alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued March 2 , 2023

In The 

## Court of Appeals For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01
- 23
- 00124
- CV

——————————— IN RE JUNIPER CAPITAL II, LP, JUNIPER CAPITAL III, LP, JUNIPER PRE HOLDINGS, LLC, PECOS RIVER EXPLORATION HOLDINGS, LLC, BRAZOS RIVER EXPLORATION, LLC , AND STATE LINE

EXPLORATION HOLDINGS, LLC. , Relat or s

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDU M OPINION Relators have filed a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s interlocutory order denying relators’ motion to compel arbitration. 1 In

1 The underlying case is MLB Oil & Gas Management LLC and MLB Pecos River Exploration LLC v. Juniper Capital II, LP, Juniper Capital III, LP, Juniper PRE Holdings, LLC

, Pecos River Exploration Holdings, LLC , Brazos River Exploration, LLC , and State Line Exploration Holdings, LLC , cause number 2023

- 07326 , pending in the 270th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Debra Davis presiding

.2

conjunction with the mandamus petition, relators have filed a motion requesting a stay of proceedings in the underlying case pending our decision on the petition. To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion and there is no adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Prudential Ins. Co. , 148 S.W.3d 124, 135

– 36 (Tex. 2004). Here, t he interlocutory order relators seek to challenge by mandamus

— the denial of a m otion to compel arbitration

—

is subject to immediate appeal. See T EX
. C IV
. P RAC
. & R EM
. C ODE §§ 51.016 (providing for appeal of interlocutory order denying motion to compel arbitration under Federal Arbitration Act); 171.098 (providing for appeal of interlocutory order denying application to compel arbitration under Texas Arbitration Act ). Appeals from interlocutory orders are acce lerated. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 28.1 (a). Relators have filed a notice appeal from the same order challenged in their mandamus petition and , as in this original proceeding, have filed a similar motion in the pending accelerated appeal requesting a temporary stay o f proceedings during the appeal. After considering the parties ’ briefs, our Court issued an order granting

a temporary stay pending the appeal. Given relators’ pending accelerated appeal from the challenged order and our granting of a temporary stay pendin g the appeal, we conclude that relators have an adequate remedy by appeal.3

Accordingly, we deny the mandamus petition b ecause relators have an

a dequate remedy by appeal

. See , e.g ., In re Weitzel , 2019 WL 347176 , at *1 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] Jan. 29 , 2019, orig. proceeding) (denying mandamus petition challenging denial of motion to compel arbitration because order is appealable) (citing In re Santander Consumer USA, Inc ., 445 S.W.3d 216 , 218

- 19 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, orig. proceeding ) ). Relators’ motion for a stay of proceedings pending our decision on the mandamus petition is dismissed as
moot. PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Landau, Countiss, and Guerra.
Mark CHARLES v. Norma CHARLES aka Norma Graciano.

No. 294P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Renny W. Deese, Fayetteville, for Charles, Mark.

Norma Graciano, for Charles, Norma (aka Norma Graciano).

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 14th of August 2015 by Plaintiff in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."
Exhibit 10.11

                                 ASPA GOLD CORP.
                 (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RENAISSANCE BIOENERGY INC.)
                      CANCELLATION OF ACCRUED COMPENSATION

The  undersigned  present  or former  officer  or  director  of ASPA Gold  Corp.
(formerly   known  as  Renaissance   BioEnergy   Inc.),  a  Nevada   corporation
("Company"),  is owed  compensation  (the  "Payable") by the Company for past or
future  services.  The Company is entering into a Line of Credit Loan  Agreement
(the "Loan  Agreement")  with North  American Gold & Minerals  Fund  ("Lender"),
pursuant to which Lender will make available to the Company an unsecured line of
credit. As a condition to entering into the Loan Agreement, Lender requires that
the undersigned cancel and forgive, in its entirety,  the Payable.  Accordingly,
for good and valuable  consideration  and  intending to be legally bound hereby,
the  undersigned  herby  cancels  and  forgives,  in its  entirety,  any accrued
compensation  owed by the Company for past or future  services:  The undersigned
represents  and warrants  that the amount set forth below  constitutes  all sums
owing to the undersigned with respect to past or future services to the Company.
The undersigned will claim no further  compensation  from the Company and hereby
consents to termination by the Company of any agreement or arrangement  pursuant
to which such compensation was accrued.

Name:   Scott Pummill
Amount: $112,564.52

Each of Company  and Lender  shall be  beneficiaries  entitled  to enforce  this
Cancellation.

This Cancellation shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws
of the State of Nevada (other than conflict-of-laws principles). The undersigned
hereby  consents to the  jurisdiction of the State and Federal courts sitting in
Clark  County,  Nevada,  for all  cases  and  controversies  arising  from  this
Cancellation and acknowledges that said courts are not "inconvenient forums."

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed and delivered this Cancellation
as of the day and year set forth below.

SCOTT PUMMILL


/s/ Scott Pummill
-----------------------------------
Date: November 30, 2010
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

SEPT 10, 2008

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 08-11076

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 07-00020-CR-CAR-3

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

versus 

TAURUS BROOKS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Georgia

_________________________

(September 10, 2008)

Before ANDERSON, HULL and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

John Philip Fox, appointed counsel for Taurus Brooks in this direct criminal
2

appeal, has filed a motion to withdraw from further representation of the appellant

on the ground that the appeal has no arguable merit, and has filed a brief pursuant

to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our

independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the

relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is

GRANTED, and Brooks’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.
# CE2004084EN.01022801.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/228 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/228

---

(2004/C 84 E/0273)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3251/03

by Baroness Sarah Ludford (ELDR) to the Council

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

Subject:

The External Relations Council of 13 October, expressing deep concern that certain Western Balkan countries were still failing to cooperate sufficiently with the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), reiterated the need to intensify efforts to bring Radovan Karadzic, General Mladic and General Gotovina to the ICTY.

In its Common Position 2003/280/CFSP (1) of 16 April 2003 the Council imposed an EU travel ban on some persons obstructing the mandate of the ICTY, and this has had a positive impact, especially in Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH).

1

What steps is the Council taking to broaden the list of persons named in that Common Position to include those helping ICTY indictees elsewhere in the region to evade justice?

Specifically, will those sheltering Karadzic, Mladic and Gotovina, whose respective support networks in Croatia and Serbia and Montenegro are reported by ICTY to be significant, now be subject to the travel ban?

Reply

(9 March 2004)

(9 March 2004)

| 1. | The Council Common Position 2003/280/CFSP of 16 April has been updated by Council Decision 2003/484/CFSP of 27 June 2003, when, following recommendations from the Office of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, 12 additional names have been added to the list of persons set out in the Annex to Common Position 2003/280/CFSP. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The Council Common Position 2003/280/CFSP of 16 April has been updated by Council Decision 2003/484/CFSP of 27 June 2003, when, following recommendations from the Office of the High Representative for Bosnia and Herzegovina, 12 additional names have been added to the list of persons set out in the Annex to Common Position 2003/280/CFSP.

| 2. | The Common Position is kept under constant review and the Council can adopt modifications to the list contained in the Annex as required in order to assist the ICTY. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The Common Position is kept under constant review and the Council can adopt modifications to the list contained in the Annex as required in order to assist the ICTY.

---

(1)  OJ L 101, 23.4.2003, p. 22.

1

---
# CE2004084EN.01004101.xml

| 3.4.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 84/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.4.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 84/41

---

(2004/C 84 E/0045)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-2942/03

by Daniel Varela Suanzes-Carpegna (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(8 October 2003)

Subject:   Multiannual Guideline Programme (MGP): cutting the size of the Community fishing fleet

Subject:

Each Community Member State has a multiannual guideline programme establishing the objectives to be met in cutting down its fishing fleet, so as to suit the fishing effort to existing resources. In December 1997, the fourth generation of MGPs was adopted, establishing the objectives for 1997-2001. This period was extended to the end of 2002. From 1 July 2002, subsidies for building fishing boats are no longer possible in those segments of MGP IV failing to respect their objectives by that date.

Now that the MGPs are no longer in force, can the Commission provide details of those Member States which have not yet met the objectives laid down in these programmes, in all fleet segments, specifying the extent to which each Member State has met the objectives?

Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2003)

(30 October 2003)

To monitor implementation of the provisions banning public aid for fleet segments not meeting their targets from 1 July 2002, the Commission delivered a report to the Council and the European Parliament on the intermediate results of the multi-annual guidance programmes for the fishing fleets at 30 June 2002 (1). This report identifies those segments that had not met their targets by that date.

1

Following completion of the fourth-generation guidance programmes (MAGP IV), the Commission also delivered an annual report to the Council and the European Parliament on the results of the multi-annual guidance programmes for the fishing fleets at the end of 2002 (2), which describes the results for each Member State as regards compliance with the objectives laid down by the programmes for all fleet segments.

2

Copies of these two reports will be sent to the Honourable Member.

---

(1)  COM(2002) 483 final.

1

(2)  COM(2003) 508 final.

2

---
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### National Park Service 

# AGENCY:

National Park Service, Interior. 

# ACTION:

Notice of availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Fire Management Plan, Saguaro National Park. 

# SUMMARY:

Pursuant to National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 4332(C), the National Park Service announces the availability of a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Fire Management Plan, Saguaro National Park, Arizona. 

# DATES:

The National Park Service will execute a Record of Decision (ROD) no sooner than 30 days following publication by the Environmental Protection Agency of the Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. 

# ADDRESSES:

Information will be available for public inspection in the office of the Superintendent, Sarah Craighead, Saguaro National Park, Headquarters and Rincon Mountain District, 3693 South Old Spanish Trail, Tucson, AZ 85730-5601, phone 520-733-5101; and at the following locations: 

                        Internet:                         *http://www.nps.gov/​sagu/​pphtml/​documents.html*.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Kevin Parrish, Fuels Management Specialist, Saguaro National Park, Headquarters and Rincon Mountain District, 3693 South Old Spanish Trail, Tucson, AZ 85730-5601, phone 520-733-5132, or                         *Kevin_Parrish@nps.gov*.                     

Dated: August 3, 2005. 

Roger Maxwell, 

Acting Director, Intermountain Region, National Park Service. 

[FR Doc. 05-17851 Filed 9-8-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4312-52-P
Exhibit 32


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


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Income  &  Growth
Fund XXI Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-Q for
the period ended March 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the  date hereof  (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of AEI Fund  Management
XXI,  Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership,  and
Patrick  W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of AEI Fund Management
XXI,  Inc., each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 Partnership.


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              May 12, 2009



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              AEI Fund Management XXI, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              May 12, 2009
In re A.L.M., M.T.M., Minor Children.

No. COA15-809.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

April 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

Affirmed.
STATE of North Carolina v. Micheal Antony PAIGE.

No. 348P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Dec. 15, 2015.

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, for Paige, Michael Anthony.

James R. O'Neill, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Marc X. Sneed, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 13th of October 2015 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 15th of December 2015."
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, James R. Malone, certify that:
1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10- Q of Brown Jordan International, Inc.;
2.  Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3.  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report; 4.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a)  Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterlyreport is being prepared;  b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c)  Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and
5.  The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunction):
 a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: January 12, 2005 By:  */s/ James R. Malone*    *James R. Malone*  *President, Chief Executive Officer and*
Exhibit 99.6

STATEMENT PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,  AS ENACTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2002 (the Quarterly Report) of Edison
Mission Energy (the Company), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies, to the best of his
knowledge and belief, that:

| |  | /s/THOMAS R. MCDANIELThomas R. McDaniel
Chief Executive Officer
Edison Mission Energy
| |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/KEVIN M. SMITHKevin M. Smith
Chief Financial Officer
Edison Mission Energy        

This
statement accompanies the Quarterly Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---

QuickLinks
OLIPHANT FINANCIAL CORPORATION v. Alvin SILVER, and Glendora N. Silver.

No. 557P08.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Alvin Silver, Pro Se, for Silver.

Glendora N. Silver, Pro Se.

*361Claudi Reisch Clontz, Charlotte, for Oliphant.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 22nd day of December 2008 by Defendants in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th day of February 2009."
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES, et al. v. PARKER HOME CARE, LLC, et al.

No. 175P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 11, 2016.

Michael T. Wood, Special Deputy Attorney General, for N.C. Deparment of Health and Human Services, et al.

Matthew W. Wolfe, Raleigh, for Parker Home Care, LLC.

Brenda Eaddy, Assistant Attorney General, for N.C. Deparment of Health and Human Services, et al.

Justin Richman, for Cardinal Innovations Healthcare Solutions, et al.

Richard P. Leissner, Jr., New Bern.

Richard P. Leissner, Jr., New Bern, for Cardinal Innovations Healthcare Solutions, et al.

Andrew M. Walsh, for Cardinal Innovations Healthcare Solutions, et al.

Evelyn M. Savage, Pinehurst, for Cardinal Innovations Healthcare Solutions, et al.

Tracy J. Hayes, for Cardinal Innovations Healthcare Solutions, et al.

Carol W. Hammett, for Cardinal Innovations Healthcare Solutions, et al.

James D. Wall, Winston-Salem, for Cardinal Innovations Healthcare Solutions, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 10th of May 2016 by the State of NC for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of May 2016."
LAW OFFICES OF PETER H. PRIEST, PLLC v. Gabriel COCH and Information Patterns, LLC.

No. 421P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

John Walter Bryant, Raleigh, for Law Offices of Peter H. Priest, PLLC.

Carlos E. Mahoney, Durham, for Coch, Gabriel, et al.

Amber J. Ivie, Raleigh, for Law Offices of Peter H. Priest, PLLC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiff on the 18th of December 2015 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Dismissed as moot by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
STATE v. Sabas IBARRA.

No. 227P08-4.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Nov. 5, 2015.

Sabas Ibarra, Burgaw, for Ibarra, Sabas.

Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, for State of NC.

Garry W. Frank, District Attorney, for State of NC.

**Opinion**

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 27th of August 2015 by Defendant for Petition for Discretionary Review:

> "Motion Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 5th of November 2015."