alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### MORRISON et al. v. LAMBERT.

No. 12375.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

June 6, 1931.

For main opinion, see 33 S.W.(2d) 517.

W. H. Morrison and W. E. Forgy, both of Archer City, and W. L. Scott, of Graham, for appellants.

Kilgore & Rogers, of Wichita Falls, for appellee.

BUCK, J.

Appellant W. H. Morrison files a motion to recall the mandate of this court and to ' *150retax costs accrued in the trial court. This cause was tried in the district court of Archer county, and the judgment entered November' 7, 1929. An appeal was prosecuted to this court, and on February 20, 1930, the transcript was filed in this court. On November 8, 1930, this court entered judgment, leaving the judgment undisturbed in part, and reversing the judgment below and remanding the cause in part. [33 S.W. (2d) 517.] Writ of error was applied for, and the writ of error - was refused by the Supreme Court.

 Appellant now complains of the failure to charge in the bill of costs the item of the Q. and A. statement of facts and the narrative statement of facts. In the first place, where a Q. and A. statement of facts is made, the charge for the narrative statement of facts is not properly made a part of the bill of costs. In the second place, a motion filed at a subsequent term of the Court of Civil Appeals to retax the costs, so as to include an item incurred in preparing a statement of facts, will be overruled, where it appears from the motion that such item of costs was not taxed in the district court and was not included in the bill of costs in the transcript, mandate having been issued and been filed below prior to the making of the motion, although the error in omitting the item was not discovered until after the adjournment of the appellate court. See Brady v. Cobbs & Bonner (Tex. Civ. App.) 216 S.W. 420; H. & T. C. Ry. Co. v. Montgomery (Tex. Civ. App.) 189 S.W. 350.

The motion comes too late, and will be overruled at cost of appellant.
#### White’s Estate.

*Practice, O. C.*— Decedent’s *estates*— Adjudication *of*account— *Distribution of funds*— Bill *of review*— Proof *of fraud*— Practice, *Supreme Court.*

Where distribution is made in .accordance with the findings of an auditor’s report, which is unappealed from, a bill of review on the ground of fraud is properly dismissed by the lower court, where it appears from a review of the testimony that the court committed no error in finding that no fraud was shown to have entered into the decree or induced it.

Argued May 1, 1916.

Appeal, No. 58, Jan. T., 1916, by Olivia W. Jackman, from decree of O. O. Clinton Co., No. 107, dismissing petition for a bill of review in Estate of James White, deceased.

Before Mestrezat, Potter, Moschzisker, Frazer and Walling, JJ.

Affirmed.

Petition for bill of review. Before Hall, P. J.

The facts appear in White’s Est:, 249 Pa. 115.

The lower court dismissed the petition. Petitioner appealed.

*Frror assigned,*among others, was the decree of the court.

*Max L. Mitchell,*with him *B. F. Geary*and *W. C. Kress,*for appellant.

*R. B. McCormick,*with him *Brown & Stevenson,*for appellee.

*99May 15, 1916:

Per Curiam,

When this case was here on the former appeal, 249 Pa. Í15, from the decree dismissing a petition for a bill of review, we held it to be error for the court to undertake to determine the merits of the controversy until after it had decided that fraud had been sufficiently alleged and proven to give it jurisdiction, and reversed with a procedendo. After the filing of the remittitur, the court proceeded with the cause and found that “no 'fraud had been shown to induce us to change our former decree confirming the auditor’s report,” and dismissed the petition for the bill of review. The petitioner has taken this appeal. A review of the testimony has not convinced us that the court committed error in finding that no fraud was shown to have entered into the decree or induced it, and we, therefore, see no reason for interfering with the discretion of the court in entering the decree dismissing the petition.

Decree affirmed.
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 12559]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “Living with the Gods: Art, Beliefs and Peoples” at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, in Houston, Texas, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.                

Scott D. Weinhold,

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2024-22382 Filed 9-27-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
EXHIBIT
32.2
 
 STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
 TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Information Systems
Associates, Inc. (the "Company") for the six months ended June 30, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Michael R.
Hull, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify that:
 
 * The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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/
Michael R. Hull
 Michael
R. Hull
 Chief
Financial Officer
  Date:
August 13, 2010
 
 This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### FEDERAL LABORATORIES, Inc., Relator, v. Towne YOUNG, District Judge, et al., Respondents.

Motion No. 12240.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Feb. 12, 1936.

Thompson, Knight, Baker & Harris, Pinkney Grissom, W. R. Harris, and Sol Goodell, all of Dallas, for relator.

PER CURIAM.

This is a motion to file original petition for mandamus in this court, filed by Federal Laboratories, Inc., v. Honorable Towne Young, presiding judge of the district courts of Dallas county, Tex., Hon. Sarah T. Hughes, judge of the Fourteenth district court of Dallas county, Tex., and all of the judges of the district courts of Dallas county, Tex., and against Charlie Coit, plaintiff *557■in cause No. 14342-A, styled Charlie Coit v. Federal Laboratories, Inc., et al., and other parties concerned in said suit. The controversy here, as shown by such accompanying petition, grows out of certain proceedings that have happened, and are alleged to be about to happen, in said above-numbered and entitled cause now pending in the district court of Dallas county, Tex.

We will not attempt to detail the questions of law here involved. It is sufficient to say we do not think the petition presents matters that we should take jurisdiction of by original mandamus proceeding in this court.

The motion to file petition for mandamus is overruled. In overruling such motion, however, we do not in any way prejudge any questions of law presented therein which may later properly be presented to us on appeal in cause No. 14342-A, above .mentioned.
Exhibit 35.14












Deutsche Mortgage & Asset Receiving Corporation
60 WALL ST
NEW YORK, New York 10005-2836







RE: Annual Statement of Compliance for COMM
2012-CCRE4 Commercial Mortgage
Pass-Through Certificates Series 2012-CCRE4



Per the Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of November
1, 2012 (the "Agreement"), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Certificate Administrator
("Wells Fargo"), hereby certifies as follows as of and for the year ending December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period"):



(a) A review of Wells Fargo's activities during the Reporting Period
and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under such officer's supervision; and



(b) To the best of such officer's knowledge, based on such review,
Wells Fargo has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.







March 1, 2016





BRIAN SMITH

Vice President
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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Best Energy Services, Inc.
(the “Company”) for the quarter ended October 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Mark
Harrington, as Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to and solely for the purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, 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
Company.




/s/
      Mark HarringtonMark
      HarringtonChief
      Executive Officer and Principal Accounting OfficerDecember
      22, 2008
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 23

- 00136

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1 Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 2023

- 001101

- 1

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion



### A RIADNE 

### J OINER 

### , Appellant

V



### .
O RION 

### M IRADOR 

### P ROPERTY 

### D E 

### LLC DBA 

### M IRADOR 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT On September 7, 2023, we notified appellant that her brief had not been filed as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We sta te d that we could dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless , within ten days, appellant filed with

the court a n appellant ’ s brief and a n accompanying motion reasonably explaining the brief’s untimely filing and why an extension was needed. See Tex

. R. App. P. 10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have received no response. Because appellant has failed to file a brief even after we afforded an opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 3 8.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered : October 5, 2023
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6276

GUY WILLIAM BILODEAU, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. William T. Prince, Magistrate Judge. (CA-98-626) Submitted: June 17, 1999 Decided: June 24, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Guy William Bilodeau, Appellant Pro Se. Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM:Guy William Bilodeau appeals the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999). Bilodeau’s case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Bilodeau that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Bilodeau failed to object to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure to object will waive appellate review. See Wright v. Collins , 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce , 727 F.2d 91, 93-94 (4th Cir. 1984); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Bilodeau has waived appellate review byfailing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Horace MILLS v. STATE.

No. 20920.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 14, 1940.

Pace & Goens, of Tyler, and W. D. Justice, of Athens, for appellant.

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

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The conviction is for embezzlement; penalty assessed at confinement in the penitentiary for two years.

Appellant has filed a written motion, duly verified, requesting the dismissal of the appeal. The request is granted and the appeal is ordered dismissed.
**MEMORANDUM**

**To:** Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket id: OAR
- 2013
- 0602 **From:** Region 5, EPA **Subject:** 10/7/14, Conference Call Regarding Proposed Carbon Plan for Existing Power Plants **Summary** : A conference call was held between EPA and attendees from Wisconsin on October 7, 2014 to discuss the proposed Carbon Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The following list of questions was submitted for discussion b y the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. **Attendees may have included:** Breuer, Delanie
- PSC; Detmer, Kenneth
- PSC; Vedvik, Alexander
- PSC; Neumeyer, Donald G
- PSC; Bizot, David A
- DNR; Dickens, Angela F
- DNR; Adamantiades, Mikhail; Cain, Alexis; newman, erin**Questions email ed prior to the call are below:** 

1) **Are CO 2**  **emissions from new NGCC counted against the emission limitation for existing EGUs?**  We would like confirmation that the proposed rule does not create this intent or requirement in meeting either an emission rate or mass cap limit. This conclusion is based on discussion in the proposed rule preamble starting on pages 34876 and 34923 of the federal register. EPA appears to be stating in these discussions that new NGCC can be used towards compliance, but emissions are not regulated or required to be included in an y way under the proposed existing EGU limit. 2) **How can new NGCC units be used towards compliance of the existing EGU requirement?**  Has EPA considered what would be approvable in a state plan? Itseems there are several options that result in various levels of stringency : a) Allow new NGCCs to be built without emissions being included under the existing EGU requirement. This seems to be what the rule preamble is describing as a direct outcome of the proposed r

ule structure. [We would like to confirm this] b) Allow new NGCC emissions and MWh to be included in calculating the emission rate for the existing EGU sy stem. c) Allow new NGCC emissions to be excluded from a mass cap. d) Allow emission reductions in excess of the new NGCC NSPS limit to count towards compliance with the existing EGU emission rate or mass cap limits. 3) Potential question on calculating mass caps. **Is 2012 renewable and nuclear MWh included in the calculation?**  The proposed rule language appears to direct states to model the EGU s ys tem and apply the emission limitation to the grown MWh generated by the fossil fuel fleet (affected units). However, Wisconsin believes that the 2012 MWh of renewable and nuclear en ergy

that was used in determining the emission limit must also be included in the calculation. Otherwise the result is to make the requirement more stringent under a mass cap.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 357 

To amend the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 to expand the 

training for Federal Government personnel related to trafficking in persons, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 14, 2015 

Mr. SEAN PATRICK MALONEY of New York (for himself, Mr. GIBSON, Mrs. 

WAGNER, Mr. CICILLINE, Ms. KUSTER, and Mr. SHERMAN) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 

to expand the training for Federal Government personnel 

related to trafficking in persons, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Human Trafficking 

5 Prevention Act’’. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 357 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXPANDED TRAINING RELATING TO TRAFFICKING 

2 IN PERSONS. 

3 Section 105(c)(4) of the Trafficking Victims Protec4 tion Act of 2000 (22 U.S.C. 7105(c)(4)) is amended— 

5 (1) by inserting ‘‘, including members of the 

6 Service (as such term is defined in section 103 of 

7 the Foreign Service Act of 1980 (22 U.S.C. 3903))’’ 

8 after ‘‘Department of State’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘Train10 ing under this paragraph shall include, at a min11 imum, the following: 

12 ‘‘(A) A distance learning course on traf13 ficking-in-persons issues and the Department of 

14 State’s obligations under this Act, targeted for 

15 embassy reporting officers, regional bureaus’ 

16 trafficking-in-persons coordinators, and their 

17 superiors. 

18 ‘‘(B) Specific trafficking-in-persons brief19 ings for all ambassadors and deputy chiefs of 

20 mission before such individuals depart for their 

21 posts. 

22 ‘‘(C) At least annual reminders to all such 

23 personnel, including appropriate personnel from 

24 other Federal departments and agencies, at 

25 each diplomatic or consular post of the Depart26 ment of State located outside the United States 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 357 IH

1 of key problems, threats, methods, and warning 

2 signs of trafficking in persons specific to the 

3 country or jurisdiction in which each such post 

4 is located, and appropriate procedures to report 

5 information that any such personnel may ac6 quire about possible cases of trafficking in per7 sons.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
##### 



Exhibit 13
 Certification Required by Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code
 Company Report
 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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods
presented in the Report.
  /s/ Phil E. MulacekPhil E. MulacekChief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

JAMES EDWARD MILLER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.  No. 03-7534

MIKE PIERCE; DAVID PENDRY; BUTCH

HOLLAND; TIM CHEEK; RONNIE PRICE,

Defendants-Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of North Carolina, at Statesville.

Graham C. Mullen, Chief District Judge.

(CA-99-50-5-MU)

Submitted: January 30, 2004

Decided: March 16, 2004

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part, by unpublished per

curiam opinion. 

COUNSEL

James Edward Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Mason Thomas,

PATRICK, HARPER & DIXON, Hickory, North Carolina, for

Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c). 

OPINION

PER CURIAM: 

James Edward Miller appeals the district court’s order granting

summary judgment to the Defendants on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000)

complaint. The district court’s grant of summary judgment is

reviewed de novo. Higgins v. E. I. Dupont de Nemours & Co., 863

F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate

when there is no genuine issue of material fact, given the parties’ burdens of proof. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.,

477 U.S. 242, 247-49 (1986). In determining whether the moving

party has shown that there is no genuine issue of material fact, a court

must assess the factual evidence and all inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Id. at 255;

Smith v. Va. Commonwealth Univ., 84 F.3d 672, 675 (4th Cir. 1996).

Miller claims that the Defendants violated his constitutional rights

when they removed Miller’s son from his custody. The Defendants

stated that they were acting pursuant to a court order, but never provided a copy of such an order. Miller provided a court order requiring

the child to be returned to his custody, for the two-week period in dispute. Therefore, whether the Defendants were acting pursuant to a

court order, or in contravention of one, is a genuine issue of material

fact. We conclude that, as to this claim, the district court erred in

granting summary judgment. We vacate that portion of the district

court’s order and remand the action for further proceedings. 

As to Miller’s remaining claims, we have reviewed the record and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, as to those claims, we affirm for

the reasons stated by the district court. See Miller v. Pierce, No. CA99-50-5-MU (W.D.N.C. Sept. 16, 2003). 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.

2 MILLER v. PIERCE
AFFIRMED IN PART,

VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

MILLER v. PIERCE 3