alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 2, 2021

No. 04-20-00589-CV

IN RE Eloise and Ruben GUZMAN

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

On December 7, 2020, relators filed a petition for writ of mandamus. On February 17, 

2021, we conditionally granted the petition. On March 2, 2021, real party in interest filed a 

“Motion for Emergency Stay and for Rehearing” asking this court to withdraw our order 

conditionally granting the petition for writ of mandamus, order the trial court to stay its 

proceedings, and grant her motion for rehearing. On March 3, 2021, we granted real party in 

interest’s motion for stay and ordered the trial court proceedings to be stayed pending our 

disposition of the real party in interest’s motion for rehearing. On April 1, 2021, we granted real 

party in interest’s motion for rehearing, withdrew our February 17, 2021 opinion and order, and 

requested a response to the petition. The real party in interest filed a response to which relators 

replied. 

We conditionally grant the petition for writ of mandamus and order the Honorable Bill 

Squires to, within fifteen days of this order, vacate his October 20, 2020 Order on Abatement. See 

TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(c). The writ will issue only in the event we are informed Judge Squires has 

failed to comply with this order. 

The stay issued on March 3, 2021 is LIFTED.

It is so ORDERED on June 2, 2021.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2020-CV-0212, styled Ruben Guzman and Eloise Guzman v. Mary A. 

Derrick and All Other Occupants, pending in the County Court, Guadalupe County, Texas, the Honorable Bill Squires 

presiding.
04-20-00589-CV

- 2 -

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 2nd day of June, 2021.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Larry Brown, Appellant.

Memorandum: The defendant argues that the court erred in permitting in-court identification by the victim because any independent basis was tainted by a prior suggestive photo identification. To support this argument defendant relies on testimony from the trial transcript rather than the *Wade*hearing transcript. The People argue that no error was com*1062mitted based on testimony in both. It is fundamental that our review of a ruling on a suppression motion must be based on the evidence at the suppression hearing. Having examined that evidence here, we find no error in the court’s ruling that there was an independent basis *(see, People v Adams,*53 NY2d 241, 251-252).

We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — rape, first degree, and other offenses.) Present — Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Schnepp, JJ.
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2481 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make certain contract 

research eligible for the research credit. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 20, 2015 

Mr. MEEHAN (for himself and Mr. HOLDING) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make 

certain contract research eligible for 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. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Domestic Research 

5 Enhancement Act of 2015’’. 

6 SEC. 2. RESEARCH CREDIT EXPANDED TO MAKE CERTAIN 

7 RESEARCH ELIGIBLE FOR THE CREDIT. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.— 

9 (1) Section 41(b)(1) of the Internal Revenue 

10 Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2481 IH

1 end of subparagraph (A), by striking the period at 

2 the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ‘‘, and’’, 

3 and by adding at the end the following new subpara4 graph: 

5 ‘‘(C) contracted research expenses.’’. 

6 (2) Section 41(b) of such Code is amended by 

7 adding at the end the following new paragraph: 

8 ‘‘(5) CONTRACTED RESEARCH EXPENSES.— 

9 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘contracted 

10 research expenses’ means 35 percent of the in11 house research expenses for the taxable year 

12 paid or incurred by the taxpayer contracted to 

13 do research, but only when the contracting tax14 payer pays or incurs contract research expenses 

15 for such taxable year. 

16 ‘‘(B) FUNDED RESEARCH ALLOWED.—For 

17 purposes of this section, the prohibition con18 tained in subsection (d)(4)(H) shall not apply. 

19 ‘‘(C) DENIAL OF DOUBLE BENEFIT.—The 

20 amount of any in-house research expenses taken 

21 into account under this section (without regard 

22 to this paragraph) by a contracted taxpayer for 

23 a taxable year shall be reduced by the amount 

24 of in-house research expenses taken into acVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:52 May 28, 2015 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2481.IH H2481

emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2481 IH

1 count by such taxpayer under subparagraph (A) 

2 for taxable year.’’. 

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

4 this Act shall apply to taxable years ending after the date 

5 of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


emcdonald on DSK67QTVN1PROD with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-6943

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JACKIE MCKUBBIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief

District Judge. (CR-95-5-V, CA-96-129-3-B)

Submitted: October 18, 2001 Decided: October 26, 2001

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jackie McKubbin, Appellant Pro Se. Gretchen C. F. Shappert,

Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Jackie McKubbin appeals the district court’s order denying his

Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion, which the court properly construed as

a motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001). See

United States v. Rich, 141 F.3d 550, 551-52 (5th Cir. 1998).

Because this court has not granted McKubbin authorization to file

a successive § 2255 motion, see 28 U.S.C.A. § 2244 (West 1994 &

Supp. 2001), the district court properly dismissed his Rule 60(b)

motion as a successive § 2255 motion. Rich, 141 F.3d at 553.

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
Unassociated Document


    Exhibit
10.38

    
      [UNOFFICIAL
ENGLISH TRANSLATION SOLELY FOR REFERENCE]



    Gas
Station Lease Agreement

    (with
Xi’an Jindou Gas Station)

    


    Pursuant
to the “PRC Contract Law” and other applicable statutes, Xi’an
Baorun Enterprise Development Co. Ltd. and Andong Gas Station have
entered into the agreement as follows regarding the leasing of Andong Gas
Station:

    


    Article
I          Two Parties to This
Agreement

    


    
      	
              Lessor: 

            	
              Xi’an
      JindouGas Station (“Party A”)

            


    

    
      	
              Registered
      Address: 

            	
              Xilu
      Road, Xi’an

            


    

    
      	
              Legal
      Representative: 

            	
              BAI
      Jin

            


    

    


    
      	
              Lessee: 

            	
              Xi’an
      Baorun Enterprise Development Co. Ltd. (“Party
    B”)

            


    

    
      	
              Registered
      Address: 

            	
              7
      Huoju Road, New Century Plaza,
Xi’an

            


    

    
      	
              Legal
      Representative: 

            	
              GAO
      Xincheng

            


    

    


    Article
II        Content of the
Lease

    


    Party A
shall lease the gas station located at Xilu Road, Xi’an to Party
B.  The said station occupies a ground area of 8 mu, including 12 gas
filling machines, 4 storage tanks with a total capacity of 240 cubic meters and
a rain shed of about 1000 square meters.

    


    Article
III       Term of the Lease

    


    1. The
term of the lease starts on December 15, 2009 to December 14, 2029.

    


    2. This
Agreement will take effect upon execution and the start of the lease is on the
day when Party B takes over the station.

    


    Article
IV       Rent and Payment Method

    


    1. The
annual rent for the station is RMB 1,800,000.00 even and the total rent for the
entire 10-year term of the lease is RMB 18,000,000.00 even.

    


    2. Upon
execution hereof and within 5 days after the gas station’s operation is turned
over to Party B, Party B shall pay to Party A 80% of the total rent in the
amount of RMB 14,000,000.00; and after the completing of the applicable
registration procedures regarding the station and confirming the remaining
issues from Party A’s operation, Party B shall pay to Party A the balance of 20%
of the rent.  Party A shall bear the fees for change registration
procedures.

     

    
      
        
        

      

      
        
        

        
          

        

      

      
        
        

      

    

    


    [Article
V to Article XV same as the agreement with Andong.]

    


    Lessor:

    


    Xi’an
JindouGas Station (Seal)

    Legal
Representative: BAI Jin (Signature)

    


    Lessee

    


    CBEH
(Seal)

    Legal
Representative: XIANG Shanqiang (Signature)

    


    Date:    
December 14, 2009

    


    Place: 
Xi’an
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION To be cited only in accordance with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1



# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604

Submitted January 29, 201 8 *

Decided January 30, 2018



### Before

W ILLIAM J. B AUER
, Circuit Judge

F RANK H. E ASTERBROOK
, Circuit Judge

M ICHAEL S. K ANNE
, Circuit Judge

No. 17

- 3002

W ANDA E. T ORRENCE
, Plaintiff

- Appellant

,

v.

U NITED S TATES B ANKRUPTCY C OURT for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division

, et al.

, Defendants

- Appellees

. Appeal from the United

States District Court for

the Northern District of

Illinois

, Eastern Division.

No. 17 C 3120 Amy J. St. Eve

, Judge

.

Order

We held in Torrence’s bankruptcy case that her contention that the bankruptcy judge, district judge, litigants, and lawyers all had discriminated

* This successive appeal has been submitted to the original panel u nder Operating Procedure 6(b). We have unanimously agreed to decide the case without argument because the briefs and record adequately present the facts and legal arguments, and argument would not significantly aid the court. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2)(C).No. 17

- 3002 Page 2

against her because of her hearing difficulties had been waived and was baseless

as a matter of fact. Torrence v. Comcast Corp. , No. 16

- 2544 (7th Cir. Oct. 28, 2016) at slip op. 4 (nonprecedential disposition).

Disregarding our conclusion, Torrence then sued the Bankruptcy Court and multiple additional parties, demanding compensation for the supposed

discriminat ion. The suit was dismissed as barred by principles of issue and claim preclusion. Torrence appeals again.

The district court’s decision is correct. Torrence appears to believe that as long as she names new parties, she can continue litigating questions that have been resolved against her. That belief is incorrect. Our earlier decision binds Torrence whether or not it binds anyone else, and third parties such as the

defendants in this suit therefore are entitled to its benefit. See Blonder

- Tongue

Laborat ories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation , 402 U.S. 313 (1971 ) (discussing principles of non mutual preclusion).

The current suit is frivolous for this and other reasons, which need not be explored. Torrence must understand that if she continues t o litigate claims or theories that have been resolved against her, she will be ordered to pay financial penalties for frivolous litigation.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF

FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The certification set forth below is being submitted in connection with the report on Form 10-K/A of QuinStreet, Inc.
(the Report) for the purpose of complying with Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.

Douglas Valenti, the Chief Executive Officer and Kenneth Hahn, the Chief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer of QuinStreet,
Inc., each certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:

1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act; and

2. the information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of QuinStreet, Inc.

Date: February 19, 2013



/s/ Douglas ValentiName: Douglas ValentiChairman and Chief Executive Officer




/s/ Kenneth HahnName: Kenneth HahnChief Financial Officer and Chief Operating Officer
I 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2628 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude from gross income 

any prizes or awards won in competition in the Olympic Games. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 3, 2015 

Mr. FARENTHOLD (for himself and Mr. BUTTERFIELD) introduced the 

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exclude 

from gross income any prizes or awards won in competition in the Olympic Games. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tax Exemptions for 

5 American Medalists Act of 2015’’ or the ‘‘TEAM Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. OLYMPIC MEDALS AND USOC PRIZE MONEY EX7 CLUDED FROM GROSS INCOME. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 74 of the Internal Rev9 enue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the 

10 following new subsection: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2628 IH

1 ‘‘(d) EXCEPTION FOR OLYMPIC MEDALS AND

2 PRIZES.—Gross income shall not include the value of any 

3 medal awarded in, or any prize money received from the 

4 United States Olympic Committee on account of, competi5 tion in the Olympic Games.’’. 

6 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

7 this section shall apply to prizes and awards received after 

8 December 31, 2014. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>   1




                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on Form
S-8 (No. 333-91651) of The viaLink Company of our report dated February 22,
1999, except as to the stock splits described in Note 8 and Note 13 relating to
the 1997 and 1998 share and per share data, which is as of March 14, 2000,
relating to the financial statements which appear in this annual report on Form
10-KSB.

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


Dallas, Texas
February 19, 2001
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Timothy B. Cunningham, Appellant.

— Ordered that the judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cacciabaudo, J.), rendered November 21, 1984, is affirmed *(see, People v Pellegrino,*60 NY2d 636; *People v Harris,*61 NY2d 9). Thompson, J. P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   Page 11 of 18

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99(e)

                        KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2000-A

                              OFFICER'S CERTIFICATE



Banker's Trust Company                      Key Bank USA, National Association
Four Albany Street                          800 Superior Avenue, 4th Floor
New York, New York  10006                   Cleveland, Ohio  44114
ATTN: Corporate Trust & Agency Group        ATTN: Senior Vice President
            Structured Finance                          Key Education Resources
Phone:  (212) 250-6501                      Phone:  (216) 828-9342
Fax:    (212) 250-6439                      Fax:    (216) 828-9301

MBIA Insurance Corporation
113 King Street
Armonk, NY 10504
ATTN: Data Administration
Phone: (914) 765-3772
Fax:   (914) 765-3810


Pursuant to Section 3.09 of the Indenture dated as of June 1, 2000 between
KeyCorp Student Loan Trust 2000A, as Issuer, and Banker's Trust Company, as
Indenture Trustee, the undersigned hereby certifies that (i) a review of the
activities of the Issuer from inception of the Trust through December 31, 2000,
and of its performance under the Indenture has been made, and (ii) to the best
of our knowledge, based on our review, the Issuer has fulfilled all its
obligations under the Indenture throughout such period.




                                    KEYCORP STUDENT LOAN TRUST 2000-A, as Issuer
                                    By:  Bank One, National Association
                                         as Eligible Lender Trustee




                                    By:  /s/ Jeffrey L. Kinney
Date:   3-15-01                     Jeffrey L. Kinney
                                    Vice PresidentPage 18 of 1
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 77 (Thursday, April 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 21238]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9857]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Special Medical Advisory Group, Notice of Availability of Annual 
Report

    Under Section 10(d) of Public Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory 
Committee Act), notice is hereby given that the Annual Report of the 
Department of Veterans Affairs Special Medical Advisory Group for 
Fiscal Year 1999 has been issued.
    The report summarizes activities of the Group relative to the care 
and treatment of disabled veterans and other matters pertinent to the 
Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration. It is 
available for public inspection at two locations:

Federal Documents Section, Exchange and Gift Division, LM 632, Library 
of Congress, Washington, D.C. 20540

and

Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of the Under Secretary for 
Health, VA Central Office, Room 805, 810 Vermont Avenue, N.W., 
Washington, D.C. 20420

    Dated: April 3, 2000.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
Marvin R. Eason,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-9857 Filed 4-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
#### John O. Shelley v. Stephen Southwick.

Where the writ of error was not sued out until after the expiration of two years from the rendition of the judgment the case was dismissed. (Paschal’s Dig., Art. 4616, Note 1026.)

Error from Liberty. The case was tried before Hon. O. W. Buckley, one of the district judges.

The record was frightfully long, covering two hundred and nine pages.

Ho brief for the plaintiff in error has been furnished to the *Reporter.*

*C. L. Cleveland,*for defendant in error,

moved to dismiss, on the ground that over two years had elapsed between the . rendition of the judgment and the petition for a writ of error.

Morrill, O. J.

—The petition for the writ of error states that the judgment was rendered on the 21st September, I860.'

*126The petition was filed on the 6th April, 1867, and bond executed same day.

The statute [Paschal’s Dig., Art. 4616] requires all writs of error to be prosecuted within two years from the time of judgment.

The motion of defendant in error to strike the case from the docket at costs of plaintiffs in error is sustained.

Dismissed.'
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED

October 6, 2005

Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-50492 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

STEVEN ROBERT BARTH,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 2:03-CR-124-14-HLH

--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES and DENNIS, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM: *

Steven Robert Barth appeals his jury-trial conviction and

sentence for conspiracy to poss ess with intent to distribute 100

kilograms or more of marijuana; conspiracy to import 100 kilograms

or more m a rijuana; and using, carrying, and possessing

semiautomatic assault rifles in furtherance of a drug-trafficking

crime. Barth was sentenced to 241 months in prison.

Barth first argues that the evidence was insufficient to

sustain his convictions. A reasonable jury could have found beyondNo. 04-50492 -2-

a reasonable doubt from the evidence that Barth knew that Arlo

Arreola and his associates were smuggling drugs into the United

Sta tes and distributing them and that he knowingly joined the

con spiracies and possessed the assault weapons in furtherance of

those drug-trafficking crimes. U nited States v. Ivey
, 949 F. 2 d

759, 766 (5th Cir. 1991); 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(B), and

846; 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960(b)(1); 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)

.

Barth additionally argues for the first time on appeal that he

should be resentenced on his drug-trafficking conspiracy

convictions in light of United States v. Booker

. This claim fails

to meet the plain-error standard because Barth has not shown that

the error affected his substantial rights. S ee United States v.

Bringier

, 405 F.3d 310, 316 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert.

filed (Jul. 26, 2005) (No. 05-5535); United States v.

Valenzuela-Quevedo , 407 F.3d 728, 732-33 (5th Cir. 2005).

However, we do find that Barth’s argument that his convictions

and sentences for carrying a firearm in connection with a drugtrafficking offense are multiplicitous and violate double jeopardy

is meritorious. U nited States v. Privette

, 947 F.2d 1259, 1262

(5th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the case is REMANDED to the district

court so that it may vacate one of th e firearm convictions and

resentence Barth as to the firearm convictions.

AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED AND REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


                         [PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LOGO]


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


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


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Annual Report on Form 10-K
for the year ended December 31, 2000 of WFS Financial 2000-C Owner Trust of our
report dated January 24, 2001, on our audits of the consolidated financial
statements of Financial Security Assurance Inc. and Subsidiaries as of December
31, 2000 and 1999, and for each of the three years in the period ended December
31, 2000.



                                        /s/ PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP
                                            PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP


March 29, 2001