).

190912F.P05

/Ken Molberg/

KEN MOLBERG

JUSTICE
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

This case has been pending since January 28, 2022, and yet remains in the very 

preliminary stages. The Court expects it to proceed, if the parties intend to do so, or for it to be 

dismissed. By August 15, 2023, the parties shall provide the Court with a comprehensive report 

on jurisdictional discovery, and a schedule for their plans to complete presentation of the case. 

Plaintiffs shall inform the Court of the likelihood of their pursuing this matter. 

SO ORDERED.

July 20, 2023.

BARBARA M. G. LYNN

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-00780-M Document 102 Filed 07/20/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1080
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF ESI AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         426,237
<SECURITIES>                                17,207,680
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,113,577
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            19,064,714
<PP&E>                                       2,846,367
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,213,070)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              20,816,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,745,611
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        89,762
<OTHER-SE>                                  50,286,554
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                20,816,304
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,478,145
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,173
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (6,217,383)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (6,217,383)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.69)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.69)
        

</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Frank Lotko, Appellant.

County Court, Suffolk County,

December 9, 1957.

*Scheinberg, Wolf, Lapham & De Petris*for appellant.

*John P. Cohalan, Jr., District Attorney,*for respondent.

Fred J. Munder, J.

The defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for driving while intoxicated. He contends that the information was defective because it did not set forth the facts constituting the crime charged against the defendant in that it did not categorically state the conclusive fact that he *47was intoxicated when he drove the vehicle. However, the information does set forth the facts from which the conclusion may be drawn and also states the offense. Nothing more is required to make the information sufficient in law.

Another ground of error is that the court did not inform the defendant, in accordance with section 369 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that if he intended to challenge an individual juror, he must do so when the juror appears and before he is sworn. This omission by the court was not harmfully prejudicial to the defendant. That he was not prejudiced is more certainly found from the fact that he was represented on the arraignment and on the trial by eminent and experienced counsel, who not only knew of the rule but actually exercised the right to challenge individual jurors before they were sworn.

The defendant also claims that insufficient evidence of his intoxication was adduced on the trial. A reading of the record indicates that his guilt was clearly and conclusively established and that no error was committed in the admission of testimony.

The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 15, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69050-69051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-29153]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[NAFTA-04080]


Louisiana Pacific Corporation, Western Division, Hayden Lake, 
Idaho; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to Title V of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
Implementation Act (P.L. 103-182) concerning transitional adjustment 
assistance, hereinafter called (NAFTA-TAA), and in accordance with 
section 250(a), subchapter D, chapter 2, title II, of the Trade Act of 
1974, as amended (19 U.S.C. 2273), an investigation was initiated on 
August 7, 2000 in response to a petition filed on behalf of workers at 
Louisiana Pacific Corporation, Western Division, Hayden Lake, Idaho.
    The petitioner requested that the petition for NAFTA-TAA be 
withdrawn. Consequently, further investigation in this case would serve

[[Page 69051]]

no purpose, and the investigation has been terminated.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 1st day of November, 2000.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-29153 Filed 11-14-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
#### CASSELS v. SERVICE MUT. INS. CO. OF TEXAS.

No. 11132.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

Dec. 10, 1941.

*423See also Tex.Civ.App., 157 S.W.2d 423.

Smith & Smith and B. Ray Smith, all of Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Scott & Wilson, of Waco, for appellee.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

This is a workmen’s compensation case which, according to the findings of the court below, has never been adjudicated by the Industrial Accident Board, and which was dismissed by the District Court for want of jurisdiction on that account. The cause has been advanced and set for submission in this Court January 7, 1942.

The parties have now filed in this Court their “Joint Motion to Enter Agreed Judgment.” The motion is accompanied by an agreement of compromise and settlement, in a lump sum, of appellee’s claim of compensation, and apportionment of the agreed amount between appellee and his attorneys. This Court is asked to approve the settlement as being just and fair to all the parties, and render judgment thereon, and, incidentally, to adjudicate the matter of cost of appeal so as relieve all parties of enforceable liability therefor.

A lump sum settlement by agreement between employee and insurance carrier is a nullity unless the settlement is first approved by the Industrial Accident Board. Lawler’s Texas Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 34; Employers’ Ind. Corp. v. Woods, Tex.Civ.App., 230 S.W. 461; Id., Tex.Com.App., 243 S.W. 1085; Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Jones, Tex.Civ.App., 299 S.W. 674; Indemnity Ins. Co. v. Murphy, Tex.Civ.App., 53 S.W.2d 503; Petroleum Cas. Co. v. Lewis, Tex.Civ.App., 63 S.W.2d 1066; Smith v. Petroleum Cas. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 72 S.W.2d 640.

It follows, as a matter of course, we conclude, that on proper appeal from a final award of the Board a trial court has the power to approve such agreement upon sufficient evidence that the proposed settlement is fair and just.

The present proposed settlement, however, was not submitted to or approved by the Industrial Accident Board, which apparently took no action upon any phase of appellee’s claim, and the trial court took no action upon the case except to dismiss it for want of jurisdiction.

Obviously, it is no proper function of this Court to take original jurisdiction to hear evidence and pass upon the merits of the proposed settlement of an unadjudi-cated claim and approve it as fair and just, nor is this Court bound to approve a provision in the settlement agreement which has the effect of depriving the administrative officers of this Court of any recourse for the costs of this appeal.

The motion is overruled at the joint cost of the parties.
| (logo) WELLS

           FARGO | Commercial Mortgage Servicing

D1086-120, 12th Floor

550 South Tryon Street 

Charlotte, NC 28202

1-800-326-1334 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of April 1, 2015, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, TRIMONT REAL ESTATE ADVISORS, INC, as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Certificate Administrator, as Tax Administrator and as Custodian and WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates Series 2015-NXS1 (the "Agreement"). Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1. A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from April 1, 2015 through December 31, 2015 (the “Reporting Period”), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made under my supervision, and 

 

2. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer, has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 4th day of March 2016.

 

 

/s/ Daniel Bober

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice President

Wells Fargo Bank

 

 
|  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. | (logo) Together we’ll go far |
|------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                                                                                     
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                     
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                       
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                 
|View History:                                                                        
|                                                                                     
|U.S. Refinery Lubricants Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                     
|                                                                                     
|U.S. Refinery Lubricants Production Capacity as of January 1 (Barrels per Stream Day)
|                                                                                     

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0  | Year-1  | Year-2  | Year-3  | Year-4  | Year-5  | Year-6  | Year-7  | Year-8  | Year-9 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | ------- | -------
|1980's                                                                                                                            |         |         | 241,896 | 241,058 | 240,655 | 242,539 | 246,421 | 249,913 | 232,221 | 229,662
|1990's                                                                                                                            | 232,181 | 229,231 | 216,903 | 217,379 | 212,506 | 217,106 | NA      | 243,806 | NA      | 233,200
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 217,878 | 213,920 | 218,140 | 216,440 | 209,540 | 216,640 | 219,840 | 233,757 | 249,160 | 229,860
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 239,760 | 242,840 | 242,340 | 240,740 | 240,240 | 265,340 | 273,140 | 261,240 | 262,340 | 262,840
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 260,545 | 263,545 | 263,545 | 263,545 | 263,545 |         |         |         |         |        
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 6/14/2024                                                                                                          
|Next Release Date: June 2025
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7375

JOHN PAUL TURNER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

DAVID S. KUYKENDALL, Virginia Department of

Corrections, District 12, Staunton, Virginia,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge.

(CA-96-131-R)

Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Paul Turner, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying (1) his

motion to reopen a prior decision denying relief on his petition

filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat.

1214, and (2) his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's orders and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Turner v.

Kuykendall, No. CA-96-131-R (W.D. Va. Aug. 28, 1996). 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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

JOHN DOE,

Plaintiff,

v.

TEXAS CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY & 

VICTOR J. BOSCHINI, JR.,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Civil Action No. 4:22-cv-00297-O

ORDER

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary 

Injunction (ECF No. 6), filed April 12, 2022. The Court ORDERS the parties to appear for an 

evidentiary hearing on the motion on Tuesday, April 26, 2022, at 9:00 AM in the Second Floor 

Courtroom of the Federal Courthouse in Fort Worth. The Court further ORDERS the parties to 

submit witness lists for the hearing by April 22, 2022. 

SO ORDERED this 20th day of April, 2022.

Case 4:22-cv-00297-O Document 28 Filed 04/20/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 564
Case 4:22-cr-00066-O Document 13 Filed 01/26/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 14
#### LOUISVILLE BAR ASS’N ex rel. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE v. ROBERTSON.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 20, 1952.

J. D. Buckman, Jr., Atty. Gen., and H. D. Reed, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for Board of Bar Com’rs.

J. Dudley Inman and Marshall P. Eldred, Louisville, for Louisville Bar Ass’n.

Leslie W. Morris, Frankfort, Eugene B. Cochran, Louisville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

On January 25, 1952, the Board of Bar Commissioners recommended that the respondent,. James T. Robertson, be suspended from engaging in the practice of law for a period of six months. The recommendation was 'based upon the report of a Trial Committee of the Bar Commissioners which had held hearings and thoroughly sifted charges brought against the respondent by the Louisville Bar Association.

The complaint against the respondent grew out of his allegedly, conscious participation in the deceptive exaggeration of a claim against Consuelo Geisler for personal injuries to his client, one Marie Roberts, which were allegedly received in a minor automobile accident at 22nd and Main Streets in Louisville on June 29, 1948.

We believe the evidence sustains the fact that the respondent had sufficient information about his client, an uneducated woman, to know that she was consciously exaggerating her claim, and that he did nothing to correct her or to correct the impression she sought to make. It so often happens in cases of this sort the testimony of the client is not altogether trustworthy, but the evidence of other witnesses confirms our conclusion that the Trial Committee was correct in its finding in this respect.

Because nearly six months have passed since the recommendation of the Bar Commissioners was filed with this Court, and during which period the respondent has suffered the near equivalent of suspension from practice, it is our conclusion that the ends of justice will be served by this reprimand of the respondent.

It is so ordered.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 216 (Tuesday, November 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66689-66690]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-28662]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Rural Telephone Bank


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY: Rural Telephone Bank, USDA.

ACTION: Staff Briefing for the Board of Directors.

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

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Thursday, November 16, 2000.

PLACE: Room 0204, South Building, Department of Agriculture, 1400 
Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE DISCUSSED:
    1. Current telecommunications industry issues.
    2. Status of PBO planning.

[[Page 66690]]

    3. Contracts for financial and legal advisors to the Privatization 
Committee.
    4. Allowance for loan losses reserve.
    5. Schedule for stockholders' meeting in year 2001.
    6. Administrative issues.

ACTION: Board of Directors Meeting.

TIME AND DATE: 9:00 a.m., Friday, November 17, 2000.

PLACE: Room 104-A, The Williamsburg Room, Department of Agriculture, 
12th Jefferson Drive, SW, Washington, DC.

STATUS:  Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The following matters have been placed on the 
agenda for the Board of Directors meeting:
    1. Call to order.
    2. Report on board election results.
    3. Oath of office.
    4. Election of board officers: Chairperson, Vice Chair, Secretary, 
and Treasurer.
    5. Action on Minutes of the August 4, 2000, board meeting.
    6. Report on loans approved in FY 2000.
    7. Report on financial activity for FY 2000.
    8. Report on the allowance for loan losses reserve.
    9. Privatization Committee report.
    10. Consideration of resolution to reestablish the Privatization 
Committee.
    11. Consideration of resolution to approve Anthony Haynes to serve 
as the Deputy Governor of the Bank.
    12. Establish date and location of next board meeting.
    13. Adjournment.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Roberta D. Purcell, Assistant 
Governor, Rural Telephone Bank, (202) 720-9554.

    Dated: November 2, 2000.
Anthony C. Haynes,
Acting Governor, Rural Telephone Bank.
[FR Doc. 00-28662 Filed 11-3-00; 2:43 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-15-P