alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued July 28, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-16-00567-CR

———————————

IN RE GERALD ALLEN PERRY, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator, Gerald Allen Perry, proceeding pro se and incarcerated, has filed a 

petition for writ of mandamus. Relator seeks to compel the respondent trial judge

to vacate the order denying his motion to suppress evidence and to recall this Court’s 

mandate and vacate this Court’s judgment affirming his 1994 conviction in the 

underlying proceeding.

1

 We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.

 

1 The underlying case is The State of Texas v. Gerald Allen Perry, Cause No. 607922, 

180th District Court, Harris County, Texas, The Honorable Catherine Evans
2

As we previously stated in dismissing for want of jurisdiction relator’s similar 

appeal of the respondent’s 2014 order denying his motion to recall the 1994 mandate, 

“Article 11.07 provides the exclusive means to challenge a final felony conviction” 

and “[o]nly the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has jurisdiction over matters 

related to post-conviction relief from a final felony conviction.” Perry v. State, No. 

01–14–00577–CR, 2014 WL 5593754, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] Nov. 

4, 2014, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication) (citing, inter alia, TEX 

CODE. CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 11.07, § 5 (West Supp. 2011)). Because relator’s

felony conviction became final in 1994, this is a final post-conviction felony 

proceeding for which we lack jurisdiction. See id.

Accordingly, we dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus for want of 

jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Brown, and Huddle.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

 

presiding. We affirmed appellant’s conviction for aggravated robbery, for which 

his punishment was assessed at forty-five years’ confinement and a $2,000 fine, on 

February 24, 1994, and we issued our mandate on August 23, 1994. See Perry v. 

State, No. 01–93–00207–CR, 1994 WL 52499, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st 

Dist.] Feb. 24, 1994, no writ) (not designated for publication).
Summary of Phone Conversation with Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (EPA)

Phone conversation between Nicole Law (R9, EPA) and Brenda Shine (OAQPS, EPA) on 

September 20, 2011 at approximately 1:30 pm.

Brenda Shine explained she is in the process of developing a rule for delayed cokers. Currently, 

she is conducting a Risk and Technology Review to determine if there are unacceptable risks 

from delayed cokers. Several requests for stack test data have been sent to facilities around the 

nation. Some have already submitted the information and she is waiting for other facilities to do 

so.
| (logo) Prudential | Prudential Asset Resources, Inc.

 

Prudential Mortgage Capital Company

2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2500 Dallas, TX 75201

Tel 877-937-4500

  |
|-------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

Wells Fargo Commercial Mortgage Securities, Inc.

c/o Wells Fargo Securities, LLC

375 Park Avenue, 2nd Floor

J0127-023, New York, New York 10152-023

Attention: AJ Sfarra

 

 

RE: WFCM 2015-C26

Period: February 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015 (the "Reporting Period")

 

Annual Compliance Statement

 

I, Timothy E. Steward, in my capacity as President and Managing Director of Prudential Asset Resources, Inc. (the "Company") hereby certify with regard to the Company's role as Primary Servicer under the Pooling and Servicing Agreement , (the "Agreement") dated as of February 1, 2015 pertaining to the above-referenced certificates, that:

 

(i) a review of the activities of the Company under the Agreement during the period noted above, and of the performance of the Company under the Agreement during the reporting period has been made under my supervision, and

 

(ii) to the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Company has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement throughout the reporting period.

 

 

Effective as of 2/24/2016

 

/s/ Timothy E. Steward

Timothy E. Steward

President and Managing Director

Prudential Asset Resources, Inc.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 12806]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-6788]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Air Force


HQ USAF Scientific Advisory Board Meeting

    The T&E Infrastructure Ad Hoc Study of the HQ USAF Scientific 
Advisory Board will meet on April 8-11, 1997 at Wright-Patterson AFB OH 
from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    The purpose is to receive briefings and gather information on the 
Test & Evaluation Study.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with Section 
552b of Title 5, United States Code, specifically subparagraphs (1) and 
(4) thereof.
    For further information, contact the HQ USAF Scientific Advisory 
Board Secretariat at (703) 697-8404.
Carolyn A. Lunsford,
    Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-6788 Filed 3-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3910-01-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

DOUGLAS BARRETT, § 

 § No. 431, 2013 

 Defendant Below, § 

 Appellant, § Court Below–Superior Court 

 § of the State of Delaware in and 

 v. § for New Castle County 

 § 

STATE OF DELAWARE, § 

 § 

 Plaintiff Below, § Cr. ID No. 1009013741 

 Appellee. § 

Submitted: May 9, 2014 

Decided: July 21, 2014 

Before STRINE, Chief Justice, HOLLAND and RIDGELY, Justices. 

O R D E R 

 This 21st day of July 2014, upon consideration of the briefs and 

supplemental memoranda of the parties and the Superior Court record, it 

appears to the Court that: 

(1) On February 8, 2011, the appellant, Douglas Barrett, pled guilty 

to a drug-related offense and was sentenced to three years at Level V 

suspended for twelve months at Level III. On June 22, 2011, Barrett was 

found guilty of his second violation of probation (VOP) and was sentenced 

to two years, eleven months and twenty-three days at Level V suspended for 

the same period of time at Level IV CREST, a substance abuse treatment 
2 

program, suspended upon successful completion of the program for twelve 

months at Level III. 

(2) On March 28, 2013, Barrett filed a motion for correction of 

sentence seeking credit for time served at a Level IV VOP Center. By order 

dated July 26, 2013, the Superior Court ruled that Barrett was “entitled to 

credit for time served in [the] VOP Center” but was “not entitled to credit 

for time spent in L4 treatment, e.g., CREST, even if CREST shares space at 

[the] VOP Center.” 

(3) Barrett filed an appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of 

credit for time served in the CREST program at the VOP Center. On appeal, 

we are constrained to find that the Superior Court’s denial of credit for time 

served was an abuse of discretion. 

(4) A defendant is entitled to Level V credit for time served at a 

Level V facility and at a Level IV VOP Center.1

 Credit for time served at a 

Level V facility includes any time spent in a substance abuse treatment 

program while at that facility and should also include any time spent in a 

substance abuse treatment program while at a Level IV VOP Center.2

 

 

1

Anderson v. State, 2006 WL 3931460 (Del. Dec. 5, 2006). 

2

See, e.g., Mifflin v. State, 2014 WL 1092283 (Del. Mar. 18, 2014) (affirming VOP 

sentence giving credit for time spent at a Level V substance abuse treatment program). 
3 

NOW, THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that the Superior Court 

judgment is REVERSED and this case is REMANDED to the Superior 

Court for correction of sentence. 

 BY THE COURT: 

 /s/ Henry duPont Ridgely

 Justice
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 57 (Tuesday, March 25, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 14114]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-7403]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Rural Housing Service


Notice of Recipients of Fiscal Year 1996 Section 515 Loan Funds

AGENCY: Rural Housing Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Rural Housing Service (RHS) has compiled a list of all 
recipients of fiscal year (FY) 1996 loan funds under Section 515 of the 
Housing Act of 1949 (Section 515). The intended effect of this action 
is to inform the public of recipients of FY 1996 Section 515 funds.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia L. Reese-Foxworth, Senior Loan 
Specialist, Rural Rental Housing Branch, Multi-Family Housing 
Processing Division, Rural Housing Service, USDA, Stop 0781, 
Washington, D.C., 20250, telephone (202) 720-1604 (this is not a toll 
free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Programs Affected

    This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance under Number 10.415, Rural Rental Housing Loans.

Discussion of Notice

    The information available is a 53-page compilation of borrower 
names, names of the general partners, project name and location, number 
of units developed, and RHS loan amount. This information is available 
to all interested parties and can be obtained by writing RHS at the 
following address: USDA, RHS, Multi-Family Housing Processing Division, 
Stop 0781, Washington, D.C., 20250. The request must be accompanied by 
a self-addressed, self-stamped envelope. Envelopes must be a minimum of 
11'' x 9'' in size, and bear first class postage of $1.25. Requests 
without the required return envelope and postage will not be 
acknowledged or responded to.

    Dated: March 11, 1997.
Jan E. Shadburn,
Acting Administrator, Rural Housing Service.
[FR Doc. 97-7403 Filed 3-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-XV-U
# C_2022463EN.01005901.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/59 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/59

---

Action brought on 17 October 2022 — Puma v EUIPO — Handelsmaatschappij J. Van Hilst (Shoes)

(Case T-647/22)

(2022/C 463/87)

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Applicant: Puma SE (Herzogenaurach, Germany) (represented by: M. Schunke and P. Trieb, lawyers)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Handelsmaatschappij J. Van Hilst (Waalwijck, Netherlands)

Details of the proceedings before EUIPO

Proprietor of the design at issue: Applicant before the General Court

Design at issue: Community design No 3 320 555-0002

Contested decision: Decision of the Third Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 August 2022 in Case R 726/2021-3

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | annul the contested decision; |
| --- | --- |

—

annul the contested decision;

| — | order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal. |
| --- | --- |

—

order EUIPO to pay the costs, including those incurred before the Board of Appeal.

Pleas in law

| — | Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002; |
| --- | --- |

—

Infringement of Article 7(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002;

| — | Failure to take into account the breach of contractual obligations and bad faith. |
| --- | --- |

—

Failure to take into account the breach of contractual obligations and bad faith.

---
Exhibit 4.21


          THIS AMENDMENT TO PROMISSORY NOTE, made this 25th day of July, 1994,
by and between PULASKI FURNITURE CORPORATION (hereinafter called the
"Borrower"); and WACHOVIA BANK OF NORTH CAROLINA, N.A. (hereinafter called the
"Bank");

          WHEREAS, the Borrower and the Bank entered into a Credit Agreement
dated the 10 day of December, 1993; and

          WHEREAS, the Borrower and the Bank entered into a Promissory Note
dated the 10 day of December, 1993; and

          WHEREAS, the Borrower and the Bank now mutually desire to effect
certain amendments to the Promissory Note;

          NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual
covenants herein and in the Credit Agreement and in the Promissory Note
contained, the parties agree as follows:

          1. Paragraph 1 of the Promissory Note, which paragraph begins on
page 1 thereof, is hereby amended and restated to read as follows:

          FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned PULASKI FURNITURE CORPORATION,
a Virginia corporation, (the "Borrower"), hereby promises to pay to the order
of WACHOVIA BANK OF NORTH CAROLINA, N.A., a national banking association
(together with its endorsers, successors and assigns, the "Bank"), the
principal sum of Thirteen Million and No/100th Dollars ($13,000,000.00) or such
lesser amount as shall equal the unpaid principal amount of the Loan made by
the Bank to the Borrower pursuant to the Credit Agreement referred to below,
on the dates provided for in the Credit Agreement. The Borrower promises to
pay interest on the unpaid principal amount of this Note on the dates and at
the rate or rates provided for in the Credit Agreement. Interest on any
overdue principal of and, to the extent permitted by law, overdue interest on
the principal amount hereof shall bear interest at the rate or rates as
provided for in the Credit Agreement. All such payments of principal and
interest shall be made in lawful money of the United States in Federal or
other funds immediately available at the principal office of the Bank located
at 301 North Main Street, Winston-Salem, North Carolina, 27150-3099, or at
such other locations as the holder of this Note may designate in writing.

          2. Except as herein amended, the terms and provisions of the
Promissory Note shall be and remain in full force and effect.

          IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment to
the Promissory Note to be executed as of the year and day first above written.

                                           PULASKI FURNITURE CORPORATION
ATTEST:
    /s/ JASON GIBBS                         By:    /s/ JOHN S. WAMPLER
     Asst. Secretary                       Title:        President

[CORPORATE SEAL]
S95A0578, S95A0704.

#### PATEL et al. v. ALPHA INVESTMENT PROPERTIES, INC. et al. (two cases). PATEL et al. v. PATEL et al. (two cases).

S95A0580, S95A0581.

(458 SE2d 476)

Decided June 26, 1995

Reconsideration denied July 17, 1995.

*Rogers & Hardin, John J. Almond, Eli J. Richardson,*for S. N. Patel. *598*Fendig, McLemore, Taylor & Whitworth, Gilbert C. McLemore, Jr., Brennan & Wasden, Joseph P. Brennan, James B. Wessinger III,*for N. N. Patel and Alpha.

*597Hunstein, Justice.

The four appeals consolidated in this opinion challenge two orders entered by the trial court in this litigation over the control of a corporation (“Alpha”) formed to own and operate a motel in Brunswick.

1. Previous litigation resulted in a 1992 judgment entered in favor of appellant S. N. Patel1 against Alpha, among others. Two of Alpha’s bank accounts had been frozen by court order during the course of this earlier litigation. In the first order challenged by appellants,2 the trial court allowed funds representing the full amount of the 1992 judgment to be released from the accounts, but directed that the funds be transferred into the registry of the court. A review of the hearing that led to the challenged order reveals that the purpose of the order was to ensure that the funds would be available should certain of appellees prevail in a suit against appellants filed since the 1992 judgment was rendered. We agree with appellants that under the facts in this case, the trial court’s order violates OCGA § 9-5-6.3 See *Prosser v. Hancock Bus Sales,*256 Ga. 399 (1) (349 SE2d 460) (1986).

2. In the second order appealed from,4 the trial court sua sponte entered an order appointing a receiver for Alpha. After a careful review of the record, we agree with appellants that the evidence before the trial court failed to support any statutory basis for the appointment of a receiver, see OCGA § 9-8-1 et seq., and thus the trial court abused its discretion by appointing a receiver. *Liddell v. Johnson,*213 Ga. 752 (1) (101 SE2d 755) (1958).

*Judgments reversed.*

*All the Justices concur.*

1

 The judgment included amounts awarded S. N. Patel in his individual capacity as well as in a trustee capacity. S. S. Patel was also a plaintiff in the earlier litigation and is an appellant in the four appeals in this Court.

2

 This order is the subject of the appeals in Case Nos. S95A0578 and S95A0580.

3

 OCGA § 9-5-6 provides that “[creditors without liens may not, as a general rule, enjoin their debtors from disposing of property nor obtain injunctions or other extraordinary relief in equity.”

4

 Case Nos. S95A0581 and S95A0704.
#### Arthur Alan WOLK, Philip Browndies, and Catherine Marchand, Respondents v. The SCHOOL DISTRICT OF LOWER MERION, Petitioner

No. 481 MAL 2017

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

January 17, 2018

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 17th day of January, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is GRANTED, LIMITED TO the issues set forth below. Allocatur is DENIED as to the remaining issue. The issues, as stated by Petitioner, are:

> (1) Where a Court of Common Pleas grants a petition by issuing an immediately effective injunction, is that order immediately appealable of right under Pa.R.A.P, 311(a)(4)?

> (2) Is an order of the Court of Common Pleas that enjoined a school district from collecting a portion of its 2016 taxes a “final order” as to which [Petitioner] must file post-trial motions before taking an appeal, even though other and different cláims in the case remain unaddressed?

> (3) May a Court of Common Pleas convert a preliminary injunction hearing into a permanent injunction hearing without the consent of the parties?

The Applications for Leave to Appear as *Amicus Curiae*aré GRANTED,

Justice Todd did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,Anthony B. Waters, Chief Financial Officer of InnSuites Hospitality Trust (the“Company”), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1. The Annual Report onForm 10-K of the Company for the year ended January 31, 2004 (the “AnnualReport”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

 

2. The informationcontained in the Annual Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: April 30, 2004 | By:    | /s/    Anthony B. Waters |
|----------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------|
|                 |   | Name: Anthony B. Waters                      |
|                 |   | Title: Chief Financial  Officer              |

 

----
AMENDMENT TO LEASE AGREEMENT
               (Modification of terms and rents)


The purpose of this Amendment, dated January 21, 1997, is to modify 
the terms of the Lease as noted, between 2545 Central Avenue 
Partnership, "LESSOR," and Somatogen, Inc., "LESSEE," for The Premises 
located at 2545 Central Avenue, Boulder, CO.

This Amendment modifies the term of the Lease Agreement, dated 
February 14, 1995, as referenced in Paragraph 2 and all other written 
Agreements, and provides for the rent schedule Paragraph 31 and terms 
to be modified. 

The Lessor hereby leases the Premises to the Lessee, and the Lessee 
hereby leases the Premises from the Lessor, for a term commencing at 
12:01 A.M. on the 1st day of March, 1997 and ending at 11:59 P.M. on 
the 28th day of February, 2000, unless sooner terminated as herein set 
forth.  The Lessee agrees to pay Lessor as rent for the premises 
according to the terms of the RENT SCHEDULE  below:

March 1, 1997 through February 28, 1998  $19,913.00 per month
March 1, 1998 through February 28, 1999  $20,709.00 per month
March 1, 1999 through February 28, 2000  $21,538.00 per month

All other terms and conditions of the original Lease, all Amendments 
and all other written agreements are to remain in full force and 
effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and 
seals this date and year above written.

                   LESSOR:   2545 Central Avenue Partnership
                   BY:       /s/ Larry F. Frey 
                             -------------------------------

                   LESSEE:   Somatogen, Inc.
                   BY:       /s/   Timothy D. Hoogheem
                             -------------------------------
                   ITS:      Senior Vice President of Finance,
                             and Administration, CFO and Treasurer
_________________________________________ 

 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 22, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

136388 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Stephen J. Markman, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, Justices 

v SC: 136388 

 COA: 282945 
 Wayne CC: 07-003317-FC

MOHAMMAD BOSTON, a/k/a 

MOHAMMAD CONGDON-BOSTON,

 Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 31, 2008 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded 

that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

l0915 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

September 22, 2008 

 Clerk
EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 of Dean Witter Realty Income Partnership
IV, L.P. (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, William B. Smith, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Dean
Witter Realty Fourth Income Properties Inc., the Managing General Partner of the
Partnership, certify pursuant to Section 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 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 result of operations
           of the Partnership.




     /s/ William B. Smith
     ------------------------------------
     William B. Smith
     Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

     Dean Witter Realty Fourth Income Properties Inc., as
     Managing General Partner of Dean Witter Realty
     Income Partnership IV, L.P.


     Date: August 13, 2002
No. 11-11005.

#### Campbell *v.*Florida.

Dist. Ct. App. Fla., 1st Dist. Certiorari denied.