alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered October 7, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00673-CV

IN THE ESTATE OF MARIA ELENA WEBB, DECEASED

On Appeal from the Probate Court No. 2

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. PR-20-01506-2

ORDER

Before Justices Molberg, Pedersen, III, and Goldstein

Before the Court are appellant’s (1) July 21, 2022 emergency motion to stay 

effect of July 1, 2022 order authorizing sale of estate real property and for 

authority to execute listing agreement; (2) September 21, 2022 emergency motion 

to stay decree confirming sale of real property; (3) September 29, 2022 emergency 

motion for immediate relief from decree confirming sale; (4) October 4, 2022 

motion for leave to consider her September 29 emergency motion as her 

jurisdictional letter brief; and, (5) October 5, 2022 renewed request for emergency 

relief and request to extend applicable appellate deadlines. The property at issue in 

each of the emergency motions is decedent’s house, which is part of decedent’s 
estate and where appellant and her husband reside. Decedent’s estate is subject to 

a pending administration.

We note the motions have been pending while the parties filed jurisdictional 

briefing as the appeal was originally filed from a non-appealable interlocutory 

order–the July 1 order authorizing sale. See TEX. EST. CODE ch. 356 (governing 

sales of estate property and describing steps involved, beginning with application 

to authorize sale and concluding with order approving or disapproving of report of 

sale). Although appellant’s September 21 and 29 motions averred the probate court 

had signed a decree confirming the sale of the property and sought relief from the 

decree, the motions did not include a copy of the decree and the Dallas County

online docket did not then reflect the probate court had signed the decree. See id. § 

356.556(c) (providing that order approving or disapproving of report of sale has

effect of final judgment and is appealable). The online docket, however, now 

reflects the decree has been signed and appellant has attached a copy of the decree 

to her October 5 motion. Accordingly, we have jurisdiction over the appeal, retract

our directive to file jurisdictional briefing, and DENY as moot appellant’s October

4 motion for leave to consider the September 29 motion as her jurisdictional letter 

brief. 

In light of the decree confirming sale, we DENY the July 21 motion as 

moot. And, because nothing before us reflects appellant has superseded the decree 
confirming sale, see TEX. R. APP. P. 24.1, we DENY the September 21 and 

September 29 motions as well as the October 5 motion to the extent it renews the 

request for emergency relief.

We DIRECT Dallas County Clerk John F. Warren and Lisabeth Kellett, 

Official Court Reporter for Probate Court No.2, to file their respective records no 

later than October 31, 2022 and DENY as moot appellant’s October 5 motion to 

the extent it requests an extension of applicable appellate deadlines. 

A copy of this order shall be sent to Mr. Warren; Ms. Kellett; and, the 

parties.

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
**Exhibit 13.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ENACTED BYSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection withthe Annual Report on Form 20-F of Companhia Energética de MinasGerais—CEMIG (the “Company”) for the period ended December 31, 2005, asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Djalma Bastos de Morais, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
|        |   | /s/    Djalma Bastos de Morais |
|--------|--------|-----------------------------------------------|
|   |   | Name:                                         | Djalma Bastos de Morais |
|   |   | Title:                                        | Chief Executive Officer |

Date:       June 30, 2006

A signed originalof this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

----
Exhibit 23

LOGO

- Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm -

To the Board of Directors

Greer Bancshares Incorporated and Subsidiary

Greer, South Carolina

We consent to the incorporation by
reference in the registration statements (Nos. 333-128719, 333-128717, 333-128713 and 333-128712) on Forms S-8 of Greer Bancshares Incorporated and Subsidiary of our report dated March 25, 2008, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Greer Bancshares Incorporated and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2007 and 2006 and for each year in the three-year period ended December 31, 2007, which appears in Greer Bancshares Incorporateds 2007 Annual Report on
Form 10-K.

LOGO

Asheville, North Carolina

March 25, 2008



500 Ridgefield Court, PO Box 3049 Asheville, NC 28802-3049 Ph. 828.254.2254 Fx. 828.254.6859 www.dixon-hughes.com

LOGO
exv10w2







Exhibit 10.2




MITCHAM INDUSTRIES, INC.

SUMMARY OF NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

(AS OF JULY 27, 2010)




Retainer/Fees




     Each non-employee director is entitled to receive the following compensation:




	 	•	 	an annual cash retainer fee of $30,000 per year, plus an additional $50,000 for the Non-Executive
Chairman of the Board of Directors;
	 
	 	•	 	an additional cash retainer of $7,500 per year for each member of the Audit Committee, plus an
additional $5,000 per year for the chairperson of the Audit Committee;
	 
	 	•	 	an additional cash retainer of $4,000 per year for each member of the Compensation Committee, plus an
additional $4,000 per year for the chairperson of the Compensation Committee;
	 
	 	•	 	an additional cash retainer of $14,000 per year for the chairperson of the Strategic Planning
Committee; and
	 
	 	•	 	an additional fee of $1,000 for each Board of Directors meeting attended, including telephonic meetings.





Equity-Based Compensation




     In addition to cash compensation, non-employee directors are eligible, at the discretion of
the full Board of Directors, to receive discretionary grants of stock options or restricted stock
or any combination thereof under Mitcham Industries, Inc.’s equity compensation plans.
EXHIBIT
32





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 nCoat, Inc., on Form 10-K /A for the
period ending December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul S. Clayson, Chief
Executive Officer and Chief 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:





(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.








/s/ Paul S. ClaysonPaul
      S. ClaysonChief
      Executive Officer andChief Financial Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer, Principal Accounting Officer)Dated
      July 30 , 2008
# C_2020027EN.01000901.xml

| 27.1.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 27/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.1.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 27/9

---

Judgment of the Court (Ninth Chamber) of 20 November 2019 — Portuguese Republic v European Commission

(Case C-737/18 P) (1)

(Appeal - European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) - Expenditure excluded from EU financing - Expenditure incurred by the Portuguese Republic)

(2020/C 27/10)

Language of the case: Portuguese

Parties

Appellant: Portuguese Republic (represented by: L. Inez Fernandes, J. Saraiva de Almeida, P. Barros da Costa and P. Estêvão, acting as Agents)

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: A. Sauka and B. Rechena, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the appeal; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the appeal;

| 2. | Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Portuguese Republic to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 35, 28.1.2019.

---
Exhibit No. 32.1
----------------
Form 10-Q
BTHC XIV, Inc.
File No. 0-52722


          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 Quarterly  Report of BTHC XIV, Inc. (the  "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed with the  Securities  and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Timothy P. Halter,
Chief Executive and Chief 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:


(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: July 21, 2008                        By:       /s/ Timothy P. Halter
      -------------                            ---------------------------------
                                                               Timothy P. Halter
                                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                                     and Chief Financial Officer



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to BTHC XIV,  Inc. and will be retained by BTHC XIV, Inc. and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
144 So. 574

#### ALLISON LUMBER CO. v. CAMPBELL.

2 Div. 3.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Nov. 25, 1932.

Jas. R. McDaniel, of Livingston, for appellant.

Patton & Patton, of Livingston, and Harwood & McQueen, of Tuscaloosa, for appellee.

KNIGHT, J.

Biff by Allison Lumber Company against W. S. Campbell, filed in the circuit court of Sumter county, seeking injunctive relief against alleged trespasses by respondent, in cutting and removing timber from lands of complainant. Upon the filing of the bill a temporary injunction was issued in accordance with the prayer of the biff.

Upon final submission, the court held that the biff was without “merit,” dissolved the injunction, and dismissed the biff, and taxed the cost against complainant. The decree recites that the cause “coming on to be heard is submitted on pleadings and proof as noted by the register.” The appeal is by the complainant.

The answer of the defendant to the biff of complaint is fuff, and denies each substantial averment of the bill, upon which the complainant predicated his right to relief.

*610Chancery. Rule 75 prescribes that on the hearing, “complainant’s counsel must then offer his testimony in chief, naming the witnesses and other testimony, of which the register must make note; and.then, that of the defendant must be offered, and noted by the register, to which complainant, in like manner, must offer his rebutting testimony. Any testimony not offered in this way, and noted by the register on the minutes, must not be considered as any part of the record nor be considered by the chancellor.” This rule has long been held to be mandatory, and forbids the consideration of any testimony not offered and noted as required by the rule. Harn v. Common Council of Dadeville, 100 Ala. 199, 14 So. 9; Turner v. Turner, 193 Ala. 424, 69 So. 503; Sellers v. Farmer, 147 Ala. 446, 41 So. 291; Tatum v. Yahn et al., 130 Ala. 575, 29 So. 201; Carson et al. v. Sleigh, 201 Ala. 373, 78 So. 229; White v. White, 207 Ala. 533, 93 So. 457; Brassell v. Brassell, 205 Ala. 201, 87 So. 347.

The record fails to show any testimony was offered by complainant, which was noted by the register as required by the above stated rule of chancery practice, and we cannot, therefore, on this appeal, consider any testimony, oral or documentary, which was given or offered by complainant.

The record does show, however, that considerable testimony was offered by respondent and noted by the register on behalf of the respondent. This testimony supports respondent’s contention that the lands, upon which the alleged trespasses were committed and threatened, were the property of respondent, and not the property of the complainant. This testimony in no wise supports complainant’s contention. In this state of the record, pretermitting all other questions, with no note of testimony .bringing to' the attention of the court the testimony relied upon by the complainant, the decree of the circuit court in equity must be and is affirmed. Authorities supra.

Affirmed.

ANDERSON, O. X, and THOMAS and BROWN, JX, concur.
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 quarterly report of Coyote Hills Golf, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Mitch
Powers, acting in the capacity as the Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
and I, Stephanie Erickson, acting in the capacity as the Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify to the best of our knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:





(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/ Mitch S.
Powers


Mitch
Powers


Chief
Executive Officer


May
11, 2009








/s/ Stephanie Lynn
Erickson


Stephanie
Lynn Erickson


Chief
Financial Officer


May
11, 2009
# C_2019044EN.01006501.xml

| 4.2.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/65 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.2.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/65

---

Order of the General Court of 6 November 2018 — Chioreanu v ERCEA

(Case T-717/17) (1)

((Action for annulment - ERCEA - Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (Horizon 2020) - Decision rejecting an application for revision of an evaluation of the research proposal - Administrative action before the Commission - Dismissal of the administrative action - Mistaken designation of the defendant - Application for directions to be issued - Manifest inadmissibility))

(2019/C 44/84)

Language of the case: Romanian

Parties

Applicant: Nicolae Chioreanu (Oradea, Romania) (represented by: D.-C. Rusu, lawyer)

Defendant: European Research Council Executive Agency (represented by: F. Sgritta and M.E. Chacón Mohedano, acting as Agents)

Re:

First, application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of (i) the decision of ERCEA of 23 March 2017 rejecting the application for revision of an evaluation of research proposal No 741797–NIP, ERC-2016–ADG ‘New and Innovative Powertrain — NIP’ and (ii) Commission Decision C(2017) 5190 final of 27 July 2017 dismissing the administrative action brought by the applicant under Article 22(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 58/2003 of 19 December 2002 laying down the statute for executive agencies to be entrusted with certain tasks in the management of Community programmes (OJ 2003 L 11, p. 1), and, second, application requesting the General Court to require ERCEA to revise the evaluation of the research proposal referred to above.

Operative part of the order

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Nicolae Chioreanu to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Nicolae Chioreanu to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 13, 15.1.2018.

---
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 44-4 Filed 06/07/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-05804-GEL Document 44-4 Filed 06/07/2008 Page 2 of 2
SCPW-13-0006212

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

 

MONTY V. RIDEOUT, Petitioner,

vs.

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(CAAP-13-0001700; S.P.P. No. 13-1-001K)

ORDER DENYING “AMENDMENT TO SUPPLEMENT WRIT OF

CERTIORARI; MOTION FOR ASSIGNED COUNSEL”

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)

Upon review of petitioner Monty V. Rideout’s “Amendment

to Supplement Writ of Certiorari; Motion for Assigned Counsel”,

which was filed on December 23, 2013, and which we review as a

petition for a writ of mandamus, the supporting documents, and

the record, it appears that petitioner is not entitled to a writ

of mandamus. Petitioner does not have a clear and indisputable

right to the appointment of counsel for an appeal in a postconviction proceeding and fails to demonstrate that he is

eligible for appointed counsel or that the appeal warrants the

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCPW-13-0006212

08-JAN-2014

01:49 PM
discretionary appointment of counsel. Petitioner, moreover, has

alternative means to seek release on bail. See Kema v. Gaddis,

91 Hawai#i 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (1999) (a writ of

mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless

the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to

relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the

alleged wrong or obtain the requested action; where a court has

discretion to act, mandamus will not lie to interfere with or

control the exercise of that discretion, even when the court has

acted erroneously, unless the court has exceeded its

jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of

discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before

the court under circumstances in which it has a legal duty to

act). Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate

court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without

payment of the filing fee.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a

writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, January 8, 2014.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

2
**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | /s/                Kim                Bradford                                                      |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Kim                Bradford |
|--------|-----------------------------|

|   | Chief                Financial Officer |
|--------|----------------------------------------|

|   | (Principal                Financial Officer) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|

|   | /s/                  Kim                  Bradford                                                        |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Kim                Bradford, |
|--------|------------------------------|

|   | President                and Chief Executive Officer, |
|--------|-------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (Principal                Executive Officer) |
|--------|----------------------------------------------|

----
**Exhibit      32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      PURSUANT TO**

**18      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

|   | 1. | Such                Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending September 30,                2008,                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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the                quarter ending September 30, 2008, fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                Amir F. Heshmatpour       |
|----------------------------------------------|
| Amir                F. Heshmatpour           |
| President                                    |
| (Principal                Financial Officer) |

----
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra Bridget M. McCormac k David F. Viviano Richard H. Bernstein Kurtis T. Wilder Elizabeth T. Clement, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at t he direction of the Court.
May 2, 2018 

# Order

Clerk May 2, 2018

156132(85)

MARY ANN HEGADORN, Plaintiff-Appellant, SC: 156132 v COA: 329508 Livingston CC: 2014-028394-AA DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES DIRECTOR, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to substitute “RALPH HEGADORN, as Personal Representative of the Estate of MARY HEGADORN” as the plaintiff-appellant in all further proceedings bef ore this Court is GRANTED.