alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1 In The 

### Court of Appeals Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09
- 15
- 00 069
- CV



### _________________
IN RE MARK HARDING

________________________________________________________________________ Original Proceeding

________________________________________________________________________ MEMORANDUM OPINION Mark Harding filed a petition for writ of mandamus seeking relief from pre

trial rulings made by the judge presiding over a case filed in the 253rd District
Court and assigned to the County Court at Law of Liberty County, Texas

. In three issues, Harding contends the trial court abused its discretion (1) by denying a motion to compel the real party in interest, Bradley A. Butcher, to respond to Harding’s request for disclosure, (2) by granting a motion for continuance, and (3) by allowing Butcher to file an amended pleading that changed the case’s discovery level. Harding asks this Court to compel the trial court to strike Butcher’s objections to the request for discl osure, strike the plaintiff’s first amended petition,2 and immediately set the case for trial. On March 10, 2015, the visiting judge assigned to hear the case signed a scheduling order establishing deadlines for pleading and discovery and setting the case f or trial on November 2, 2015. After reviewing the mandamus petition and record, we conclude that the relator failed to establish an abuse of discretion by the trial court for which an appeal would not provide an adequate remedy. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of
Am. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

- 36 (Tex. 2004). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).
PETITION DENIED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on March 25, 2015 Opinion Delivered March 26, 2015 Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
#### FIRST NAT. BANK IN HEMPHILL v. SAN JACINTO TRUST CO. et al.

No. 2731.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Beaumont.

April 25, 1935.

Minton & Minton, of Hemphill, for appellant.

B. A. Hamilton, of Jasper, and Miles E. Hilton, of Houston, for appellees.

COMBS, Justice.

Appellant sued out a writ of garnishment against San Jacinto Trust Company, garnishee, after judgment against W. H. Mur-ry and several other defendants. The garnishee answered that it was not indebted to any of the defendants, except that W. H. Murry had a checking account in his name amounting to $234.56 when the writ was served, which account had increased to $364.56 at the time the answer was filed; that said account was subject to check by either W. H. Murry or his wife, Mrs. W. H. Murry; that it did not know whether Mr. Murry or Mrs. Murry was the true owner of the account, but had been informed that it belonged to Mrs. Murry. It prayed that Mrs. Murry be made a party to the proceeding; Mrs. Murry was cited and by her answer claimed title to the funds on deposit with garnishee. On a trial to the court, the finding was in favor of Mrs. Mur-ry and judgment entered discharging the garnishee.

The sole issue presented by the appeal is the sufficiency of' the evidence to support the judgment. The trial court filed no findings of fact and none were requested. It will, therefore, be presumed in support of the judgment, that the trial court found all facts in favor of it which have support in the evidence. Humphrey v. Harrell (Tex. Com. App.) 29 S.W.(2d) 963; Crawford v. Tramonte (Tex. Civ. App.) 36 S.W.(2d) 269. We think the evidence supports the finding that the account belonged to Mrs. Murry. Both she and her husband so testified. And while their testimony is somewhat conflicting and uncertain on cross-examination as to the origin of the funds deposited in the account from time to time, still it was for the trial court to resolve such conflicts. The appellant rested its. case alone upon the answer of the garnishee and testimony of two of its officers to the effect that the account stood in the name of the defendant W. H. Murry. And although Mr. and Mrs. Murry were interested parties, their testimony that Mrs. Mur-ry owned the account and that the defendant, W. H. Murry, had no interest in it except the privilege of checking on it with his wife’s permission was clearly sufficient to raise an issue of fact against the prima facie showing made by the appellant. The trial court’s judgment having support in the evidence, it is not for this court to disturb it.

Judgment affirmed.
## S UN 

## W ISE 

## T EACHER 

## I NTERVIEW 

## G UIDE

One

- on - one interviews with SunWise teachers will follow a semi

- structured framework, based on open - ended discussion topics and themes. Each interview will take a slightl y different direction , depending on the answers given by participants and their own experiences , as well as evolving questions and informational needs from y ear to y ear.

- Registration and promotion methods , e.g.: o What do you think is the best or easiest way to sign up for SunWise? Are there improvements that SunWise could be making in registering teachers and getting materials to them? o How can SunWise promote itself more effectively? o Have you spread the word about SunWise to other teachers? If yes, h ow were your efforts received? If not, why?

- Use of SunWise activities , e.g.: o Do you use the same activities each y ear? I f you have taught some activities one y ear and not the next, why ? o Do you use the SunWise activities as

- is or adapt them to your students’ needs? I f so, how? o How could the SunWise activities be improved? o Do you combine SunWise resources with other sun safet y activities or resources? I f so, which ones? When you receive sun safety materials from other programs, do y ou often like to modify

them? o Which activities have yo u and your students found most effective or enjo yable? What is it about these activities that your students seem to enjoy so much?

- Making school policy changes and promoting school - wide activities , e.g.: o Have you tried to make any changes in your school’s sun safet y policies (su ccessfull y or unsuccessfully) ? I f so, what changes? o Did you work with other teachers, parents, or school administrators to get those policy changes made? Please tell us about that experience and an y l essons you have learned. o What barriers have you face d to making th e se changes? If you were successful in inst ituting policies, how did y ou overcome the barriers? o Have the materials provided in the SunWise Tool Kit been useful in making policy changes? How could th e se materials be improved? o Have you organi zed an y school

- wide sun safet y activities? If so, what t ypes? o Do you involve parents or guardians in sun safet y activities? If yes, how? If no, how could their involvement be solicited? o If parents or guardians are involved , have their interest in sun p rotection r emained the same, i ncreased, or d ecreased over the past y ear?- SunWise recognition program , e.g.:

o If SunWise developed a program to recognize levels of SunWise achievement among educators, how would you want to be recognized?
 Probe: for exampl e, plaques, discounts on resources, letters to your principal. o What incentives would encourage you and other teachers to participate? o Do you think that a recognition program would encourage deeper SunWise participation among educators? o What SunWise achieve ments would you like to see recognized?
 Probe: for example, teaching SunWise, working to implement school policies, organizing schoolwide sun safet y activities, participating in the Don’t Fry Day pledge, etc.
Exhibit 32.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) In connection with this Annual Report on Form 10-K (the Report) of Stellus Capital Investment Corporation (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Robert T. Ladd, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to the best of my knowledge, that: (1)

          The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2)

          The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.  Name:

          

          /s/ Robert T. LaddRobert T. LaddDate:

          

          March 6, 2018
#### In the Matter of Lillie Schwartz, Petitioner, against Louis J. Naftalison, as Hearing Officer Designated to Hear Certain Charges Preferred against Petitioner under Section 22 of Civil Service Law, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

March 14, 1958.

*440
      *Joseph M. Schwarts*for petitioner.

*Louis J. Lefkowits, Attorney-General,*for respondent.

Benedict D. Dineen, J.

Petitioner seeks an order to direct the respondent to issue a subpoena in the form annexed to the moving papers. Petitioner has been charged with misconduct and pursuant to the Civil Service Law has been brought up on charges in connection with which a hearing is now pending. Petitioner presented the subpoena in question to the hearing officer who refuses to sign or issue the same. It is petitioner’s contention that she is being deprived of a substantial right to produce witnesses and certain books in their possession upon which books she relies to prove her defense. The court appreciates the plight in which the petitioner finds herself. However, no proceeding or action is pending in this court and the charges made against the petitioner are being presented at an administrative hearing. Section 22 of the Civil Service Law provides for appeal to the courts from an adverse determination pursuant to article 78 of the Civil Practice Act but under this latter procedure section 1285 of the Civil Practice Act prohibits a review where there has been no final determination of the rights of the parties. What is sought in the present instance is a review of an intermediate determination of a matter in connection with and incidental to the administrative process amounting to nothing more than a ruling during the hearing. If the petitioner is acquitted of the charges the matter is at an end and if found guilty of the charges such final determination is subject to review and petitioner at that time could raise the question of the refusal to issue the subpoena and a determination made whether such refusal was proper. It appears that every legal right of the petitioner would be preserved on such review.

The petition is dismissed and cross petition granted.
Section 302 Certification
 of
 
  
  
 1.  I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of MacKenzie Realty Capital, Inc.;
 
 2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to sate 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 report;
 
 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;
 
 4.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:
 
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls or procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;
 
 b)  Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;
 
 c)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and
 
 d)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
 
 5.  The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 
 a)  all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
 
 b)  any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.
 
  
 /s/ Robert Dixon
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Postal Service

# AGENCY:

                        Postal ServiceTM.                    

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

# DATES:

*Date of required notice:*                         October 2, 2024.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 24, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 382 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2024-738, K2024-31.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-22679 Filed 10-1-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit
32.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2008 (the “Report”) by Porta Systems Corp. (the “Company”), I, Edward B.
Kornfeld, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Leslie K. Brand ,
the Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as added by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that,
based on my knowledge:




1.  The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and




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




Dated:  March
      31, 2009
            By:
            /s/
      Edward B. KornfeldEdward
      B. Kornfeld
              Chief
      Executive OfficerBy:
            /s/
      Leslie K. BrandLeslie
      K. Brand
              Chief
      Financial Officer
#### HAVARD v. STATE.

No. 17153.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 23, 1935.

E. J. Conn, Fairchild & Redditt, and James W. Peavy, all of Lufkin, for appellant.

*625Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for tire State.

MORROW, Presiding Judge.

The conviction is for- the unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

The phase of the indictment upon which the judgment rests is that charging that appellant, “in the County of Angelina and State of. Texas, did then and there unlawfully manufacture intoxicating liquor against the peace and dignity of the State.”

The indictment is insufficient to charge an offense. It is subject to the same vice as that discussed in the case of Offield v. State (Tex. Cr. App.) 75 S.W.(2d) 882.

The judgment is reversed, and the prosecution ordered dismissed.
#### LEWIS et al. v. LEWIS.

No. 1353.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Oct. 26, 1934.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 1934.

C. J. O’Connor and Frank S. Roberts, both of Breckenridge, for appellants.

C. C. Hampton, of Comanche, and F. O. Jaye, of De Leon, for appellee.

PER CÜRIAM.

Appellants have filed herein a motion for certiorari to perfect the record, alleging, as grounds therefor, that the appeal bond was omitted from the transcript. They attach a certified copy.of the appeal bond to their motion. An examination of the transcript re-yeals that the appeal bond is contained therein and set out in full on pages 18 and 19 thereof. Appellants evidently overlooked this and that was the cause of their making the motion. Obviously, there is no necessity of filing another copy of the appeal bond, and the motion for certiorari is overruled.

Appellee has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal on the ground, among others, that the appeal bond was not filed within the time required by law. The record shows that the order overruling the motion of appellants for a new trial was entered on January 3, 1934, at which time notice of appeal in open court was duly given. The appeal bond was filed with, and approved by, the district clerk on February 3, 1934. It follows that the appeal bond was filed thirty-one days after the order overruling motion for new trial. Burr v. Lewis, 6 Tex. 76; Hardy v. City of Throck-*588morton (Tex, Civ. App.) 70 S.W.(2d) 775, and authorities there cited.

The district court of Comanche county is authorized by law to continue in session jnore than eight weeks, article 199, subd. 52, R. S. 1925, and the term in which this case was tried actually continued more than eight weeks, according to the caption of the transcript. By the provisions of article 2253, R. S. 1925, as amended by the Acts of the 40th Legislature, 1927, c. 15, p. 21 (Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. art. 2253), if the term of the court may by law continue more than eight weeks, the appeal bond must he filed within thirty days after notice of appeal is given, if the appellant resides out of the county, and within twenty days if he resides in the county." Appellants reside without the county of Comanche, and an appeal bond filed within thirty days after the notice of appeal was given would have been filed in time, but the bond in the instant case having been filed thirty-one days after such notice was given, this court acquired no jurisdiction of the appeal by the filing thereof, and appellee’s motion to dismiss should be granted.

It is accordingly so ordered.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ZEEZOO SOFTWARE CORP. (the "Company")
on Form  10-QSB  for the  period  ended  January  31,  2008,  as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Joel
Gugol,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
that:

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

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



                                           /s/ Joel Gugol
                                           --------------------------
Date: March 10, 2008                       Joel Gugol
                                           Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 188 (Friday, September 27, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79287-79288]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-22222]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP24-1011-001.
    Applicants: Crossroads Pipeline Company LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Name Conversion--Correction to URL 
Map to be effective 9/1/2024.
    Filed Date: 9/23/24.
    Accession Number: 20240923-5071.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/30/24.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must 
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the

[[Page 79288]]

Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. 
Eastern time on the specified comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports 
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission 
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, 
environmental justice communities, Tribal members
    and others, access publicly available information and navigate 
Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making 
filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the 
public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#28677878684e4d5a4b064f475e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bff0efefffd9dacddc91d8d0c9">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: September 23, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-22222 Filed 9-26-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>