alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ex parte MORRIS.

No. 16546.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 3, 1934.

Grady L. Fox and Robert E. O’Keefe, both of Amarillo, for appellant.

Uoyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty'., of Austin, for the State.

DATTIMORE, Judge.

 Appellant was indicted for theft and burglary in the same indictment by separate counts. This was entirely proper under authorities too numerous to mention. He was convicted of theft of property of the value of more than $50 and given five years in the penitentiary, which was perfectly legal. If any matter of . procedure was not correctly followed, appellant had his adequate and regular remedy by appeal to this court. This right he chose not to exercise. The writ of habeas corpus in this case should have been denied. Having been granted and the facts heard, appellant was properly remanded.

The judgment will be affirmed.
Record of Conversation

On September 19, 2011, ARM Analyst spoke to Shelli Oliver to follow up from previous 

conversation in regards to withdrawing petition due to duplicate request. Ms. Oliver 

stated that she submitted withdrawal letter to regulations.gov two weeks prio. Analyst 

explained the letter had not been received.

This letter serves as the withdrawal letter on behalf of Falwell dba Freedom Aviation.

Tyneka Thomas

Transportation Industry Analyst
EXHIBIT 32.1  CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, Yuri Benenson, certify that:  1.
        I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Trimol Group, Inc.  2.
        Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3.
        Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;  4.
        The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant, and we have:  a)
        designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b)
        evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and  c)
        presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  5.
        The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants Board of Directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  a)
        all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b)
        any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and  6.
        The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.  May
          22, 2006
      By
          /s/ Yuri BenensonChief
          Executive Officer   20
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet and the consolidated statement of operations and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such statements
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              mar-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   sep-30-1997
<CASH>                                         843,593
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  116,825
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    132,908
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,102,405
<PP&E>                                         90,258
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,858,007
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          165,082
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    7,500
<COMMON>                                       370
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,685,055
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,858,007
<SALES>                                        148,726
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               148,726
<CGS>                                          99,214
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  437,555
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (11,330)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (376,713)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (376,713)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (376,713)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.10)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.10)
        


</TABLE>
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
      10.3

    


    JL
      Montgomery Consulting, LLC 

    October
      30, 2008

    


    EAU
      Technologies, Inc.

    1890
      Cobb
      International Blvd., Suite A

    Kennesaw,
      Georgia 30152

    


    
      	 	
              Re:

            	
              Limited
                Waiver of Section 2.4 of Exhibit A to the Consulting Agreement dated
                May
                1, 2006.

            


    

    


    Gentlemen:

    


    Reference
      is made to the Consulting Agreement dated May 1, 2006, by and between JL
      Montgomery Consulting, LLC (the "Investor") and EAU Technologies, Inc. (the
      "Company").

    


    The
      Board
      of Directors of the Company, or the Compensation Committee thereof, has approved
      the issuance of 2.5
      million
      shares
      of its $0.0001 par value common stock at a sales price of $1.00
      per
      share to Water Science LLC, an affiliate of Peter Ullrich, a director of the
      Company. Investor hereby agrees that the issuance of the shares of stock will
      not cause an adjustment in the Purchase Price pursuant to Section 2.4 of Exhibit
      A to the Consulting Agreement.

    


    
      	 	
              Very
                truly yours,

            
	 	 
	
               

            	
              JL
                MONTGOMERY CONSULTING, LLC

            
	 	 
	 	
              J.
                Leo Montgomery

            
	 	
              Managing
                Member
Denied and Opinion Filed July 18, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-00827-CV

IN RE BABAK TAHERZADEH, Relator

Original Proceeding from the Criminal District Court No. 3

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F16-12037

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Osborne, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Carlyle

In this original proceeding, relator seeks a writ of mandamus directing the district court to 

return to relator all costs, fees, fines, penalties, and expenses paid by relator in the underlying 

proceeding. We deny the petition.

To establish a right to mandamus relief in a criminal case, the relator must show that the 

trial court violated a ministerial duty and there is no adequate remedy at law. In re State ex rel. 

Weeks, 391 S.W.3d 117, 122 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). “Due to the extraordinary 

nature of the remedy, the right to mandamus relief generally requires a predicate request for action 

by the respondent, and the respondent’s erroneous refusal to act.” In re Coppola, 535 S.W.3d 506, 

510 (Tex. 2017) (orig. proceeding). As the party seeking relief, the relator has the burden of 

providing the Court with a sufficient mandamus record to establish his right to mandamus relief.

Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Rules 52.3 and 52.7 require 

the relator to provide “a certified or sworn copy” of certain documents, including any order 
–2–

complained of, any other document showing the matter complained of, and every document that 

is material to the relator’s claim for relief that was filed in any underlying proceeding. TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.3(k)(1)(A), 52.7(a)(1). Rule 52.3(h), in turn, requires the petition to “contain a clear and 

concise argument for the contentions made, with appropriate citations to authorities and to the 

appendix or record.” TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3(h). The petition must also include other information, 

including a statement of the case, a statement of jurisdiction, and a statement of facts. TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.3.

Here, relator’s petition does not include an appendix or mandamus record as required by 

rules 52.3 and 52.7 and meets none of the other requirements of rule 52.3. This petition is 

insufficient to establish that relator asked the trial court to return to relator all costs, fees, fines, 

penalties, and expenses paid by relator and that the trial court has either refused to act within a 

reasonable time or erroneously denied the relief requested. As such, relator has not established a 

violation of a ministerial duty and is not entitled to mandamus relief. 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).

190827F.P05

/Cory L. Carlyle/

CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE
Exhibit 32, Section 1350 Certifications

I, Barbara A. Manzolillo, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, certify this
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Medical Information Technology, Inc. for the
period ended March 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

April 29, 2005
(Date)

Barbara A. Manzolillo, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Signature)

I, A. Neil Pappalardo, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, certify this
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Medical Information Technology, Inc. for the
period ended March 31, 2005, fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

April 29, 2005
(Date)

A. Neil Pappalardo, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
(Signature)
**EXHIBIT 32**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

        I, Wesley R. Card, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Annual Report of Jones Apparel Group, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscalyear ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Jones ApparelGroup, Inc.

By: /s/ Wesley R. Card

Name: Wesley R. Card Title: President and Chief Executive Officer

 

*A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Jones Apparel Group, Inc. and will be retainedby Jones Apparel Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.*

 

        I, John T. McClain, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatthe Annual Report of Jones Apparel Group, Inc. on Form 10-K for the fiscalyear ended December 31, 2008 fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in such Annual Report on Form 10-K fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of Jones ApparelGroup, Inc.

By: /s/ John T. McClain

Name: John T. McClain Title: Chief Financial Officer

 

*A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Jones Apparel Group, Inc. and will be retainedby Jones Apparel Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.*
Gormas, Michael (OST) From: Sent: To: maryclaire bernstein

# •••••••••> Wednesday, November 05, 2014 4:55 PM Gormas, Michael (OST) Cc: Subject: Sally Smith; chad.padgett@mail.house.gov; Kevin_Sweeney@murkowski.senate.gov Air Service to Tenakee
November 2, 2014 Mr. Todd Homan Director, Office ofAviationAnalysis US Department ofTransportation 1200 NewJersey Ave, SE Washington, DC 20590 Dear Mr. Homan, ..,:·::.:•
L.)

I am writingto appeal to USDOT to preserve air service from Juneauto Tenakee Springs, Alaska. Our community is guaranteed scheduled air service underthe USDOT Essential Air Service program. Further, USDOT Determination 80-1-167 stipulates that Tenakee Springs is entitledto essential air service to and from Juneau. Juneau is the hub for SoutheastAlaska andthe logical pointthrough which service should be provided. Service from any location outside ofJuneau would be disastrous for Tenakee Springs because the volume oftraffic would be decimated. Ourpresentprovider, Alaska Seaplanes, has offered safe and reliable service to Tenakee Springs for seventeen years and has worked with our community to support us innumerous ways. It partnered with us on an economic development opportunity for a Small CommunityAir Service grant which will improve our ability to market ourbusinesses in Juneau and the Lower 48. Alaska Seaplanes has a large, capable fleet ofaircraft. Please reaffirm our guarantee underthe Essential Air Service program ofaccess to the longstanding Juneau air service hub, and approve service from Juneauto the Tenakee Springs community for no less than another four year term. Sincerely, Mary-Claire Bernstein

cc: The Honorable Mark Begich via Sally Smith@begich.senate.gov The Honorable Don Young via Chad Padgett@mail.house.gov The Honorable Lisa Murkowski via Kevin Sweeney@murkowski.senate.gov

1
#### Nancy Hughes, Respondent, v Harry C. Serviss, Jr., Appellant.

In a support proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Orange County (Slobod, J.), entered June 15, 1989, which sustained the mother’s objections to an order of the same court (Mandell, H.E.), entered January 19, 1989, and increased the father’s child support obligations to $170 per week.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court did not improvidently exercise its discre*542tion in determining that given the change in the parties’ circumstances since the execution of the separation agreement, that is, the increased needs of the growing children, the increased cost of living and the father’s substantially improved financial condition, the best interests of the children warranted an upward modification of the father’s child support obligations *(see, Matter of Brescia v Fitts,*56 NY2d 132, 140-141; *Matter of Masten v Masten,*150 AD2d 693; *Matter of Bruhn v McCready,*138 AD2d 374, 376). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Kunzeman and Miller, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000871367
<NAME> 91B.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                         237,013
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  225,511
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               462,524
<PP&E>                                       9,696,907
<DEPRECIATION>                               7,107,967
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,051,464
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           20,648
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   3,030,816
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,051,464
<SALES>                                      1,632,595
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,646,141
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  722,139
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                924,002
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            924,002
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   924,002
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    81.32
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2246 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.2246

                     One Hundred Fifteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

         Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,
           the third day of January, two thousand and eighteen

                                 An Act

 
   To designate the health care center of the Department of Veterans 
  Affairs in Tallahassee, Florida, as the Sergeant Ernest I. ``Boots'' 
                Thomas VA Clinic, 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. REDESIGNATION OF A DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS CLINIC IN 
FLORIDA.
    (a) Designation.--The Health Care Center of the Department of 
Veterans Affairs located at 2181 Orange Avenue in Tallahassee, Florida, 
shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known and 
designated as the ``Sergeant Ernest I. `Boots' Thomas VA Clinic''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 
document, paper, or other record of the United States to the clinic 
referred to in paragraph (1) shall be considered to be a reference to 
the Sergeant Ernest I. ``Boots'' Thomas VA Clinic.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
**CH** IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 2 2 - 0 414 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee , v. ANDREW JAMES McCURDY ,

Defendant and Appellant .

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 30 - day extension of time, and good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to and including February 21 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the State’s response brief

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 16 2024

01/16/2024

Case Number: DA 22-0414
#### Rose Love, Appellant, v Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (David Edwards, J.), entered on or about September 18, 1989, which denied plaintiffs motion pursuant to CPLR 1001 to compel defendant to implead a third-party defendant, denied plaintiffs motion to disqualify defendant’s counsel, and granted defendant’s cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff, an employee of United Airlines, was injured at the United terminal at Kennedy Airport. The lease between United Airlines and the Port Authority expressly disclaims any obligation of the Port Authority to keep the premises in good repair. Accordingly, the Port Authority owes no duty to the plaintiff *(see, e.g., Lynch v Lom-Sur Co.,*161 AD2d 885, 886; *cf., Putnam v Stout,*38 NY2d 607). This conclusion is not affected by any provision of the Administrative Code of the City of New York since Port Authority functions as a State agency *(Trippe v Port of N. Y. Auth.,*14 NY2d 119), exempt from municipal regulation *(Matter of Washington County Cease v Persico,*99 AD2d 321, *affd*64 NY2d 923). The plaintiff has not shown that denial of summary judgment would be warranted for lack of adequate discovery *(Goldheart Intl. v Vulcan Constr. Corp.,*124 AD2d 507).

*223Plaintiffs motion to disqualify defendant’s counsel is without basis, resting as it does on sheer speculation.

We have examined the remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO  SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,  AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

By signing below, the undersigned officer hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to his or her
knowledge, (i) this report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the information contained
in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc.

Signed
this 22nd day of December, 2003

|/s/BRIAN P. CRESCENZOBrian P. Crescenzo Vice President Finance
Secretary and Tresurer |  | 
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Applied Extrusion Technologies, Inc. ("AET") and will be retained by AET and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---

QuickLinks