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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-4719

In Re: TERRY W. STEWART,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CR-01-11)

Submitted: December 14, 2001 Decided: January 2, 2002

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terry W. Stewart, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Terry W. Stewart has filed a petition for a writ of mandamus

asking that this court compel the district court judge in his case

to recuse himself on account of bias. Mandamus is a drastic remedy

to be used only in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United

States Dist. Court, 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Mandamus relief is

only available when there are no other means by which the relief

sought could be granted, In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir.

1987), and may not be used as a substitute for appeal. In re

Catawba Indian Tribe, 973 F.2d 1133, 1135 (4th Cir. 1992). The

party seeking mandamus relief carries the heavy burden of showing

that he has no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires

and that his entitlement to such relief is clear and indisputable.

Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980).

Stewart has not made such a showing. Accordingly, we deny

Stewart’s petition for mandamus relief. 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.

PETITION DENIED
EXHIBIT 22

PARENT AND SUBSIDIARIES
     (Included in the Consolidated Financial Statements and Wholly-owned)

National Presto Industries, Inc.
Eau Claire, Wisconsin (A Wisconsin Corporation)

        Its Subsidiaries:
                National Holding Investment Company
                Wilmington, Delaware (A Delaware Corporation)

                Its Subsidiaries:
                        Presto Manufacturing Company
                        Jackson, Mississippi (A Mississippi Corporation)

                        Its Division:
                                Presto Products Manufacturing Company
                                Alamogordo, New Mexico

                        Century Leasing and Liquidating, Inc.
                        Minneapolis, Minnesota (A Minnesota Corporation)

                        Its Subsidiary:
                                Presto Export, Inc. (Inactive)
                                Minneapolis, Minnesota (A Minnesota Corporation)

                        Jackson Sales and Storage Company
                        Jackson, Mississippi (A Mississippi Corporation)

                        Canton Sales & Storage Company
                        Canton, Mississippi (A Mississippi Corporation)

                        Presto Parts & Service, Inc. (Inactive)
                        Los Angeles, California (A California Corporation)

                        Presto Export, Ltd.
                        Christiansted, St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands 
                             (A Virgin Islands Corporation)

                National Defense Corporation
                Eau Claire, Wisconsin (A Wisconsin Corporation)

                NPI Export Corporation (Inactive)
                Minneapolis, Minnesota (A Minnesota Corporation)

                National Presto Industries Export Corporation (Inactive)
                Wilmington, Delaware (A Delaware Corporation)
DISMISS and Opinion Filed November 14, 2023 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-23-00166-CV IN THE INTEREST OF J.A.D., A MINOR CHILD

On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401-54784-2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Partida-Kipness, Pedersen, III, and Garcia Opinion by Justice Garcia Appellant’s brief in this case is ove rdue. On July 10, 2023, we notified appellant his brief was overdue and directed him to file his brief within ten days. We cautioned appellant that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of the appeal without further notice. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(c). By orders dated July 24, 2023, August 28, 2023, a nd September 14, 2023, we extended the time for appellant to file his brief until October 2, 2023. On October 4, 2023, we received but did not file a brief appellant te ndered to the Court. The same day, we notified appellant that the Court would not consider the late br ief unless appellant filed, within ten days, a motion for extension of time to file the brief. To date,–2– appellant has not filed such a motion no r otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of the brief r eceived on October 4, 2023. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See id . 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(c).

230166F.P05 /Dennise Garcia/ DENNISE GARCIA JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
IN THE INTEREST OF J.A.D., A MINOR CHILD
No. 05-23-00166-CV On Appeal from the 401st Judicial District Court, Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 401-54784- 2021. Opinion delivered by Justice Garcia. Justices Partida-Kipness and Pedersen, III participating. In accordance with this Court’s opi nion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

. Judgment entered November 14, 2023
# C_2023156EN.01000101.xml

| 3.5.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 156/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.5.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 156/1

---

RECOMMENDATION OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK

of 24 April 2023

to the Council of the European Union on the external auditors of the Central Bank of Malta

(ECB/2023/12)

(2023/C 156/01)

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank, and in particular Article 27.1 thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

The accounts of the European Central Bank (ECB) and the national central banks of the Member States whose currency is the euro are audited by independent external auditors recommended by the ECB’s Governing Council and approved by the Council of the European Union.

| (2) | Following the audit for the financial year 2022, the mandate of the Central Bank of Malta’s external auditors, KPMG, was terminated by mutual agreement. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2023. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Following the audit for the financial year 2022, the mandate of the Central Bank of Malta’s external auditors, KPMG, was terminated by mutual agreement. It is therefore necessary to appoint external auditors from the financial year 2023.

| (3) | The Central Bank of Malta has selected Deloitte Audit Ltd as its external auditors for the financial years 2023 to 2027, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The Central Bank of Malta has selected Deloitte Audit Ltd as its external auditors for the financial years 2023 to 2027,

HAS ADOPTED THIS RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended that Deloitte Audit Ltd should be appointed as the external auditors of the Central Bank of Malta for the financial years 2023 to 2027.

Done at Frankfurt am Main, 24 April 2023.

The President of the ECB

Christine LAGARDE

---
# C_2022434EN.01000101.xml

| 15.11.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 434/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.11.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 434/1

---

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

2022-2023 SESSION

Sittings of 4 to 7 April 2022

TEXTS ADOPTED

---
ex_97452.htm


Exhibit 4.12


 


CONSENT OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF HOVERING INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS, INC. AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF SHARES


 


The undersigned, being all of the Directors of Hoverink International Holdings, Inc. a Delaware Corporation (the “Company”), hereby approve and adopt the following resolutions by unanimous consent effective this 20th day of ___October__, 2017.


 


WHEREAS, the Directors deem it necessary to raise up to Forty Million Dollars ($40,000,000.00) by making an offering of up to 2,000,000 common shares at $20.00 per share pursuant to an effective registration statement on Form S-1; and


 


WHEREAS, the Directors deem it necessary to register 4,550,000 common shares held by non-affiliate shareholders of the Company for resale in a secondary offering to facilitate the development of a public market in the Company’s shares once trading begins and 


 


WHEREAS, 100,000,000 shares of the Company’s common stock authorized to be issued and 36,772,000 have been issued; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company authorizes the officers of the Company to solicit purchases of the shares from qualified subscribers, 


 


THEREFORE, THE DIRECTORS UNANIMOUSLY CONSENT AS FOLLOWS:


 


RESOLVED, that the Chief Executive Officer shall cause an amended Registration Statement on       Form S-1 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission with a Prospectus addressing both a primary offering of up to 2,000,000 common shares and a secondary offering of 4,550,000 common shares held by non-affiliate shareholders of the Company to facilitate the development of a public market in the shares once trading begins; and it is further


 


RESOLVED, that up to 2,000,000 shares shall be offered to qualified investors at $20,00 per share pursuant to the Company’s Registration Statement on Form S-1 when it becomes effective; and it is further


 


RESOLVED, that the President and Secretary are directed to cause the Company’s stock transfer agent Direct Transfer, LLC to issue certificates for the number of shares for which each subscriber in the primary offering has subscribed and paid in such denominations as the subscriber shall designate to the officers, which shares shall be deemed fully paid and non-assessable. 


 


 


 


	
			Debbie Mae Carter

				
			Director

				
			, 2017

			
	 	 	 
	
			Cyrus Sajna

				
			Director

				
			, 2017

			
	 	 	 
	
			Davidra Sajna

				
			Director

				
			, 201
#### HENDERSON v. STATE.

No. 15233.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 1, 1932.

Rehearing Granted June 22, 1932.

Harvey Shead and Fred Erisman, both of Longview, for appellant.

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

LATTIMORE, J.

Conviction for burglary; punishment, three years in the penitentiary.

It is to be regretted that we cannot consider either the statement of facts or bills of exception because filed too late. The learned trial judge, in order to complete the trial of this case, extended his term of court one week, which extended term ended October 10, 1931. This trial was concluded on October 7th, on which day the motion for new trial was overruled and notice of appeal given. Computation of time makes plain the fact that the ninety days after the giving of notice of appeal had expired, this being the time fixed by article 760, C. C. P. within which statement of facts and bills of exception must be prepared and filed. The bills of exception appearing in this record, and also the statement of facts, were filed on January 7, 1932. All were filed after the expiration of said ninety-day period, and for that reason cannot be considered. All matters of procedure appear to be regular.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

On Motion for Rehearing.

In his motion for rehearing appellant raises a matter not heretofore raised nor called to our attention, and which escaped us. The indictment herein, charging an attempt to commit burglary, fails to allege that appellant intended, in attempting to break and enter the house in question, to “fraudulently” take therefrom corporeal personal property therein belonging, etc. In other words, that the indictment omits the necessary allegation that appellant intended to fraudulently take the property in the house. The matter has been recently before this court and there discussed, and an indictment of this kind held bad. See Newman v. State, 113 Tex. Cr. R. 517, 23 S.W.(2d) 367.

The indictment being fatally defective, appellant’s motion must be sustained, and the judgment of affirmance will be set aside, and the cause will now be reversed, and because of the fault of the indictment ordered dismissed.
#### WYATT et al. v. MORSE et al.

No. 13411.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

Oct. 2, 1936.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 30, 1936.

*337R. G. Scurry, of Dallas, for appellants.

W. M. Short and J. E. Whitmore, both of Fort Worth, for appellees.

BROWN, Justice.

The sole question in the instant suit is whether or not appellants’ secured claim and debt, held against the estate of deceased, John A. Jackson, under the provisions of article 3515a, Vernon’s Ann. Civ.St., -passed by the 42d Leg., 1931, c. 52, and those of amended article 3531, as passed by the same Legislature (chapter 234, § 1 [Vernon’s Ann.Civ.St. art. 3531]), takes priority over the funeral expenses and those incurred in the administration of the estate and in the preservation, safekeeping, and management thereof, as respects the property on which the lien is claimed.

The trial court denied such priority, and from such judgment the appeal is taken.

Appellee objects to the consideration of appellants’ first assignment of error and its supporting proposition because the assignment is a general statement which may be made applicable to any and every similar case and complains of no act or ruling by the trial court in this particular case. The objection is well taken.

The complaint levele'd against the proposition is that it is a mere abstraction. This objection is well taken.

We will consider the second assignment of error and its supporting proposition.

In construing articles 3515a and 3531, as passed by the Legislature at the same session, the last-mentioned article, as amended, having been passed last and approved last, we hold that the claims for funeral expenses and expenses of administration and in the preservation, safekeeping, and management of the estate must be paid first, and secured claims paid thereafter.

If there is any advantage to be gained by the'secured creditor filing his claim and asking that it be paid out of the specific property on which he has a lien, as is urged by appellant, under the provisions of article 3515a, we think that the. advantage is found in the fact that if the property involved and the other assets of the estate be found to be worth more than the debt against it and the funeral' expenses and expenses of administration, preservation, etc., of the estate, the secured creditor can be paid out of the proceeds of the sale of such property and not be compelled to wait until all or practically all of the estate is administered upon before his judgment is satisfied. If there is any other reason for, or intent to be found in, section 1 of article 3515a, we are unable to see it.

We had this identical question before us in the case of Horn v. Richardson, 90 S.W.(2d) 886, where we held adversely to the contention made by appellants in the instant case.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-13-00514- CR
Craig Rainey Walker, Appellant

v. The State of Texas, App ellee

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT AT LAW NO . 2 O F CO MAL CO UNTY NO. 200 9CR177 4, H ONO RAB LE CHARLES A. STEP HENS II , JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appellant Craig Rainey Walker filed a motion to dismiss by withdrawing his notice of appea l. Walker’s motion to withdraw his notice of appea l is g rante d. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a)
. The a ppeal is dismissed.

J eff Rose, J ustice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Rose and Goodwin Dismissed on Appellant’s Motion Filed: Oc tober 23, 2013 Do Not Publish
| **Other Investments - Additional Information (Detail) (USD $)In Thousands, unless otherwise specified** | Mar. 31, 2015                            | Dec. 31, 2014                            |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------|
| **Other Investments Disclosure [Abstract]**                                                             |                                     |                                     |
| Other investments                                                                                       | $ 47,076us-gaap_FederalHomeLoanBankStock | $ 44,545us-gaap_FederalHomeLoanBankStock |

| X                                                                                                                                                              |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**fcf_OtherInvestmentsDisclosureAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**fcf_**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
Federal Home Loan Bank (FHLB) stock represents an equity interest in a FHLB. It does not have a readily determinable fair value because its ownership is restricted and it lacks a market (liquidity).
+ References
Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 942 -SubTopic 325 -Section 45 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6478792&loc=d3e63345-112809
+ Details**Name:**us-gaap_FederalHomeLoanBankStock**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap_**Data Type:**xbrli:monetaryItemType**Balance Type:**debit**Period Type:**instant |
### Regular Totals (Holders)

Airport = JFK Season = S Holder = 0001(Exclude) Status Date = 07/01/2011 (Current & Future) 11/16/2011 01:34:44



### Query Parameters:

### 11/16/2011 01:34:44

Carrier 

### Regular Totals (Holders) Excludes FAA Held Slots Held less than 5 days are Excluded JFK Season = SUMMER PF7 Status Date = 07/01/2011 (Current & Future)

JFK

189 AAL AMERICAN AIRLINES 2 AAR ASIANA AIRLINES 1 ABX ABX AIR 2 AEA AIR EUROPA 2 AEW AEROSVIT AIRLINES 4 AFL AEROFLOT 10 AFR AIR FRANCE 6 AIC AIR INDIA 5 AJM AIR JAMAICA 7 AMX AEROMEXICO 2 ANA ALL NIPPON AIRWAYS 2 AUA AUSTRIAN 4 AVA AVIANCA 4 AVI L'AVION/OPENSKIES 6 AZA ALITALIA 20 BAW BRITISH AIRWAYS 2 BER AIR BERLIN 5 BWA CARIBBEAN AIRLINES 2 CAO AIR CHINA CARGO 2 CAY CAYMAN AIRWAYS 2 CCA AIR CHINA 2 CES CHINA EASTERN AIRLINES 1 CMP COPA AIRLINES 8 COA CONTINENTAL AIRLINES 6 CPA CATHAY PACIFIC 2 CSA CZECH AIRLINES 408 DAL DELTA AIR LINES 7 DLH DEUTSCHE LUFTHANSA 1 EIA EVERGREEN 6 EIN AER LINGUS 5 ELY EL AL ISRAEL AIRLINES 2 ETD ETIHAD 4 FDX FED EX 2 FIN FINNAIR 4 IBE IBERIA AIRWAYS 4 ICE ICELANDAIR 2 IMP HELLENIC AIRWAYS 2 JAI JET AIRWAYS 3 JAL JAPAN AIR LINES 348 JBU JETBLUE AIRWAYS CORP. 1 KAC KUWAIT AIRWAYS 3 KAL KOREAN AIR 4 KLM KLM ROYAL DUTCH 6 LAN LAN AIRLINES 2 LNE LAN ECUADOR 2 MSR EGYPT AIR 3 MXA MEXICANA DE AVIACION 2 QFA QANTAS AIRLINES 2 QTR QATAR AIRWAYS 4 RAM ROYAL AIR MAROC 2 RJA ROYAL JORDANIAN

Page 2

### 11/16/2011 01:34:44

Carrier 

### Regular Totals (Holders) Excludes FAA Held Slots Held less than 5 days are Excluded JFK Season = SUMMER PF7 Status Date = 07/01/2011 (Current & Future)

JFK

2 SAA SOUTH AFRICAN AIRWAYS 4 SCX SUN COUNTRY AIRLINES, INC. 2 SIA SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED 1 SVA SAUDI ARABIAN AIRLINES 6 SWR SWISS INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES (SWISSAIR 2 TAI TACA AIRLINES 6 TAM TAM BRAZILIAN AIRLINES 4 THY TURKISH AIRLINES, INC. 4 UAE EMIRATES 37 UAL UNITED AIRLINES 1 UPS UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 16 USA US AIRWAYS 6 VIR VIRGIN ATLANTIC AIR 19 VRD VIRGIN AMERICA

Page 3
#### KASPAREK et al. v. STATE.

No. 18878.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 17, 1937.

T. F. Slack, of Pecos, for appellants.

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

HAWKINS, Judge.

Appellants were jointly indicted and tried for burglary, the trial resulted in the conviction of both, with punishment assessed against each of three years in the penitentiary.

The charge against them was the burglary of the store belonging to H. F. Grayson with intent to commit theft. Grayson had closed his store for the night, but after he left the store it began to rain; he went back to close the transoms. He discovered that the lock had been broken on the back door and that some one was in the store. He gave the alarm, and when officers arrived and went in the store the two appellants were inside. The cash register had been opened and some five or six dollars had been taken from it. Money corresponding in that amount was found on appellants. Some cigarettes and other property had been moved from their accustomed place in the store to the rear of it, apparently in preparation for removal from the store. An automobile which was being used by appellants was parked nearby.

 We see no merit in appellants’ objection to the court’s charge defining theft, nor the objection to evidence showing that money had been taken from the cash register. The charge against appellants was that they burglarized the store with intent to commit theft, and the evidence was pertinent to sustain the averments in the indictment, and the charge was proper as advising the jury of the statutory meaning of the term theft.

Proof that appellants escaped from jail where they were being held awaiting trial was properly admitted. Branch’s Ann.Tex.P.C., Sec. 135; Waite v. State, 13 Tex.App. 169; 18 Tex.Jur., Sec. 25, page 45.

Finding no error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.