alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS No. 10
- 16
- 00332
- CV IN RE MIKE HICKS
Original Proceeding

O P I N I O N
Relator, Mike Hicks, has filed "Relator's Motion for Emergency Relief and Request for Stay." The motion, purportedly filed pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.10, requests that we stay the effect of an order which requires compliance by 10:00 AM on October 13, 2016. The motion indicates that the "Relator will be filing a Petition for Writ of Mandamus subsequent to the filing of this Motion." The referenced petition has not been filed. The trial court's order and any other documents, such as a record of events in the trial court that resulted in the order, are not attached to the motion. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.3(k); 52.7. The motion is not verified as required for a petition for writ of mandamus and the supporting record. See id . 52.3(j). The Relator's motion is premature. The filing of original proceedings in theIn re Hicks Page 2

appellate courts is governed by Section Three of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. Rule 52.1 specifies how such a proceeding is commenced in an appellate court. Specifica lly it provides:
52.1. Commencement An original appellate proceeding seeking extraordinary relief

— such as a writ of habeas corpus, mandamus, prohibition, injunction, or quo warranto

— is commenced by filing a petition with the clerk of the appropriate appellate court. The petition must be captioned “ In re [name of relator].”
T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.1. Further, Rule 52.10 expressly contemplates a pending petition for writ of mandamus when a motion for temporary relief is filed. The rule provides, in part: "The relator may file a motion to stay any underlying proceedings or for any other temporary relief pending the court’s action on the petition."
T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 52.10(a). Moreover, t he rule provides the Court can grant temporary relief "pending th e court’s action on the petition." Id . (b). While we are not prepared to hold that in no circumstance would we consider a motion for emergency relief and requesting a stay of a trial court proceeding or order without a pending petition for writ of mandamu s, we do not believe this proceeding evidences the extraordinary circumstances that would justify such an action by the court. Accordingly , we dismiss "Relator's Motion for Emergency Relief and Request for a Stay" without prejudice to filing such a motion after a petition for writ of mandamus has been
filed.

TOM GRAY Chief JusticeIn re Hicks Page 3

Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Motion dismissed Opinion delivered and filed October 13, 2016 [OT06]
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:*                         December 18, 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 December 9, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a                     *USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground Advantage® Contract 964 to Competitive Product List.*                     Documents are available at                     *www.prc.gov,*                     Docket Nos. MC2025-708, K2025-707.                

Sean C. Robinson,

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.

[FR Doc. 2024-30012 Filed 12-17-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
Exhibit 10.2            Re: 2006 Annual Incentive AwardDear:The Board of Directors has approved a 2006 cash incentive compensation program (the “2006 IncentiveProgram”) for executive officers and corporate employees pursuant to the 2005 Equity Compensationand Incentive Plan (the “2005 Plan”.) This letter provides a summary of how the 2006 IncentiveProgram applies to you (the “Award”). **•** The 2006 cash incentive awards for covered employees are based in part on Champion’scash earnings for 2006.  **•** Each employee covered by this arrangement will have a “Target Bonus Amount” expressedas a percentage of that employee’s base salary as of the last day of the Company’s fiscalyear.  **•** Under the 2006 Incentive Program a cash earnings incentive rangeis established based upon the extent to which the 2006 cash earningsof the Company exceed 2005 cash earnings.  **•** Your actual bonus earned will be your Target Bonus Amount multiplied by the percentage2006 cash earnings are above or below the 2006 Cash Earnings Target. Your Target BonusAmount will be earned if 2006 cash earnings equal the 2006 Cash Earnings Target.   **•** For you to earn an incentive in 2006, cash earnings for 2006must exceed cashearnings for 2005. The maximum cash bonus is two times the target bonusamount.
 

 
 **•** To be eligible for payment under the 2006 Incentive Program, you must hold your presentor another eligible position with the Company at the end of fiscal 2006 (December 30,2006).  **•** Payments will be made in cash after audited 2006 year-end results are finalized, on orabout March 1, 2007.  **•** This Award was granted pursuant to IRC Section 162(m). The Compensation and HumanResources Committee (the “Committee”) retains the discretion to reduce any Award byamending or modifying the 2006 cash earnings calculations or targets to take into accountthe impact of any significant acquisition activity during the year. All calculationsapproved by the Committee shall be final.  **•** The Committee administers the 2005 Plan and has ultimate authority to interpret andadminister this arrangement. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of the2005 Plan and any other document, the provisions of the 2005 Plan shall control. Anyquestions about the terms, conditions, operation or administration of this arrangementwill be resolved by the Committee in its sole and complete discretion.  **•** This arrangement supercedes all other annual incentive arrangements.I am excited about the coming year and the prospects under this arrangement. Please let meknow if you have questions or comments.Sincerely,  William C. Griffiths
Exhibit 34.2 

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm (Ernst & Young LLP) 

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors 

U.S. Bank National Association 

We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Applicable Servicing Criteria, that U.S.Bank National Association (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122 (d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed SecuritiesPlatform (the “Platform”), for which the Company provides trustee, securities administration, registrar and paying agent services, as of and for the year ended March 31, 2018, except for servicing criteria Items 1122(d)(1)(i)-(v), 1122 (d)(2)(i), 1122 (d)(2)(iii), 1122 (d)(2)(v)-(vii), 1122 (d)(3)(i), and 1122 (d)(4)(i)-(xv), which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by them with respect to the servicing platform covered bythis report. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with those servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria basedon our examination. 

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified PublicAccountants, as adopted by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing suchother procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of less than all of the individual asset-backed transactions and securities that comprise the Platform, testing of less than all of the servicingactivities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria. Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selectedtransactions and servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affectedthe balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that the evidence we obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide areasonable basis for our opinion. 

Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the year endedMarch 31, 2018, for the U.S. Bank Corporate Trust Asset-Backed Securities Platform is fairly stated, in all material respects. 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

May 31, 2018
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel.

The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel; P41 NCBIB Review G-SEP.                    

*Date:*                         February 11-13, 2025.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health, Democracy II, Suite 920, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20817 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Yoon-Young Jang, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 451-3397,                         *yoonyoung.jang@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.866, National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, National Institutes of Health.)

Dated: December 13, 2024.

Victoria E. Townsend,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-30080 Filed 12-18-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
Cecil TOLBERT, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 4D18-2684

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 8, 2018]

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
## Breadcrumb

-  Home 

# Explore Search: Earthquakes

link

link

### Latest Earthquakes

### Latest Earthquakes

View the latest earthquake events and information from the past 24 hours, 7 days, or 1 month.

Earthquake Hazards Program

Search the Earthquake Catalog

Earthquake data and products

Earthquake science

Earthquake FAQs

Filters

              - science_science(16)
              - multimedia_image(1)
              - multimedia_image-141771(1)
              - connect_locations(1)
              - (-)connect_social_media(3)
              - connect_staff_profiles(13)

## By Location

## By Year

              - 2022(3)
              - (-)2021(3)
              - 2020(3)

link

link

### Latest Earthquakes

### Latest Earthquakes

View the latest earthquake events and information from the past 24 hours, 7 days, or 1 month.

Earthquake Hazards Program

Search the Earthquake Catalog

Earthquake data and products

Earthquake science

Earthquake FAQs

social mediaUSGS Earthquakes

social mediaUSGS Seismic Network

social mediaNatural Hazards Playlist
STATE EX REL. Charles SPEARS v. STATE of Louisiana

2017-KH-0854

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

December 17, 2018

Reconsideration denied.
## F I F T H 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D 2 02 3

- 0564 LT Case No. 2020

- CF

- 003478

- A

_____________________________
J OHNATHAN D AVID H ALL , Appellant,

v.

S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County

. R. Anthony Salem , Judge

. Rachel E. Reese and Olivia M. Goodman, O’Brien Hatfield Reese, P.A. Tampa , for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General
, and David Welch, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

July 30, 2024

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
W ALLIS , S OUD , and B OATWRIGHT , JJ., concur

.2 _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________
Dail WRIGHT, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-1858

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 20, 2018

**DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Denied.
DeAngelo Andre EVANS, Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s), v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee(s)/Respondent(s),

CASE NO.: 3D18-1919

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2018

Following review of the petition for writ of mandamus, it is ordered that said petition is hereby denied as moot.

EMAS, LUCK and LINDSEY, JJ., concur.
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential.



# United States Court of Appeals

**for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

IROBOT CORPORATION,

Appellant

v.

SHARKNINJA OPERATING LLC, SHARKNINJA

MANAGEMENT LLC, SHARKNINJA SALES

COMPANY,

Appellees

______________________

2022

- 1235

______________________

Appeal from the United States Patent and Trademark

Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board in No. IPR2020

-

00735

.

______________________

O R D E R

The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that:

(1) The proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R. App.

P. 42 (b). Case: 22-1235 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 05/05/2022I R OBOT C ORPORATION V

. S HARK N INJA O PERATING LLC 2

(2) Each side shall bear their own costs.

FOR THE COURT

May 5, 2022

Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: May 5, 2022 Case: 22-1235 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 05/05/2022
[Cite as State ex rel. Washington v. Breux, 2019-Ohio-3088.]

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 

 )ss: NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COUNTY OF SUMMIT ) 

STATE EX REL. JIMMIE L. 

WASHINGTON 

 Relator 

 v. 

HONORABLE ALISON BREAUX 

 Respondent 

 C.A. No. 29436 

 

ORIGINAL ACTION IN 

PROCEDENDO

Dated: July 31, 2019 

 

 PER CURIAM. 

{¶1} Relator, Jimmie L. Washington, has petitioned this Court for a writ of 

procedendo to compel Respondent, Judge Breaux, to rule on two motions he filed. Judge 

Breaux has moved to dismiss and attached a copy of a journal entry that denied Mr. 

Washington’s motions. The trial court docket demonstrates that Judge Breaux has entered 

an order that denies the pending motions. Because Judge Breaux has ruled on the 

motions, Mr. Washington’s claim is moot, and this Court dismisses his complaint. 

{¶2} To be entitled to a writ of procedendo, Mr. Washington must establish a 

clear legal right to require Judge Breaux to proceed, a clear legal duty on the part of Judge 

Breaux to proceed, and a lack of an adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State 

ex rel. Miley v. Parrott, Judge, 77 Ohio St.3d 64, 65 (1996). Procedendo is the 
C.A. No. 29436 

Page 2 of 3 

appropriate remedy when a court has refused to render a judgment or has unnecessarily 

delayed proceeding to judgment. See, e.g., State ex rel. CNG Financial Corp. v. Nadel, 

111 Ohio St.3d 149, 2006-Ohio-5344, ¶ 20. It is well-settled that procedendo will not 

“compel the performance of a duty that has already been performed.” State ex rel. Grove 

v. Nadel, 84 Ohio St.3d 252, 253, 1998-Ohio-541. 

{¶3} Mr. Washington sought a writ of procedendo to order Judge Breaux to rule 

on his motions. This Court may consider evidence outside the complaint to determine 

that an action is moot. State ex rel. Nelson v. Russo, 89 Ohio St.3d 227, 228 (2000). 

According to Judge Breaux’s motion to dismiss, and a review of the trial court docket, 

Judge Breaux has ruled on all of Mr. Washington’s pending motions. Accordingly, this 

matter is moot. 

{¶4} Because Mr. Washington’s claim is moot, his complaint is dismissed. Costs 

are taxed to Mr. Washington. The clerk of courts is hereby directed to serve upon all 

parties not in default notice of this judgment and its date of entry upon the journal. See

Civ.R. 58(B). 

 

 THOMAS A. TEODOSIO 

 FOR THE COURT 

HENSAL, J. 

SCHAFER, J. 

CONCUR. 
C.A. No. 29436 

Page 3 of 3 

APPEARANCES: 

JIMMIE L. WASHINGTON, Pro se, Relator. 

SHERRI BEVAN WALSH, Prosecuting Attorney, and COLLEEN SIMS, Assistant 

Prosecuting Attorney, for Respondent.
STATE of Louisiana v. Richard Nathaniel MILLER

NO. 2018-KH-1638

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

December 17, 2018

WRIT NOT CONSIDERED. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he sought review in the court(s) below before filing in this Court nor shown the "extraordinary circumstances" that would justify bypassing that level of review. La.S.Ct.R. X § 5(b).
Daniel PANSKY, Appellant, v. Victoria PANSKY, Appellee.

No. 4D15-3940

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

[November 28, 2018]

Troy William Klein, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Barry S. Franklin of Barry S. Franklin & Associates, P.A., Aventura, for appellee.

Kuntz, J.

Daniel Pansky appeals the circuit court's final order granting the Law Firm of Barry S. Franklin & Associates, P.A.'s motion for sanctions under section 57.105(1), Florida Statutes (2015). Because the record supports the court's finding that Mr. Pansky's third motion to vacate was meritless, we affirm in part. Yet we agree that the court erred when it determined the amount of fees to award the Law Firm without receiving any testimony or other evidence. Thus, we reverse in part.

"A finding that a party is entitled to recover attorney's fees under section 57.105 must be based upon substantial, competent evidence presented at the hearing on attorney's fees or otherwise before the court and in the record." *Mason v. Highlands Cty. Bd. of Cty. Comm'rs* , 817 So.2d 922, 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (citing *Strothman v. Henderson Mental Health Ctr., Inc.* , 425 So.2d 1185, 1185-86 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) ).

Here, the court determined the amount of sanctions to award the Law Firm based exclusively on argument of counsel. Although counsel provided a copy of certain billing records, those records were not admitted into evidence. As a result, the billing records were not competent evidence to support the court's determination of the amount of sanctions. *See, e.g.* , *Diwakar v. Montecito Palm Beach Condo. Ass'n, Inc.* , 143 So.3d 958, 960 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) ("Competent evidence includes invoices, records and other information detailing the services provided as well as the testimony from the attorney in support of the fee." (quoting *Brewer v. Solovsky* , 945 So.2d 610, 611 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) ) ); *Chandler v. KCCS, Inc.* , 224 So.3d 929, 929 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017) (reversing amount of sanctions fees awarded where "the only evidence detailing the work actually completed consisted of an affidavit and related documents that were neither introduced into evidence nor stipulated to at the hearing").1

The court's final order is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and we remand the case for the limited purpose of holding an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount of sanctions to be awarded.

*Affirmed in part and reversed in part.*

Taylor and Conner, JJ., concur.

1

The Law Firm argues this issue was not properly preserved because Mr. Pansky did not object to the court's reliance on unsworn testimony as the basis for determining the amount of sanctions. This is a compelling argument. But, as Judge Gross has explained, this panel is bound to conclude that "in the absence of a stipulation, unsworn statements by the attorneys cannot be the basis for factual findings by the trial court." *Brown v. Sch. Bd. of Palm Beach Cty.* , 855 So.2d 1267, 1270 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (Gross, J., concurring specially) ("It seems to me that the law should require an objection to preserve the issue for appellate review.").
Angela ROGERS and Edgar Rogers v. CADDO PARISH SCHOOL BOARD

NO. 2018-CC-1607

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

December 17, 2018

Denied.