alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered September 2 5 , 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 20 - 00778 - CV IN RE GEORGE GILLESPIE, PETER HENRIKSON AND IRA SHAPIRO, TRUSTEE, IRA SHAPIRO FAMILY T R UST (2012), R elators O riginal Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC - 19 - 09846

O RDER Before Justices Whitehill, Pedersen, III, and Carlyle Before the Court is relator s ’ August 28, 2 020 petition for writ of mandamus
. In the petition, relators challenge the tr ial court ’ s “ Order Regarding Defendant Constant ’ s Motion to Compel Ar bitration, P laintiffs ’ Special Exception and Staying /Abating the P roceedings ” and “ Order Regarding Pending Discovery Requests. ” R eal parties also challenge the same order regarding the motion to compel arbitration to the extent th at the court denied arbitration with respect to certain par ties , pursuant to their interl ocutory appeal pending under cause number05

- 20

- 00734

- CV
. We c o nclude that these proceeding s should be decided together.

See In re Valero Energy Corp ., 968 S.W.2d 916, 916

– 17 (Tex. 1998). Accordingly, on the Court’s ow n motion, we ORDER cause number 05

- 20

- 00778

- CV CONSOLIDATED into cause number 05

- 20

- 00734

- CV
. We DIRE CT the Clerk of this Court to remove all documents from cause number 05

- 20

- 00778

- CV and refile them in cause number 05

- 20

- 00734

- CV and to treat cause numbe r 05

- 20

- 00778

- CV as a closed case . We ORDER that all future filings bear on ly
cause n umber 05

- 20

- 0073 4

- CV
. All current deadl ines in cause number 05

- 20

- 00734

- CV remain in place
. W e request that the real part ies in interest and respondent file a respons e to the petition for writ of m andamus , if any, with in TWENTY DAYS of this orde r . I n ac cordance with this consolidation order, that response should be filed i n cause number 05

- 20

- 00734

- CV
. We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a co py of this or der to all parties, the trial judge, and the Dallas District Court Clerk.

/s/ CORY L. CARLYLE JUSTICE
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2550 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2550

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 99 Macombs Place in New York, New York, as the ``Tuskegee Airman 
                        Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 14, 2018

Mrs. Gillibrand (for herself and Mr. Schumer) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
  at 99 Macombs Place in New York, New York, as the ``Tuskegee Airman 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. TUSKEGEE AIRMAN POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 99 Macombs Place in New York, New York, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Tuskegee Airman Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Tuskegee 
Airman Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATION OFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERDUPONT PHOTOMASKS, INC.**

 

I, Marshall C. Turner, certifythat:

 

1.             I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofDuPont Photomasks, Inc;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessaryto make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which suchstatements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrantand have:

 

a)  Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

 

b)  Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport, based on such evaluation; and

 

c)  Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reportingthat occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.             The registrant’s other certifying officer and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)  All significant deficienciesand material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

 

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

 
| Date:  February 12, 2004 |
|--------------------------|
|                     |
| /s/ MARSHALL  C. TURNER  |   |
| Marshall C.  Turner      |
| Chief  Executive Officer |

 

1

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


         We have issued our report dated February 17, 2002, except for Note 18
as to which the date is March 17, 2003, accompanying the financial statements
included in the Annual Report of Interlott Technologies, Inc. on Form 10-K for
the year ended December 31, 2002. We hereby consent to the incorporation by
reference of said report in the Registration Statements of Interlott
Technologies, Inc. on Form S-8 (No. 33-78092, No. 333-39374, and No. 333-62858).


                                              Grant Thornton LLP
                                              Certified Public Accountants

Cincinnati, Ohio


August 4, 2003
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT GEOLOGIST


I have reviewed Western Exploration, Inc.'s amendment No 1 of the Form SB-2
filing; I hereby provide my consent for the reference to my reports on the LST 1
and the LST 2 Mineral Claims located in the New Westminster Mining Division,
British Columbia. I hereby consent to the use of my name as a consultant to the
Company.


/s/ Laurence Stephenson
--------------------------
Laurence Stephenson., P.Eng.
Consulting Engineer

October 22, 2004
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.3





                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

The Board of Directors
Suncos Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
333-63790) on Form S-3 and (Nos. 33-48401, 33-80680, 33-64762, 333-08485,
333-78315, 333-72564 and 333-98071) on Form S-8 of ICOS Corporation of our
report dated January 30, 2003, with respect to the balance sheets of Suncos
Corporation (a development stage corporation) as of December 31, 2002 and 2001
and the related statements of operations, stockholders' equity (deficit) and
comprehensive loss, and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year
period ended December 31, 2002 and the period from February 6, 1997 (inception)
through December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2002 annual
report on Form 10-K of ICOS Corporation.

Our report refers to a decision by the stockholders to discontinue the
development of Pafase(R) with no current plans for further development
activities by Suncos Corporation.

/s/ KPMG LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 10, 2003
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ICT Group, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John J. Brennan, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|            |  |                                                
|----------- |  | -----------------------------------------------
|May 9, 2008 |  | /s/ John J. Brennan                            
|            |  | John J. Brennan                                
|            |  | Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
# Dziennik Urzędowy C 265A/13 s

| | ISSN 1977-1002 |
| --- | --- |
| Dziennik Urzędowy
  Unii Europejskiej | C 265A |
| | |
| Wydanie polskie | Informacje i zawiadomienia | Tom 5813 sierpnia 2015 |

ISSN 1977-1002

Dziennik Urzędowy

Unii Europejskiej

C 265A

Wydanie polskie

Informacje i zawiadomienia

Tom 5813 sierpnia 2015

---

| Powiadomienie nr | Spis treśći | Strona |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Ogłoszenia |
| | POSTĘPOWANIA ADMINISTRACYJNE |
| | Rada |
| 2015/C 265A/01 | Ogłoszenie o anulowaniu procedury rekrutacyjnej | 1 |

Powiadomienie nr

Spis treśći

Strona

V   Ogłoszenia

POSTĘPOWANIA ADMINISTRACYJNE

Rada

2015/C 265A/01

Ogłoszenie o anulowaniu procedury rekrutacyjnej

1

---

| PL | |
| --- | --- |

PL

---

V Ogłoszenia

POSTĘPOWANIA ADMINISTRACYJNE

Rada

| 13.8.2015 | PL | Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej | CA 265/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.8.2015

PL

Dziennik Urzędowy Unii Europejskiej

CA 265/1

---

OGŁOSZENIE O ANULOWANIU PROCEDURY REKRUTACYJNEJ

(2015/C 265 A/01)

Anulowana zostaje procedura rekrutacyjna CONS/AD/113 dotycząca następującego stanowiska:

| — | Dyrektor, Służba Prawna, Dyrekcja 3 (Stosunki Zewnętrzne). |
| --- | --- |

—

Dyrektor, Służba Prawna, Dyrekcja 3 (Stosunki Zewnętrzne).

Ogłoszenie w jej sprawie opublikowano w Dzienniku Urzędowym Unii Europejskiej
   (1).

---

(1)  Dz.U. C 119 A z 14.4.2015, s. 18.

---
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY " '-4RTMENT OF 

INSTALLATION MANAGEMENT COMMAND ''^ COnQTATinW 

HEADQUARTERS, UNITED STATES ARMY GARRISON, FORT LEONARD WOOffii ViilA'Iyir . 

320 MANSCEN LOOP, SUITE 120 " -^ 

FORT LEONARD WOOD, MO 65473-8929 

W OPER/VTIONS 

REPLY TO 

ATTENTION OF 

Z:iO AUG 2 5 P i2:U l 

Directorate of Service Support, Transportation Office 24 August 2010 

Dear Mr Schlemmer, 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposals for an airline service for the 

Ft Leonard Wood community from Forney Field. After an intense study of all of the proposals 

received, a decision has been made based on the best overall value to the customers who are our 

men and women in uniform and their families. 

Although there was comparable information for the companies that submitted proposals, 

based on our review of the proposals and hearing proposals submitted by Seaport Airlines, Air 

Choice One and Cape Air, Ft Leonard Wood recommends the proposal submitted by Cape Air. 

Cape Air proposal offered a code share with American Airlines and interline eticketing and 

baggage agreements with all airlines flying out of St Louis, comparable rates for airline service 

between St Louis Lambert Airfield and Ft Leonard Wood, as well as their additional abilities to 

send more aircraft, if needed for passengers and/or baggage. Cape Air also discussed the ability 

for the Installation to call their Airline and indicate to them that we would need an additional 

flight (with an advanced notice) and they would be willing to book another plane for an 

additional flight to meet our needs. 

Air Choice One has comfortable and newer aircraft, along with offering lower basic 

prices. However, the prices offered did not include taxes and amounts to a similar cost as Cape 

Air. Their limitation in their capability to move more than 8 personnel is discouraging and also 

the fact that they only have an interline agreement with United Airlines. This would require 

personnel to claim their baggage and re-ticket and re-check their baggage on all airlines again 

(other than United Airlines). 

On behalf of the Ft Leonard Wood Installation, I want to thank you for your continued 

support and the opportunity to provide input concerning the implementation of the new contract 

for airline service for our local community. Please feel free to contact me at (573) 596-0617, 

should you require any further information. 

Darlene F. Battle 

Chief, Transportation Division
**Exhibit 32.1**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

 

In connection with the filing of NeighborCare’sAmendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year endedSeptember 30, 2004 with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the “Report”), I, John J. Arlotta, the Chief Executive Officer ofNeighborCare, Inc, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section. 1350 that:

1.             TheReport fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.             Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
|                    | /s/  John J. Arlotta |
|-------------------------|----------------------|
| Date: December 14, 2004 | John  J. Arlotta     |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-7594

FRANKLIN E. DENNISON, Petitioner - Appellant, versusROBERT E. WARD, Warden; MICHAEL MOORE, Commissioner; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofSouth Carolina, at Columbia. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior District Judge. (CA-96-3365-10BD) Submitted: March 25, 1999 Decided: March 30, 1999 Before WILKINS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Franklin E. Dennison, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Franklin E. Dennison filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The district court entered its order on February 21, 1997; Dennison’s notice of appeal was filed on October 26, 1998, which is beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Dennison’s failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leavesthis court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Dennison’s appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
exv10w1






Exhibit 10.1




FIRST AMENDMENT TO

HILAND HOLDINGS

LONG-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN




     WHEREAS, Hiland Partners GP Holdings, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “Company”), the general partner of Hiland Holdings GP, LP, a Delaware limited partnership (the “Partnership”), has adopted the Hiland Holdings Long-Term Incentive Plan (the “Plan”);



     WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 7 of the Plan, the Board of Directors of the Company (the “Board”) or the committee appointed by the Board to administer the Plan may amend the Plan;



     WHEREAS, the Board desires to amend the definition of “Affiliate” contained in Section 2 of the Plan;



     NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows effective as of November 6, 2008:




1. The definition of “Affiliate” contained in Section 2 of the Plan shall be deleted in its entirety and the following shall be substituted therefore:




     “Affiliate” means, with respect to any Person, any other Person that directly or indirectly through one or more intermediaries controls, is controlled by or is under common control with, the Person in question. As used herein, the term “control” means the possession, direct or indirect, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management and policies of a Person, whether
through ownership of voting securities, by contract or otherwise; provided, however that, after November 6, 2008, any entity controlled directly or indirectly by any of the Hamm Parties, other than the Company, the Partnership or any of their respective subsidiaries, shall not be considered an Affiliate of the Company, the Partnership or any of their respective subsidiaries for purposes of the Plan or any Awards granted thereunder, except those Awards held on November 6, 2008 by a Pa
rticipant who is an employee of any entity controlled directly or indirectly by any of the Hamm Parties, other than the Company, the Partnership or any of their respective subsidiaries, on November 6, 2008.”




2. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings attributable to them in the Plan.




3. As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.
#### ROBINSON v. STATE.

No. 17089.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 16, 1935.

N. P. Reid, of Wharton, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense, possessing spirituous liquor for purpose of sale; punishment, confine-fment in penitentiary for term of one year,

At a former day of this term of this court, we reversed the judgment of the trial court *185in this case and ordered the prosecution dismissed because of what we then believed to be a defective indictment. The state, by a motion for rehearing, has called our attention to the fact that we inadvertently overlooked the word “spirituous” in the indictment. We have re-examined the indictment and find that it is sufficient in that it does charge the appellant with the unlawful possession for the purpose of sale of spirituous liquors capable of producing intoxication.

Therefore, the state’s motion for rehearing is granted, the original opinion reversing this ease and ordering the prosecution dismissed is withdrawn, and the judgment of the tidal court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the court.
#### GILBERT v. STATE.

No. 20009.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 11, 1939.

No attorney for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

The conviction is for passing a forged instrument; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for life.

The indictment alleges that the appellant on or about the 5th day of December, A. D., 1935, “did knowingly and fraudulently pass as true to John B. Farris a forged instrument in writing,” namely; a check for $44 dated *December*5, 1935, payable to J. A. Pearson, drawn on the Union National Bank of Houston, Texas, and purported to have been signed by O. E. Seomon, Treasurer, and J. M. Hays, Assistant Treasurer of the Humble Oil & Refining Company.

The indictment also contains aver-ments that appellant had prior to the commission of the foregoing offense been convicted of various offenses of like character. It is called to our attention that some of these various prior convictions occurred on the same day. Under the holding in Nunn v. State, 133 Tex.Cr.R. 266, 110 S.W.2d 71, the convictions on the same day did not authorize the enhanced penalty permitted under Art. 63, P.C. However, the indictment contains sufficient averments of the conviction of two succeeding prior offenses.

The evidence adduced by the State having established the commission of the present offense, as well as the available previous convictions alleged in the indictment, the penalty assessed by the jury against the appellant was authorized by the terms of Art. 63, P.C., which declares that “whoever shall have been three times convicted of a felony less than capital shall on such third conviction be imprisoned for life in the penitentiary.” See 12 Tex.Jur. p. 791, sec. 402; also, Moss v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 240, 115 S.W.2d 409; Haro v.State, 132 Tex.Cr.R. 507, 105 S.W.2d 1093; Childress v. State, 134 Tex.Cr.R. 504, 116 S.W.2d 396.

Appellant did not testify as a witness upon the trial, and called no other witness. No complaint of any matter of procedure has been presented by bill of exception, nor has any reversible error been perceived from our examination of the record.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### Squire, Supt. of Banks, Appellee, *v.*Couture; Hamilton et al., Appellants.

(No. 28573

Decided April 23, 1941.)

*Mr. Thomas J. Herbert,*attorney general, *Mr. E. tí. Lmdemavm*and *Mr. Philip F. Marquard,*for appellee.

*Messrs. Henderson, Quail é BarTdey,*for appellant, Florence A. Hamilton.

*Mr. Robert H. Sanborn,*for appellant, Charles Higley, administrator.

It is ordered and adjudged that said appeal as of right be, and the same hereby is, dismissed for the reason no debatable constitutional question is involved in said cause.

*Appeal dismissed.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Williams, Hart, Zimmerman and Bettman, JJ., concur.

Matthias, J., not participating.