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

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-20-00236-CR

IN RE MICHAEL ANTHONY MOORE

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this original proceeding Michael Moore seeks mandamus relief against the 

district clerk. Moore states that he paid for a copy of the record in his case, but the clerk 

refuses to provide the record. A court of appeals has no jurisdiction to issue a writ of 

mandamus against a district clerk except to protect or enforce its jurisdiction. See TEX.

GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221 (West 2004); In re Bernard, 993 S.W.2d 453, 454 (Tex. App. —

Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding). Moore has not shown that a writ of 
In re Moore Page 2

mandamus directed to the district clerk is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction.1 We 

dismiss Mack’s Petition for Writ of Mandamus against the clerk for want of jurisdiction. 

JOHN E. NEILL 

Justice 

Before Chief Justice Gray, 

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Dismissed 

Opinion delivered and filed September 9, 2020

[OT06]

1 The rather complicated process to compel the district clerk to perform a ministerial act is discussed in In 

re Bernard, 993 S.W.2d 453, 454 (Tex. App. — Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding)(O’Connor 

Concurring).
#### Tummarello v. DPHHS

2016 MT 265N

DA 15-0378

10/18/16

Affirmed

Dist. 1 (Lewis and Clark)
No. 11-530.

#### David Hatchigian, Petitioner v. Citizens Public Adjusters, Inc., et al.

565 U.S. 1113, 132 S. Ct. 1021,

181 L. Ed. 2d 738,

2012 U.S. LEXIS 184.

January 9, 2012.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Office, denied.

Same case below, 23 A.3d 562.
#### DODD DISTRIBUTING COMPANY and General Wholesale Company, Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 20691.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

March 20, 1964.

James M. Roberts, Atlanta, Ga., for appellants.

Louis F. Oberdorfer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lee A. Jackson, Atty., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington, D. C., Charles L. Goodson, U. S. Atty., Slaton Clem-mons, Asst. U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., Joseph Kovner, Ralph A. Muoio, Attys., Tax Div., Dept, of Justice, Washington,D. C., for appellee.

*936Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, WISDOM, Circuit Judge, and CARSWELL, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This suit for refund of income taxes deals with the question of deductibility as an ordinary and necessary business expense of payments made by the appellants, wholesale liquor dealers in the State of Georgia, to the former State Revenue Commissioner, T. V. Williams. Assuming the facts all to be as contended for by the appellants, we conclude that payments made by them to the state official charged with the duty of enforcing the State liquor laws to enable him to carry out this State-directed function can not, under any theory of the law, be considered ordinary and necessary business expenses. The jury merely found what we conclude would have been appropriate for the trial court itself to decide, i. e., these expenses were not deductible from the income of these appellants for federal income tax purposes.

The judgment is affirmed.
# C_2016366EN.01000502.xml

| 5.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 366/5 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 366/5

---

Opinion of the Advisory Committee on restrictive agreements and dominant position given at its meeting of 23 May 2016 regarding a draft decision relating to Case AT.39792(2) Steel Abrasives

Rapporteur: Hungary

(2016/C 366/05)

| 1. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressee of the draft decision. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that a fine should be imposed on the addressee of the draft decision.

| 2. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amount of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the basic amount of the fine.

| 3. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fine. |
| --- | --- |

3.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the determination of the duration for the purpose of calculating the fine.

| 4. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating circumstances applicable in this case. |
| --- | --- |

4.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission that there are no aggravating circumstances applicable in this case.

| 5. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reduction based on the mitigating circumstances. |
| --- | --- |

5.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the reduction based on the mitigating circumstances.

| 6. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the adaptation of the fine based on point 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on Fines. |
| --- | --- |

6.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the adaptation of the fine based on point 37 of the 2006 Guidelines on Fines.

| 7. | The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amount of the fine. |
| --- | --- |

7.

The Advisory Committee agrees with the Commission on the final amount of the fine.

| 8. | The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union. |
| --- | --- |

8.

The Advisory Committee recommends the publication of its Opinion in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
# C_2016190EN.01000201.xml

| 28.5.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 190/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.5.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 190/2

---

Notice for the attention of the data subjects to whom the restrictive measures provided for in Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 concerning restrictive measures against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea apply

(2016/C 190/02)

The attention of data subjects is drawn to the following information in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council (1):

1

The legal basis for this processing operation is Council Regulation (EC) No 329/2007 (2).

2

The controller of this processing operation is the Council of the European Union represented by the Director-General of DG C (Foreign Affairs, Enlargement, Civil Protection) of the General Secretariat of the Council and the department entrusted with the processing operation is the Unit 1C of DG C that can be contacted at:

| Council of the European Union |
| --- |
| General Secretariat |
| DG C 1C |
| Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175 |
| 1048 Bruxelles/Brussel |
| BELGIQUE/BELGIË |
| Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu |

Council of the European Union

General Secretariat

DG C 1C

Rue de la Loi/Wetstraat 175

1048 Bruxelles/Brussel

BELGIQUE/BELGIË

Email: sanctions@consilium.europa.eu

The purpose of the processing operation is the establishment and updating of the list of persons subject to restrictive measures in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 329/2007.

The data subjects are the natural persons who fulfil the listing criteria as laid down in that Regulation.

The personal data collected includes data necessary for the correct identification of the person concerned, the Statement of Reasons and any other data related thereto.

The personal data collected may be shared as necessary with the European External Action Service and the Commission.

Without prejudice to restrictions provided for in Article 20(1)(a) and (d) of Regulation (EC) No 45/2001, requests for access, as well as requests for rectification or objection will be answered in accordance with Section 5 of Council Decision 2004/644/EC (3).

3

Personal data will be retained for 5 years from the moment the data subject has been removed from the list of persons subject to the asset freeze or the validity of the measure has expired, or for the duration of court proceedings in the event they had been started.

Data subjects may have recourse to the European Data Protection Supervisor in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 45/2001.

---

(1)  OJ L 8, 12.1.2001, p. 1.

1

(2)  OJ L 88, 29.3.2007, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ L 296, 21.9.2004, p. 16.

3

---
No. 09-7998.

#### Raul Garza Tamez, Petitioner v. Rick Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

559 U.S. 947, 130 S. Ct. 1523,

176 L. Ed. 2d 127,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1489.

February 22, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit denied.

Same case below, 344 Fed. Appx. 897.
Tin Offering

Item/Lot

1760

Brand

Long Horn 

Tin Content %

99.8

Lead Content %

0.05

Net Wt. (Lbs)

132,277

Metric Tons

60

Min. Bid (Lbs)

11,023.10

Location

Hammond, IN

* All quotes must be submitted through the DLA-Strategic Materials Sales Portal

and quoters must be pre-approved in the site to participate

DLA - Strategic Materials Sales Portal

Unit of Measure................... Lbs Offering Posting Time............

April 11, 2022

April 12, 2022

9:30am

12:00pm

FISCAL YEAR 2022

Basic Ordering Agreement... Tin Date of Posting...................

Grade................................. A Date for Receipt of Quotes....

Cutoff Time for Receipt.........

Quality

A
No. 11-6571.

#### Delma Borbon, Petitioner v. Dawn Davison, Warden.

565 U.S. 1041, 132 S. Ct. 605,

181 L. Ed. 2d 433,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8133.

November 14, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Date: 17 August 2020 *************************

NSN: 8905-01-545-6636 (CKC) MONOGRAPH NO: FS1-06 

 ************************** 

Item: Chicken chunks, white, cooked, 7 oz, Regular, Conventional (Type VI, Style A, 

Agricultural practice 1)

Document: CID A-A-20352C, Chicken Chunks, White, Cooked, Canned or in Flexible Pouches

Approximate Caloric Value Per Serving: 190 Component Classification: Primary 

Estimated Shelf Life: 36 months at 80°F

Item Characteristics

Appearance:

Whole muscle, white meat chicken, discernable chunks of various sizes. The pink 

exterior color fades to a light tan, cooked chicken color. The interior color of the 

chicken chunks will be light tan to pale pink and have a distinct fibrous appearance. 

The broth must have a golden translucent color.

Odor: The odor of the chicken chunks must have a mild white meat chicken odor.

Flavor: The flavor of the chicken chunks must have a mild white meat chicken flavor and may 

possess a slightly salty taste.

Texture: Tender and moist, but firm. Not dry, tough, or mushy.

Possible Deteriorative Changes 

Appearance:

Not a discernible whole muscle cooked white meat chicken chunk, excessive 

browning, dry.

Odor: Burnt, scorched, rancid, sour, warmed over.

Flavor: Burnt, scorched, rancid, sour, warmed over.

Texture: Dry, tough, mushy.

Unique Examination/Test Procedures

Immediately upon opening the container, the chicken chunks may appear pink in color which will fade 

to a light tan cooked chicken color after exposure to room air (atmospheric oxygen) for 10-15 minutes. 

Special Notes

NA
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4742 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4742

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend title 35, United States Code, to allow the Director of the 
  Patent and Trademark Office to waive statutory provisions governing 
             patents and trademarks in certain emergencies.

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

SECTION 1. WAIVER OF PATENT AND TRADEMARK REQUIREMENTS IN CERTAIN 
              EMERGENCIES.

    Section 2 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at 
the end the following new subsection:
    ``(e) Waiver of Requirements in Certain Emergencies.--The Director 
may waive statutory provisions governing the filing, processing, 
renewal, and maintenance of patents, trademark registrations, and 
applications therefor to the extent the Director deems necessary in 
order to protect the rights and privileges of applicants and other 
persons affected by an emergency or a major disaster, as those terms 
are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief 
and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122). A decision not to 
exercise, or a failure to exercise, the waiver authority provided by 
this subsection shall not be subject to judicial review.''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 5, 2006.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
109th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 4742

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

  To amend title 35, United States Code, to allow the Director of the 
  Patent and Trademark Office to waive statutory provisions governing 
             patents and trademarks in certain emergencies.
```
# C_2016388EN.01000301.xml

| 21.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 388/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 388/3

---

Commission communication pursuant to Article 17(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1008/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council on common rules for the operation of air services in the Community

Invitation to tender in respect of the operation of scheduled air services in accordance with public service obligations

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 388/03)

| Member State | Greece |
| --- | --- |
| Concerned routes | Thessaloniki – Corfu
  Thessaloniki – Skyros
  Alexandroupolis – Sitia
  Aktio – Sitia
  Corfu – Aktion – Kefalοnia – Zakinthos
  Limnos – Mitilini – Chios – Samos – Rhodes
  Rhodes – Kos – Kalymnos – Leros – Astypalea |
| Period of validity of the contract | 1 April 2017 – 31 March 2021 |
| Deadline for submission of tenders | 61 days after the day of publication of the notice of PSOs |
| Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained free of charge | Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority |
| Directorate General for Air Transport |
| Air Transport and International Affairs Division |
| Section II |
| Vas. Georgiou 1 |
| 16604 Athens |
| GREECE |
| Tel. +30 2108916149 or 8916121 |
| Fax +30 2108947132 |
| Website: www.hcaa.gr |

Member State

Greece

Concerned routes

Thessaloniki – Corfu

Thessaloniki – Skyros

Alexandroupolis – Sitia

Aktio – Sitia

Corfu – Aktion – Kefalοnia – Zakinthos

Limnos – Mitilini – Chios – Samos – Rhodes

Rhodes – Kos – Kalymnos – Leros – Astypalea

Period of validity of the contract

1 April 2017 – 31 March 2021

Deadline for submission of tenders

61 days after the day of publication of the notice of PSOs

Address where the text of the invitation to tender and any relevant information and/or documentation related to the public tender and the public service obligation can be obtained free of charge

Hellenic Civil Aviation Authority

Directorate General for Air Transport

Air Transport and International Affairs Division

Section II

Vas. Georgiou 1

16604 Athens

GREECE

Tel. +30 2108916149 or 8916121

Fax +30 2108947132

Website: www.hcaa.gr

---
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED AP RIL 9, 2015

NO. 03

- 13

- 00180

- CR

Juan David Garza, Jr., Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM 22ND DISTRICT COURT OF HAYS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUST ICES PEMBERTON AND B OURLAND

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE PEMBERTON

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction signed by the district court. Having reviewed

t he record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the

district court’s judgment of conviction . Therefore, the Court affirms the district court’s

judgment of conviction

. Because appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication

of costs is made.
No. 11-6922.

#### Brian L. Brown, Petitioner v. Don Narvaiz.

565 U.S. 1096, 132 S. Ct. 853,

181 L. Ed. 2d 556,

2011 U.S. LEXIS 8881.

December 12, 2011.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit denied.
No. 09-38.

#### Health Care Service Corporation, Petitioner v. Juli A. Pollitt, et al.

559 U.S. 932, 130 S. Ct. 1499,

176 L. Ed. 2d 105,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 1035.

February 19, 2010.

Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument granted.
#### UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE & AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 116, Petitioner-Appellant, v. AMERICAN MACHINE AND FOUNDRY CO., Respondent-Appellee.

No. 331, Docket 28440.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit,

Argued March 9, 1964.

Decided March 9, 1964.

*148Jerome S. Rubenstein, New York City (Rubenstein & Rubenstein, New York City, on the brief), for petitioner-appellant.

William L. McGuire, New York City (Rogers, Hoge & Hills, New York City, on the brief), for respondent-appellee.

Before SMITH, KAUFMAN and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner-appellant, a union local and respondent-appellee, an employer, in disagreement as to union rights concerning overtime under a collective bargaining agreement, each requested arbitration. After some disagreement as to the terms of a submission, the following text was agreed on:

> “Under the terms and provisions of the current labor agreement and other written agreements, does the Company have the right to schedule and require employees to work sufficient and reasonable amounts of overtime and to discipline individual employees for refusing to work such overtime ?”

The arbitrator’s award was couched in the following terms:

> “Under the terms and provisions of the current Labor Agreement and other written agreements, the Company has the right to schedule and require employees to work sufficient and reasonable amounts of overtime and to discipline individual employees for refusing to work such overtime, unless in any particular instance the individual employee has a justifiable, valid reason to excuse him from working the required overtime.”

The union moved in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to vacate the award on grounds of partiality, bias, etc, and because the arbitrator exceeded the terms of the submission. The District Court, Irving Ben Cooper, District Judge, denied the motion and the union appeals. We find no error and affirm the judgment.

The claim appears technical in the extreme that the arbitrator, who might have answered the question submitted simply “yes” could not, out of an apparent excess of caution, add the limitation for the benefit of the employees, not objected to by the employer, “unless in any particular instance the individual employee has a justifiable, valid reason to excuse him from working the required overtime.” Any bizarre application of the ruling in individual cases is of course subject to the review provided in the collective bargaining agreement.
1

The Honorable William R. Wilson, Jr., United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Henry L. Jones, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District

of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 04-3692

___________

Larry Saulsberry, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Cole Jeter, Warden, FCI - Forest City, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

Appellee. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

Submitted: September 29, 2005

Filed: September 29, 2005

___________

Before MELLOY, MAGILL, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Larry Saulsberry appeals the district court’s1

 order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 petition. Because the district court correctly concluded Saulsberry did not

establish that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 was inadequate or ineffective to test the legality of his

detention, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
Exhibit 35.6



LOGO

ANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreement dated as of August 1, 2017, by and among CITIGROUP COMMERCIAL
MORTGAGE SECURITIES INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Master Servicer, RIALTO CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC, as Special Servicer, WILMINGTON TRUST, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, CITIBANK, N.A., as Certificate Administrator
and PARK BRIDGE LENDER SERVICES LLC, as Operating Advisor and Asset Representations Reviewer with respect to Commercial Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2017-CD5 (the Agreement).
Capitalized terms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement.

Pursuant to Section 10.08 of
this Agreement, I, Daniel Bober, Executive Vice President of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during the period from August 1, 2017 through December 31, 2017 (the Reporting Period), and of its performance per the Agreement during such period
has been made under my supervision, and
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Master Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the Reporting Period.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of
February 2018.



LOGO

Daniel Bober

Executive Vice
President

Wells Fargo Bank



LOGO
EXHIBIT
32





Certification of Periodic
Financial Report Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350








Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q of Pinnacle Airlines Corp. for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), the undersigned Philip H. Trenary, the President and Chief
Executive Officer, and Peter D. Hunt, the Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer, hereby certify that this 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
registrant.








Signature
            Title
            Date/s/
      Philip H. Trenary
            President
      and Chief Executive Officer
            November
      3, 2009Philip
      H. Trenary/s/
      Peter D. Hunt
            Vice
      President and Chief Financial Officer
            November
      3, 2009Peter
      D. Hunt