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

San Antonio, Texas

November 7, 2018

No. 04-18-00231-CV

IN RE ACCEPTANCE INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Irene Rios, Justice

This court’s opinion and order issued September 26, 2018. In our opinion and order, we 

ordered the trial court to: (1) vacate its order denying relator’s motion to compel appraisal and 

abate; (2) order the parties to engage in the appraisal process pursuant to the terms of the 

appraisal clause; and (3) abate the litigation pending completion of the appraisal process. The 

trial court immediately complied with our order, rendering an order on September 26, 2018, 

vacating its prior order, ordering the parties to engage in the appraisal process, and abating the 

matter until completion of the process. 

On October 16, 2018, the real parties in interest filed a motion asking the trial court to 

“stay the appraisal process until all appellate remedies are exhausted and a final appellate order 

on whether an appraisal is required is rendered.” The trial court set a hearing on the motion for 

October 25, 2018. After the hearing, the trial court denied the motion for stay. 

 

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2017CI14954, styled Agrestic I, LP and Tiberius, LLC v. Acceptance

Indemnity Insurance Company, Crawford & Company, and Danny Brown, pending in the 150th Judicial District 

Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker presiding.
The day after the trial court denied their motion, the real parties in interest filed in this 

court a “Motion to Stay the Appraisal Process.” In this motion, just as in the one filed in the trial 

court, the real parties in interest ask this court to stay the appraisal process until “all appellate

remedies are exhausted and a final appellate order on whether appraisal is required in this case is 

rendered.” We interpret this to mean that the real parties in interest request a stay until this court 

has disposed of any motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration. Such motions, 

if any, are due in this court on October 31, 2018. 

After reviewing the motion to stay filed by the real parties in interest, we GRANT the 

“Motion to Stay the Appraisal Process” and ORDER the appraisal process stayed pending this 

court’s resolution of any motion for rehearing or motion for en banc reconsideration filed by the 

real parties in interest or until further order of this court. 

It is so ORDERED on November 7, 2018.

PER CURIAM

 ATTESTED TO: ___________________________________

 KEITH E. HOTTLE,

 Clerk of Court
# C_2021430EN.01000301.xml

| 25.10.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 430/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

25.10.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 430/3

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10054 – KOMBIVERKEHR / HUPAC / DX INTERMODAL JV)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2021/C 430/03)

On 19 October 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10054. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10054. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21
- 0548 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. BRYAN HUGH HINDMAN ,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 14, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening b rief on appeal.

.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 2 2022

09/02/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0548
#### Thomas F. BONAVENTURA, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant, Gregory A. Smith, Third Party Defendant.

No. 10-11590.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

June 2, 2011.

William E. Frantz, Donald B. Deloach, Donald P. Edwards, Frantz & Deloach, LLP, Atlanta, GA, for Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee.

Melissa Briggs, John M. Bilheimer, David Zisserson, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Lawrence R. Sommerfeld, Sally Yates, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant-Counter-Claimant-Third Party Plaintiff-Appellant.

Before HULL, BLACK and STAPLETON,* Circuit Judges.

*

 Honorable Walter K. Stapleton, United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

After review and oral argument, we conclude the Appellant United States of America has not demonstrated reversible error in the district court’s order dated *917December 14, 2009, 2009 WL 6042178, which entered judgment in favor of the Appellee Thomas F. Bonaventura. Even concluding the presumption of official regularity applies, the evidence creates factual issues for the fact-finder, and we cannot say there was insufficient evidence to support the district court’s fact findings and conclusions of law.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-6696

PAUL CLEVELAND THOMPSON, JR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of VDOC; GARY BASS, Regional Director of 

Operations for the Central Region of VDOC; L. F. SCHILLING, Health Services 

Director for VDOC Medical Services; J. E. PARKS, Director of Offender 

Management Services for VDOC; KEITH DAWKINS, Supervisor; GAIL JONES, 

working in VDOC offender management; H. PONTON, Warden; J. ROYSTER, 

Operations Manager; DIXON, M.D., Medical Director at NCC; L. HIGHTOWER, 

Supervisor of the NCC Medical Dept and the Nurses; E. L. WILLIS, Treatment 

Program Supervisor; D. BROCCHARD, Psychologist at NCC; MS. SARGENT, 

Mental Health Counselor; MS. LEFEVERS, Unit Manager; MR. MOICZEK, 

Institutional Investigator; A. JAMES, Grievance Coordinator; M. PUGH, Sgt., 

Supervisor of the NCC Property Office; J. TERRY, Counselor; MS. SPENCE, 

Counselor; JOSEPH TEEFEY, Institutional Attorney at NCC; A. BRYANT,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:15-cv-00439-RBS-DEM)

Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 9, 2019
2

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Cleveland Thompson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jeff W. Rosen, PENDER & 

COWARD, PC, Virginia Beach, Virginia, for Appellee Dixon.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
3

PER CURIAM:

Paul Cleveland Thompson, Jr., appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on 

his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Thompson v. Clarke, No. 2:15-cv-00439-RBS-DEM (E.D. Va. Mar. 10, 2017; May 9, 

2018). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 11.1

ContiFinancial Corporation
Calculation of Earnings Per Share
For the three months ended September 30, 1998

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


Basic and Diluted Computation for the three months ended September 30, 1998




Weighted average shares outstanding:                                   

<S>                                                                                          <C>       
   Common stock excluding shares relating to employee incentive plans                        45,415,232

   Vested Restricted Shares Outstanding during the Quarter                                      738,274


                                                                             ---------------------------
Weighted Average Shares Outstanding                                                          46,153,506
                                                                             ---------------------------
Quarter income                                                                            ($114,251,000)
                                                                             ---------------------------
Basic Earnings Per Share                                                                         ($2.48)
                                                                             ===========================






Basic and Diluted computation for the six months ended September 30, 1998
Net Income (loss)                                                                        ($108,231,000)

Weighted Average Shares Outstanding                                        
                 First quarter                                                      46,685,863
                 Second quarter                                                     46,153,506
                                                                            -------------------
                   Average                                                                   46,419,684
                                                                            ---------------------------
                     Year-to-date Basic  EPS                                                    ($2.33)
                                                                            ===========================
</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 11, 2016. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, August 11, 2016 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A16D0468. IN THE INTEREST OF: C. L. AND N. L., CHILDREN (MOTHER AND FATHER) .
Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of this order. The Clerk of Juvenile Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record transmitted to the Court of Appeals.
LC NUMBERS: 16JV05 16JV06
THE STATE OF TEXAS

MANDATE

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF HUNT COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Court of Appeals District of Texas, on the 25th 

day of June, A.D. 2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your Judgment was determined; 

and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

Timothy Paul Bates, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

No. 06-14-00105-CR

Trial Court No. CR1301437

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Timothy Paul Bates, has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court in this 

behalf, and in all things to have it duly recognized, obeyed, and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Josh R. Morriss, III, Chief Justice of our said Court of Appeals, with 

the seal thereof annexed, at the City of Texarkana, this the 21st day of August, A.D. 2015.

DEBRA K. AUTREY, Clerk
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-0275V

UNPUBLISHED

SCOTT EVERHART,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: April 15, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Tetanus Diphtheria 

acellular Pertussis (Tdap) Vaccine;

Shoulder Injury Related to Vaccine 

Administration (SIRVA)

Leah VaSahnja Durant, Law Offices of Leah V. Durant, PLLC, Washington, DC, for 

petitioner.

Kyle Edward Pozza, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On February 21, 2019, Scott Everhart filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that that he suffered a left shoulder injury related to 

vaccine administration (“SIRVA”) as a result of a Tetanus Diphtheria acellular Pertussis 

(“Tdap”) vaccine received on November 2, 2017. Petition at 1. The case was assigned 

to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am 

required to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the EGovernment Act of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of 

Electronic Government Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to 

the internet. In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to 

redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of 

privacy. If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such 

material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for 

ease of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. 

§ 300aa (2012).
2

On April 13, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he concedes

that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) Report

at 1. Specifically, Respondent agrees that “petitioner has satisfied the criteria set forth 

in the Vaccine Injury Table (Table) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation 

(QAI); petitioner had no history of pain, inflammation or dysfunction in his left shoulder; 

his pain and reduced range of motion occurred within 48 hours of receipt of an 

intramuscular vaccination; his symptoms were limited to the shoulder in which the 

vaccine was administered; and no other condition or abnormality was identified to 

explain his symptoms.” Id. at 9. 

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
#### Robbins, Appellant, *v.*LaFountain, Respondent.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department.*

July 7, 1890.)

No opinion. Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>


                                                                 Exhibit 32(a)

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
    AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         I, John C. Hunter III, Chief Executive Officer of Solutia Inc. (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my knowledge:

         (1)      the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
                  quarterly period ended September 30, 2003, (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.

Dated: November 14, 2003

                                             /s/ John C. Hunter III
                                       -------------------------------------
                                               John C. Hunter III
                                             Chief Executive Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Solutia Inc.
and will be retained by Solutia Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Coast GuardU.S. Department of Homeland Security

Search
Search

Search

-  Home    -  News Room             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Forcecom             
  -  Operations             
  -  Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  History 
-  Units    -  Organization             
  -  Coast Guard A to Z             
  -  Atlantic Area             
  -  Pacific Area             
  -  Force Readiness Command 
-  Leadership    -  Commandant’s Initiatives             
  -  Senior Leadership             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Operations             
  -  Deputy Commandant for Mission Support             
  -  Atlantic Area Commander             
  -  Pacific Area Commander             
  -  Reserve             
  -  Auxiliary 
-  Resources    -  CG Support             
  -  Legal      -  JoinCGJAG             
    -  Legal_Assistance        -  Find-A-Legal-Assistance-Lawyer             
      -  FAQ 
  -  Civil Rights             
  -  Work-Life             
  -  Administrative Law Judges      -  Virtual Hearing 
  -  Newsroom             
  -  Family             
  -  Library             
  -  CG Web Mail             
  -  Return 2 Service      -  FAQ 
-  Community    -  Art Program             
  -  Girl Scouts / Boy Scouts      -  Eagle Scout Recognition 
  -  Coast Guard Band             
  -  Coast Guard Cities             
  -  Honor Guard             
  -  JROTC      -  NEWS 
  -  Special Programs      -  Industry Academy        -  Contacts             
      -  2018 
  -  Trademark             
  -  Resources      -  History             
    -  CGC Eagle 
-  Mariners    -  National Vessel Documentation Center             
  -  National Maritime Center             
  -  National Pollution Funds Center      -  NRD        -  NRD_FAQs             
      -  Trustee_Links             
      -  NRD_DOCS             
      -  About_NRD_Funding 
  -  Boating Safety 
-  doing business		 
-  Join		 
-  Recruiting		 
-  contact		 
-  About		 

HomeResourcesAdministrative Law JudgesDecisionsALJ Decisions 2005

**ALJ Decisions: 2005**

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

**

                      - FOIA
                      - Privacy Policy
                      - MHS Notice of Privacy Practices
                      - Accessibility
                      - No FEAR
                      - Whistleblower Protection
                      - U.S. Department of Homeland Security
                      - DHS Office of Inspector General
                      - WhiteHouse.gov
                      - USA.gov

### Stay Connected

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### WALLACH v. VAN SCHAICK.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department.

March 16, 1894.)

Appeal—Review—Matters not Apparent on the Record.

Where a case has not been settled as provided by Code Civ. Proc. § 997, and the certificate of the clerk is insufficient, so that the questions sought to be reviewed are not presented by the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

Appeal from circuit court, New York county.

Action by Joseph Wallach against Sarah H. Van Schaick to recover commissions alleged to have been earned by plaintiff, as a real-estate broker, in bringing about an exchange of property between defendant and one George Moore. The complaint was dismissed, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Argued before VAN BRUNT, P. J., and O’BRIEN and FOLLETT, JJ.

Sol Kohn, for appellant.

Cantor, Linson & Van Schaick, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This case has not been settled as provided by section 997 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the certificate of the clerk is insufficient; and as we cannot pass upon the questions sought to be reviewed, upon this record, the judgment must be affirmed, with costs.
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporationby reference in this Registration Statement (No. 333-55582, No. 333-112842, and No. 333-148819) on Form S-8 of The PBSJ Corporation of our report relating to the financial statements of The PBSJ Corporation and subsidiaries datedJanuary 13, 2010, appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of The PBSJ Corporation for the year ended September 30, 2009. 

/s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

Certified Public Accountants 

Tampa, Florida 

January 13, 2010
<PAGE>
MPOWER HOLDING CORPORATION CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES/OXLEY
   ACT - FILED AS AN EXHIBIT TO FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2002

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Annual Report of Mpower Holding Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Rolla
P. Huff, Chief Executive 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 the best of 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 result of operations of the
Company.


/s/ Rolla P. Huff
-------------------------
Rolla P. Huff
Chief Executive Officer
March 28, 2003