alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Majority and 

Dissenting Opinions filed July 15, 2021.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-21-00154-CV

IN RE DOJO BAY HOUSE, LLC, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

151st District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2019-60692

MEMORANDUM DISSENTING OPINION

Relator has not provided an original-proceeding record that complies with 

the mandatory requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7, which is a 

condition precedent to this court determining the original proceeding on the merits. 

See Code Construction Act, Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 311.016(3) (defining “must”); 

Tex. R. App. P. 52.7; In re Kholaif, Nos. 14-20-00731-CV & 14-20-00732-CV, 

2020 WL 7013339, at *1–4 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 25, 2020, 
2

order)

1

, disp., 615 S.W.3d 369, 370 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2020) (orig. 

proceeding).

The court should have notified relator of the procedural issue with the 

original-proceeding record so that it could be cured. See Kholaif, 2020 WL 

7013339, at *1, 615 S.W.3d at 370. The court did not, which is a due-process and 

due-course-of-law issue. See In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2021) (orig. proceeding) (Bourliot, J., dissenting); Kholaif, 

2020 WL 7013339, at *3.

I dissent to the court not notifying the relator of the procedural issue with the 

record and denying the petition on the merits without a proper record. I express no 

opinion on the merits of the petition for writ of mandamus.

/s/ Charles A. Spain

Justice

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Spain and Wilson.

(Christopher, C.J., majority).

1 Westlaw incorrectly states that the November 25, 2020 interlocutory order and dissent “has not 

been released for publication in the permanent law reports. Until released, it is subject to revision or 

withdrawal.”
i i i i i i



### MEM ORA ND UM OP INION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 91 2- CR Be n DENN , Appellant
v. The STA TE of Texas, Appellee Fr om the 227th J udicial District Court, Be x ar County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CR-5973 Honora ble Philip A. Kazen , J r., Judge Pre siding PER C URI AM Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Phy lis J . Speedlin, J ustice Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: Aug ust 19, 2009 DI SMI SSED On Au g us t 11 , 2 00 9, a

pp e lla nt f ile d a mot ion to dis mis s. Th e mot ion is G RA NT ED , and the appe al is dismis sed. See T EX . R. A PP . P. 42.2(a). PER C URI AM

DO NO T PU B L I SH
Exhibit
32.2





Certification
of Chief Financial Officer 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 Avantair, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(the “Company”), on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
Richard A. Pytak Jr., Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer) of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:





(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 results of operations of the Company.





Date: May
15, 2009





/s/ Richard A. Pytak
    Jr.Name:
                              Richard
      A. Pytak Jr.Title:
                              Chief
      Financial
Officer
Exhibit 12

Avis Group Holdings, Inc.  COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES  (Dollars in thousands)

|                                                             |  |   |         |  |   |         |  | Predecessor Companies
|------------------------------------------------------------ |  | - | ------- |  | - | ------- |  | ---------------------
|
|
|
|Earnings available to cover fixed charges:                   |  |   |         |  |   |         |  |                      
|Income (loss) before income taxes                            |  | $ | 113,781 |  | $ | 83,914  |  | $                    
|Plus: Fixed charges                                          |  |   | 336,156 |  |   | 292,703 |  |                      
|Less: Capitalization of interest                             |  |   |        |  |   | 8       |  |                      
|                                                             |  |   |         |  |   |         |  |                      
|Earnings available to cover fixed charges                    |  | $ | 449,937 |  | $ | 376,625 |  | $                    
|                                                             |  |   |         |  |   |         |  |                      
|Fixed charges (a):                                           |  |   |         |  |   |         |  |                      
|Interest, including amortization of deferred financing costs |  | $ | 290,951 |  | $ | 251,858 |  | $                    
|Interest portion of rental payment                           |  |   | 45,205  |  |   | 40,845  |  |                      
|                                                             |  |   |         |  |   |         |  |                      
|Total fixed charges                                          |  | $ | 336,156 |  | $ | 292,703 |  | $                    
|                                                             |  |   |         |  |   |         |  |                      
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                           |  |   | 1.34x   |  |   | 1.29x   |  |                      
|                                                             |  |   |         |  |   |         |  |                      

---

---

QuickLinks
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
333-32453, 333-37498, 333-102249 and 333-105174 on Forms S-8 of our reports
dated March 13, 2006, relating to the financial statements and financial
statement schedule of ChoicePoint Inc. and management's report on the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of ChoicePoint Inc. for the year ended December 31,
2005.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

Atlanta, Georgia
March 13, 2006


                                     31
<PAGE>


                                                               Exhibit 10.45



                  List of Contents of Exhibits and Schedules to
                 the RSUI Group, Inc. Stock Purchase Agreement



      Exhibits                              Description
      --------                              -----------

Exhibit A                          Assignment between SRA and URC

Exhibit B-1                        Novation Agreement among SRA, URC and
                                   Commercial Underwriters Insurance Company

Exhibit B-2                        Novation Agreement among SRA, URC and
                                   Newmarket Underwriters Insurance Company

Exhibit B-3                        Novation Agreement among SRA, URC and
                                   Underwriters Insurance Company

Exhibit C                          Revised Service Agreement between SRA and URC

Exhibit D-1                        Service Agreement between Seller and URC

Exhibit D-2                        Service Agreement between SRA and URC

Exhibit E                          Transfer and Assumption Agreement between
                                   SRA and URC

Exhibit F                          Canada Transfer and Assumption Agreement
                                   between SRC and URC

Exhibit G                          Multiple Line Quota Share Reinsurance
                                   Agreement and Addendum No. 1 between URC and
                                   North American Specialty Insurance Company

Exhibit H                          Multiple Line Quota Share Retrocession
                                   Agreement No. 13009 between URC and SRA

Exhibit I                          URC/URG Merger Agreement

<PAGE>

     Schedules                              Description
     ---------                              ------------

Schedule 1.3                       List of Affiliate Reinsurance Agreements

Schedule 1.4                       Novation Agreements

Schedule 3.1(b)                    Insurance Permits and Jurisdictions

Schedule 3.1(c)                    Officers and Directors/Articles and Bylaws

Schedule 3.7                       Tax Returns and Reports

Schedule 3.11                      Bank Accounts

Schedule 3.12                      Assets and Property

Schedule 3.13                      Liabilities

Schedule 3.14                      Contracts

Schedule 3.15                      Compliance Requirements

Schedule 3.17                      Powers of Attorney

Schedule 3.20                      State Insurance Department Deposits
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-4437

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

MANUEL MANUEL HERNANDEZ, a/k/a Armando Quintero Fernandez, 

a/k/a Pedro Macedo Brito, a/k/a Manuel Hernandez Fernandez,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00198-NCT-1)

Submitted: January 26, 2011 Decided: March 11, 2011

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen, III, Federal Public Defender, Mireille P. 

Clough, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina, for Appellant. John W. Stone, Jr., Acting United 

States Attorney, Angela H. Miller, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM: 

Manuel Manuel Hernandez pleaded guilty to illegally 

reentering the country after having been deported following a 

conviction for an aggravated felony, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1326(a), (b)(2) (2006). The district court sentenced 

Hernandez to sixty-four months of imprisonment and he now 

appeals. Finding no error, we affirm.

Hernandez argues that the sentence is substantively 

unreasonable. We review a sentence for reasonableness, applying 

an abuse of discretion standard. Gall v. United States, 552 

U.S. 38, 51 (2007); see also United States v. Layton, 564 F.3d 

330, 335 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 290 (2009). In so 

doing, we first examine the sentence for “significant procedural 

error,” including “failing to calculate (or improperly 

calculating) the [g]uidelines range, treating the [g]uidelines 

as mandatory, failing to consider the [18 U.S.C.] § 3553(a) 

[(2006)] factors, selecting a sentence based on clearly 

erroneous facts, or failing to adequately explain the chosen 

sentence . . . .” Gall, 552 U.S. at 51. 

We then “‘consider the substantive reasonableness of 

the sentence imposed.’” United States v. Evans, 526 F.3d 155, 

161 (4th Cir. 2008) (quoting Gall, 552 U.S. at 51). If the 

sentence is within the guidelines range, we apply a presumption 

of reasonableness. United States v. Go, 517 F.3d 216, 218 (4th 
3

Cir. 2008); see also Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338, 346-59 

(2007) (upholding presumption of reasonableness for 

within-guidelines sentence). “The fact that we might reasonably 

conclude that a different sentence is appropriate is 

insufficient to justify reversal of the district court.” Go, 

517 F.3d at 218 (citation omitted). We have thoroughly reviewed 

the record and conclude that Hernandez has failed to rebut the 

presumption we accord on appeal to his within-guidelines 

sentence. 

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district 

court. 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.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.7


                                 AMENDMENT NO. 1
                   TO THE EMPLOYMENT AND COMPENSATION AGREEMENT
                   BETWEEN CHOICEPOINT INC. AND DEREK V. SMITH
                              DATED APRIL 25, 2002

Pursuant to the action of the Management Compensation and Benefits Committee
taken on February 4, 2003, the Employment and Compensation Agreement between
ChoicePoint, Inc. and Derek V. Smith dated April 25, 2002, is hereby amended as
of February 4, 2003, effective for all years ending on or after 12/31/02, to
delete on Exhibit B, Compensation, Benefits and Severance the phrase "Maximum
amount under proxy disclosure rules" from the column Amount, and next to the
Benefit - Financial Planning/Tax Preparation and replace it with the amount of
$100,000.

                                                Employer
                                                CHOICEPOINT, INC.

                                                By: /s/ Ken Langone
                                                   ----------------------------

                                                Name: Ken Langone
                                                     --------------------------

                                                Title: Chairman: Management
                                                       Compensation and
                                                       Benefits Committee
                                                      -------------------------

                                                EXECUTIVE: /s/ Derek V. Smith
                                                          ---------------------
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

May 2, 2007

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-11081

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

HECTOR LOPEZ-AYALA,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas 

USDC No. 4:06-CR-50-ALL

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Hector LopezAyala raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres

v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is a penalty provision and not a separate

criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance

is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

A.D.H., :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Pennsylvania State Police, :

Respondent : No. 315 M.D. 2022

PER CURIAM O R D E R

NOW, July 2, 2024, upon consideration of Petitioner’s

application for reconsideration, the application is DENIED.
1 ... S ee T EX . R. A PP . P. 47. 4. 

## COURT OF APPEALS SEC OND D I STRI CTOFTEXAS FORT WORTH NO. 2 - 08 - 12 8- CV I N R E S T E VE N W AY NE B E L L , S R . R E L AT OR

----- ----- -- OR I GI NAL P R OCE E DI NG

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

### M E M ORANDU M OP I NI ON 1

----- ----- -- T h e c o u r t h a s c o n s id e r e d r e la t o r ’s p e t it io n f o r w r it o f m a n d a m u s a n d is of th e o pi ni on t hat r el i ef s houl d be de ni ed. Accor di ngl y, r el at or ’ s pet i t i on f or
w r i t of m and am us i s den i ed. R el at or shal l pay al l cost s of t hi s or i gi nal pr oceedi ng, f or w h ic h l et execut i on i ssue.

P E R CU R I AM
PA N EL A : CA YC E, C. J. ; LI V I N G STO N an d HO LM A N , JJ. DEL I VERE D: Apr i l 21, 2008
exv10wxey



 




Exhibit 10(e)




AMENDMENT THREE

TO

THE FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL CORPORATION

EXECUTIVE SUPPLEMENTAL PLAN

(1996 Restatement)



     Article 12 of the Plan is amended effective January 1, 2003, to read as
follows:



ARTICLE 12. ASSIGNMENT OR ALIENATION



     12.1 General Rule. Except as provided in Section 12.2 or as otherwise
required by law, the interest hereunder of any Participant or beneficiary shall
not be alienable by the Participant or beneficiary by assignment or any other
method and will not be subject to be taken by his creditors by any process
whatsoever, and any attempt to cause such interest to be so subjected shall not
be recognized.



     12.2 Domestic Relations Orders.



          (a) All or a portion of a Participant’s benefit under the Plan may be paid
to another person as specified in a “Qualified Domestic Relations Order.” For
this purpose, a “Qualified Domestic Relations Order” means a judgment, decree,
or order (including the approval of a settlement agreement) which is:




               (i) issued pursuant to a State’s domestic relations law;




               (ii) relates to the provision of child support, alimony payments or
marital property rights to a spouse, former spouse, child or other dependent of
the Participant;




               (iii) creates or recognizes the right of a spouse, former spouse, child or
other dependent of the Participant to receive all or a portion of the
Participant’s benefits under the Plan;




               (iv) provides for payment in an immediate lump sum as soon as practicable
after the Committee determines that a Qualified Domestic Relations Order
exists; and

 







 



               (v) meets such other requirements established by the Committee.



          (b) The Committee shall determine whether any document received by it is a
Qualified Domestic Relations Order. In making this determination, the
Committee may consider:




               (i) the rules applicable to “domestic relations orders” under section
414(p) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and section 206(d) of ERISA;




               (ii) the procedures used under the Fleet Savings Plan to determine the
qualified status of domestic relations orders; and




               (iii) such other rules and procedures as it deems relevant.



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment Three was adopted by the Human
Resources at its June 17, 2003 meeting and is executed by a duly authorized
officer of the Company of FleetBoston Financial Corporation.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	FLEETBOSTON FINANCIAL CORPORATION
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 	 	 	 	By:
	 	/s/ M. ANNE SZOSTAK
	 	 	 	 	 	 	

	 	 	 	 	 	 	M. Anne Szostak
	 	 	 	 	 	 	Executive Vice
President and
Director
of Human Resources
Exhibit 31.1
 HORIZON LINES, INC.
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Horizon Lines, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
the period covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows
of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the
registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting; and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the
registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  /s/ STEPHEN H. FRASER

Stephen H. Fraser
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)