alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed September 17 , 2024.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 24

- 00648

- CR

IN RE JONATHAN DYER, Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS 174th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1686141


### MEMORANDUM OPINION
On September 4, 2024 , relator Jonathan Dyer filed a petition for writ of

m andamus in this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Hazel2 Jones, presiding judge of the 174th District Court of Harris County , to rule on relator’s request for a hearing on his motion for speedy trial

. T o be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show that (1) he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and (2) what he seeks to compel is a ministerial act, not a discretionary act. In re Powell , 516 S.W.3d 488, 494

– 95 (Tex. Crim. App. 2017) (orig. proceeding). A trial court has a ministerial duty to consider and rule on motions properly filed and pending before it, and mandamus may issue to compel the trial court to act. In re Henry , 525 S.W.3d 381, 382 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2017, orig. proceeding). For relator to be entitled to mandamus relief, the record must show (1) the motion was filed and brought to the attention of the respondent

- judge for a ruling, and (2) the respondent

- judge has not ruled on the motion within a reasonable time after the motion was submitted to the court for a ruling or after the party requested a ruling. In re Gomez , 602 S.W.3d 71, 73 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding). As the party seeking mandamus relief, relator has the burden of providing this court with a sufficient record to establish his right to mandamus relief. Id . at 73

- 74. Relator has n either provided this C ourt with a mandamus record to demonstrate that any pending motion has been filed nor has the relator shown that he has brought the pending motion to the attention of the respondent

- judge for a ruling. Merely filing a motion with a court clerk does not show that the motion was brought to the trial court’s attention for a ruling because the clerk’s knowledge is not imputed to the trial court. In re Ramos , 598 S.W.3d 472, 473 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2020, orig. proceeding). The respondent

- judge is not required3 to consider a motion that has not been called to the trial court’s attention by proper

means. See Henry , 525 S.W.3d at 382. Relator has not made the requisite showing.
Relator has not established that he is entitled to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM
Panel c onsists of Justices Jewell, Bourliot, and Zimmerer. Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b).
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kalvin MARSHALL, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-6275.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: July 28, 2011.

Decided: Aug. 2, 2011.

Kalvin Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. David Thomas Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Kalvin Marshall seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the district court’s prior orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Marshall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*DISMISSED.*
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory: Beltsville, MD
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Databases
                        Alfalfa Transcription Factor Database
                                    iPhyClassifier - Phytoplasma Sequence ClassificationSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Northeast Area Beltsville, Maryland (BARC) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Molecular Plant Pathology Laboratory People Anna Smigocki





- Find a person
- Find a location
- ARS Organizational Chart
- People
- Con Baker
- Wei Wei
- Rosemarie Hammond
- Robert Davis
- John Hartung
- Ing Ming Lee
- Lev Nemchinov
- Anna Smigocki
- Yan Zhao
- The sugarbeet root maggot
- Reporter gene (uidA) in leaves
- Functional analysis of sugar beet resistance genes
- In vitro bioassay
- Cytokinin gene (ipt) mediated insect resistance
- Cytokinin-responsive genes
- Plant cytochrome P450 monooxygenases

Reporter gene (uidA) in leavesheadline bar osmp-uidA sugar beet Genetically modified sugarbeet plants that express a reporter gene (*uid*A) in leaves, trichomes and roots.


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### In the Matter of Ruth Hart, as Chairman of the Fredonia-Pomfret Republican Committee, Respondent, v Gary Aitken, as Conservative Caucus Chairman, et al., Appellants and James Sedota, as Fredonia Village Clerk, Respondent.

—Order unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs and petition dismissed. Memorandum: We agree with Special Term that late filing of the membership list was not a fatal defect, but we disagree that the respondents’ certificates of acceptance were untimely filed *(see,*Election Law § 1-106 [1]). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, Adams, J. *1022—Election Law.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ. (Order entered Feb. 13, 1986.)
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**BEA SYSTEMS, INC.**

 

**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 periodic report of BEA Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I,Alfred S. Chuang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge: 

 

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated. 

 

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, filed with the Securities ExchangeCommission. 

 

Date: September 8, 2004
Case 10-00914 Doc 9 Filed 01/14/10 Entered 01/15/10 08:32:42 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT
10.7


 


VETANOVA,
INC.


 


AGREEMENT
TO EXCHANGE SECURITIES


 


The
undersigned agrees to exchange all of the undersigned’s membership/ equity interest in GrowCo Partners 1, LLC for 70,000,000 shares
of the restricted common stock of VetaNova, Inc.


 


The
undersigned understands that there are risks associated with VetaNova. The undersigned has read VetaNova’s filings with the Securities
and Exchange Commission and is willing to assume the risks associated with holding the common stock of VetaNova.


 


	 	VETANOVA,
    INC
	June
    11, 2021	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    John McKowen
	 	 	 John
    McKowen, Chief 
	 	 	  Executive
    Officer
	 	 	 
	 	VitaNova
    Partners, LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    John McKowen
	 	 	Managing
    Member/ Authorized
	 	 	Officer
II

105TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1131

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently extend the

research credit.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 31, 1997

Mr. MACK introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on Finance

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to permanently

extend the research credit.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF RESEARCH

4 CREDIT.

5 (a) CREDIT MADE PERMANENT.—

6 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 41 of the Internal

7 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to credit for increas8 ing research activities) is amended by striking sub9 section (h).
2

•S 1131 IS

1 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Paragraph (1)

2 of section 45C(b) of such Code is amended by strik3 ing subparagraph (D).

4 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

5 subsection (a) shall apply to amounts paid or incurred

6 after June 30, 1998.

Æ
DISMISS and Opinion Filed September 23, 2019.

In the

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-19-01100-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.G.N., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 417-51430-2019

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Pedersen, III, Reichek, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Carlyle

Appellants have moved to dismiss this appeal. We grant appellants’ motion and dismiss 

the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(1).

191100F.P05

/Cory L. Carlyle/

CORY L. CARLYLE

JUSTICE
–2–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

IN THE INTEREST OF A.G.N., A CHILD

No. 05-19-01100-CV 

On Appeal from the 417th Judicial District 

Court, Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 417-51430-2019.

Opinion delivered by Justice Carlyle. 

Justices Pedersen, III and Reichek 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED.

It is ORDERED that appellees Stevii McGuire and Jonathan Nicholson recover their 

costs of this appeal, if any, from appellants Donna Nicholson and Gary Nicholson.

Judgment entered this 23rdday of September, 2019.
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. RES. 340 

To amend the Standing Rules of the Senate to prohibit a Member, officer, 

or employee of the Senate from disclosing or using any material nonpublic information learned during the course of his or her service for 

personal gain. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2011 

Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts submitted the following resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

RESOLUTION 

To amend the Standing Rules of the Senate to prohibit 

a Member, officer, or employee of the Senate from disclosing or using any material nonpublic information 

learned during the course of his or her service for personal gain. 

1 Resolved, 

2 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO THE STANDING RULES OF THE 

3 SENATE. 

4 Rule XXXVII of the Standing Rules of the Senate 

5 is amended by— 

6 (1) redesignating paragraph 15 as paragraph 

7 16; and 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 340 IS 

1 (2) inserting after paragraph 14 the following: 

2 ‘‘15. A Member, officer, or employee of the Senate 

3 shall not disclose or use any material nonpublic informa4 tion learned during the course of his or her service for 

5 personal gain.’’. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
AO 450(Rev. 5/85)Judgment in a Civil Case

United States District Court

Northern District of Illinois

Eastern Division

IP Innovation L.L.C. and Technology

Licensing Corp.

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL CASE

v. Case Number: 03 C 3245

Dell Computer Corp.

G Jury Verdict. This action came before the Court for a trial by jury. The issues have been

tried and the jury rendered its verdict.

G Decision by Court. This action came to trial or hearing before the Court. The issues

have been tried or heard and a decision has been rendered.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:

1. All claims against defendant Dell based upon its purchase, use, re-sale or other disposition

of any Dell products, with the exception of printers, fax machines, and multi-function

printing units supplied by or originating with Lexmark, are dismissed with prejudice.

2. Plaintiffs’ claims against Dell based upon allegedly infringing printers, fac machines

and/or multi-function printing units Dell has purchased from Lexmark (the sole remaining

defendant in Case No. 02 C 7611) are dismissed without prejudice.

3. The dismissal with prejudice only applies to Dell and provides no release and no license

or waiver or dismissal of claims against Lexmark for its sales of printers, fax machines,

and/or multi-function printing units to Dell or to any other third party.

4. Dell’s counterclaims are dismissed without prejudice to the extent such counterclaims

relate to claims dismissed without prejudice by Plaintiffs, and otherwise are dismissed

with prejudice.

5. The parties shall bear their own attorneys fees and costs.

Michael W. Dobbins, Clerk of Court

Date: 11/30/2006 ________________________________

/s/ Stephen C. Tokoph, Deputy Clerk

Case: 1:03-cv-03245 Document #: 125 Filed: 11/30/06 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:1308
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Nat'l Clonal Germplasm Rep - Tree Fruit & Nut Crops & Grapes: Davis, CA
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    Orders & ServicesSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us






Prunus - Plum Inventoryheadline bar Main


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-50028

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Reymond Paul Marquez, 

Defendant—Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 3:20-CR-1478-1

Before Jones, Haynes, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Reymond Paul 

Marquez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 

632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Marquez has not filed a response. We have 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

November 29, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-50028 Document: 00516559674 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/29/2022
No. 22-50028

2

reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected 

therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no 

nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for 

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further 

responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. 

R. 42.2.

However, we note that, although Marquez pleaded guilty to an offense 

under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), the written judgment also cites, incorrectly, 

21 U.S.C. § 846. Accordingly, we REMAND for correction of the clerical 

error in the written judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Criminal 

Procedure 36. See United States v. Cooper, 979 F.3d 1084, 1088-89 (5th Cir. 

2020), cert. denied, 141 S. Ct. 1715 (2021).

Case: 22-50028 Document: 00516559674 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/29/2022
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 1 of 28 PageID #:1
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 2 of 28 PageID #:2
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 3 of 28 PageID #:3
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 4 of 28 PageID #:4
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 5 of 28 PageID #:5
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 6 of 28 PageID #:6
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 7 of 28 PageID #:7
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 8 of 28 PageID #:8
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 9 of 28 PageID #:9
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 10 of 28 PageID #:10
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 11 of 28 PageID #:11
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 12 of 28 PageID #:12
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 13 of 28 PageID #:13
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 14 of 28 PageID #:14
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 15 of 28 PageID #:15
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 16 of 28 PageID #:16
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 17 of 28 PageID #:17
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 18 of 28 PageID #:18
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 19 of 28 PageID #:19
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 20 of 28 PageID #:20
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 21 of 28 PageID #:21
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 22 of 28 PageID #:22
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 23 of 28 PageID #:23
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 24 of 28 PageID #:24
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 25 of 28 PageID #:25
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 26 of 28 PageID #:26
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 27 of 28 PageID #:27
Case: 1:00-cv-07337 Document #: 1 Filed: 11/20/00 Page 28 of 28 PageID #:28
1

6198327v1 831285

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

FIFTH THIRD BANK (CHICAGO), Plaintiff )

) Case No. 03C 4926

 vs. )

)

ATTORNEYS¶ TITLE GUARANTY FUND, ) Honorable Judge Wayne Anderson

INC., et al, Defendants. )

ATG¶S MOTION UNDER RULES 52, 56 AND 54 FOR JUDGMENT ON COUNT II OF

ITS AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM FOR ATTORNEYS¶ FEES AND COSTS

Defendant, Attorneys¶ Title Guaranty Fund, Inc. (3ATG ́), by its attorneys, William J.

Holloway, Robert E. Ellis, and Timothy G. Shelton, moves this Honorable Court for Summary

Judgment on Count II of its Amended Counterclaim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a), or, in the

alternative, for Judgment on Count II of the Amended Counterclaim on Partial Findings pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(c) or Judgment on Count II of its Amended C ounterclaim for Attorneys¶

Fees pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 (d)(2)(A). In support of this motion, ATG files herewith its

Memorandum of Law and Fact in Support of Motion and Statement of Uncontested

Facts/Proposed Findings of Fact in support of this motion.

WHEREFORE, Attorneys¶ Title Guaranty Fund, Inc. moves that judgment in its favor

and against Fifth Third Bank be entered for ATG¶s attorneys¶ fees and costs incurred in defense

of itself and Western United Assurance Company in this action, together with prejudgment

interest, and also to defend itself in any appeal by Fifth Third Bank of the judgment against Fifth

Third Bank on its Second Amended Complaint and/or against Fifth Third Bank on Count II of

ATG¶s Amended Counterclaim.
6198327v1 831285

William J. Holloway

Robert E. Ellis

Timothy G. Shelton

Hinshaw & Culbertson

222 No. LaSalle St., Suite 300

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 704-3000

Respectfully submitted,

Attorneys' Title Guaranty Fund, Inc.

By: HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP

/s/ William J. Holloway___________________

William J. Holloway

One of Its Attorneys

Certificate of Service

I hereby certify that on June 14, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing ATG¶s Motion

Under Rules 52, 56 and 54 for Judgment on Count II of Its Amended Counterclaim for

Attorneys¶ Fees and Costs, using the CM/ECF system which sent notification of such filing to

opposing counsel of record.

 /s/ William J. Holloway