alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1... This proceeding arises out of Cause Nos. 2006–PC-1930 and 2006-PC-3179, in Probate Court 2, Bexar

County, Texas, the Honorable Tom Rickhoff presiding.

i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00697-CV

IN RE Roberto GARCIA

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Phylis J. Speedlin, Justice

Steven C. Hilbig, Justice

Delivered and Filed: October 22, 2008

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On September 16, 2008, relator Roberto Garcia filed a petition for writ of mandamus

seeking to compel Elizabeth Lipsey, executrix of the estates of Jose Garcia and Hortencia Garcia,

and Demetrio Duarte, attorney for executrix, to provide “disclosure and inspection of his

inheritance.” This court’s mandamus authority is quite limited. In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691,

692 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding);see also TEX.GOV’T CODE ANN.§22.221(a),

(b) (Vernon 2004). In order for the executrix or the executrix’s attorney to fall under our mandamus

authority, relator must demonstrate that the issuance of the writ is necessary to enforce our

jurisdiction. See Coronado, 980 S.W.2d at 692. Relator has failed to establish the writ he is

requesting is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus

is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer   I, Paul Tidwell, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Innocap, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 presented in this quarterly report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and have:  a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting.  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.   Date: June 12, 2017  /s/ Paul Tidwell Paul Tidwell Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
SMC CORPORATION                                                       EXHIBIT 11
STATEMENT OF CALCULATION OF AVERAGE
COMMON SHARES OUTSTANDING

                                                                        Three Months            Nine Months
                                                                               Ended                  Ended
                                                                  September 30, 1997     September 30, 1997
                                                                  ------------------     ------------------
<S>                                                                        <C>                    <C>      
Primary Earnings Per Share:

          Weighted average number of shares                                6,555,730              6,561,025

          Stock option plan shares to be issued at
          prices ranging from $7.25 to $11.50 per share                      990,000                990,000

          Warrant issues at a price of $9.30 per share                       125,000                125,000

          Less:   Assumed purchase of shares by the Company
                  at the average market price during the period
                  using the proceeds received upon the assumed
                  exercise of the outstanding options and warrants.       (1,115,000)            (1,115,000)
                                                                         -----------            -----------

                  Total Primary Shares                                     6,555,730              6,561,025
                                                                         ===========            ===========



Fully Diluted Earnings Per Share:

          Weighted average number of shares                                6,555,730              6,561,025

          Stock option plan shares to be issued at prices
          ranging from $7.25 to $11.50 per share                             990,000                990,000

          Warrant issues at a price of $9.30 per share                       125,000                125,000

          Less:   Assumed purchase of shares by the Company at
                  the higher of ending or average market price
                  during the period using the proceeds received upon
                  the assumed exercise of the outstanding options
                  and warrants                                            (1,115,000)            (1,115,000)
                                                                         -----------            -----------

                  Total Diluted Shares (1)                                 6,555,730              6,561,025
                                                                         ===========            ===========


(1)  Fully diluted EPS was not presented as its effect was less than 3% of
     primary earnings per share.
</TABLE>
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

2008-5141

WILLIAM C. SADD and PATRICIA W. SADD,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in 05-CV-025, Judge Lawrence

J. Block.

ON MOTION

ORDER

The appellants move without opposition for a 6-day extension of time, until April

21, 2009, to file their response to the court's November 7, 2008 order.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted.

FOR THE COURT

Date

cc:	Sallie W. Gladney, Esq.

Deborah K. Snyder, Esq.

s20

Jan Horbaly

Clerk ustitidkatiarm

APR 17 2009

JAk rithipia

CLERK

APR 17 2009

/s/ Jan Horbaly
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-60778 Summary Calendar

MYRON BASS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus COMMUNITY HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.; PARKWOOD HOSPITAL; VICTORIA SHEETS, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 2:00-CV-193

-------------------- August 22, 2001 Before JOLLY, DAVIS and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Because Myron Bass's prior civil action did not conclude with a final judgment on the merits as to Bass's state-law claims, see Bass v. Parkwood Hospital , 180 F.3d 234, 245-47 (5th Cir. 1999); Bass v. Parkwood Hospital , No. 2:96CV119-B-B (N.D. Miss. Aug. 24, 1999) (unpublished), the district court abused its discretion in determining that the state-law claims raised in the instant complaint are res judicata. See Ellis v. Amex Life Ins.
Co. , 211 F.3d 935, 936 (5th Cir. 2000).No. 00-60778 -2- Bass has invoked the district court's diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). The district court has not yet determined whether it has diversity jurisdiction over Bass's state-law claims. Although we doubt whether Bass's claim for damages in excess of the $75,000 jurisdictional amount has been asserted in good faith, see St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co. , 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938), the record is not developed sufficiently to permit this court to affirm the dismissal of Bass's complaint on that basis. See Burns v. Anderson , 502 F.2d 970, 971 (5th Cir. 1974). For the foregoing reasons, the district court's orders dismissing Bass's state-law claims as res judicata and denying Bass's motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) are VACATED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
VACATED AND REMANDED.
NUMBER 13-08-00377-CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

BOB MAXCEY, M.D. AND 

MICHAEL G. NERET, M.D., Appellants,

v.

DORIS MCGEE, Appellee.

On appeal from the 23rd District Court of Matagorda County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Valdez, Justices Yañez, and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellant, Bob Maxcey, M.D. and Michael G. Neret, M.D., perfected an appeal from

a judgment entered by the 23th District Court of Matagorda County, Texas, in cause

number 07-H-0475-C. Appellant, Bob Maxcey, M.D., has filed a motion to dismiss his

appeal, on grounds that the parties have reached an agreement to settle and compromise
2

their differences. Appellant, Michael G. Neret, M.D., has also filed a motion to dismiss his

appeal.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and appellants’ motions to

dismiss the appeal, is of the opinion that the motions should be granted. See TEX. R.APP.

P. 42.1(a). Both appellants’ motions to dismiss are granted, and the appeal is hereby

DISMISSED. In accordance with the agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against the

party incurring same. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) ("Absent agreement of the parties, the

court will tax costs against the appellant."). Having dismissed the appeal at appellants’

request, no motion for rehearing will be entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Memorandum Opinion delivered and 

filed this the 9th day of October, 2008.
State of North Carolina v. Cedric Lamar Smallwood

No. COA16-131

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 20, 2016

NO ERROR IN PART, NO PLAIN ERROR IN PART.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4181 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4181

To appropriate funds for carrying out certain provisions of the Public 
   Health Service Act relating to emergency care and trauma services.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2014

   Mr. Rush introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Appropriations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To appropriate funds for carrying out certain provisions of the Public 
   Health Service Act relating to emergency care and trauma services.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Trauma Relief Access for Urgent 
Medical Assistance of 2014''.

SEC. 2. FUNDING FOR EMERGENCY CARE AND TRAUMA SERVICES.

    Out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, there 
are hereby appropriated for each of fiscal years 2014 through 2018 the 
following sums:
            (1) $24,000,000 for carrying out parts A through C of title 
        XII of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300d et seq.; 
        relating to regional systems for emergency care).
            (2) $100,000,000 for carrying out part D of title XII of 
        the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300d-41 et seq.; 
        relating to trauma care centers).
            (3) $100,000,000 for carrying out part H of title XII of 
        the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300d-81 et seq.; 
        relating to trauma service availability).
            (4) $20,000,000 for carrying out section 498D of the Public 
        Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g-4; relating to emergency 
        medicine research).
            (5) $30,400,000 for carrying out section 1910 of the Public 
        Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300w-9; relating to children's 
        emergency medical services demonstration grants).
                                 <all>
```
# Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/2053Show full title

Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/2053 of 16 November 2015 implementing Decision 2010/231/CFSP concerning restrictive            measures against Somalia         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Council Implementing Decision (CFSP) 2015/2053                     

# of 16 November 2015

# implementing Decision 2010/231/CFSP concerning restrictive measures against Somalia

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on European Union, and in particular Article 31(2) thereof,

Having regard to Council Decision 2010/231/CFSP of 26 April 2010 concerning restrictive measures against Somalia and repealing                           Common Position 2009/138/CFSP(1), and in particular Article 7 thereof,                        

Having regard to the proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy,

Whereas:

(1)On 26 April 2010, the Council adopted Decision 2010/231/CFSP.

(2)On 11 March 2014, the United Nations Security Council Committee established pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution                              (UNSCR) 751 (1992) and UNSCR 1907 (2009) deleted one person from the list of persons subject to the restrictive measures set                              out in paragraphs 1, 3 and 7 of UNSCR 1844 (2008).

(3)Annex I to Decision 2010/231/CFSP should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

# Article 1U.K.

Annex I to Decision 2010/231/CFSP is amended in accordance with the Annex to this Decision.

# Article 2U.K.

This Decision shall enter into force on the date following that of its publication in the *Official Journal of the European Union*.                  

Done at Brussels, 16 November 2015.

*For the Council*                            

*The President*                            

F. Mogherini                            

## ANNEXU.K.

The entry for the following person is deleted from Annex I to Decision 2010/231/CFSP:

Jim'ale, Ali Ahmed Nur

1

OJ L 105, 27.4.2010, p. 17.
**Judgment of the Court (Sixth Chamber) of 29 November 2007 – Commission v Spain**

**(Case C‐6/07)**

Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 2002/74/EC – Protection of workers – Insolvency of employer

Actions for failure to fulfil obligations – Examination of merits by the Court – Situation to be taken into consideration – Situation on expiry of the period laid down in the reasoned opinion (Art. 226 EC) (see para. 9)

**Re:**

| |
| --- |
| Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Failure to adopt within the prescribed period the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer (OJ 2002 L 270, p 10). |

**Operative part**

| |
| --- |
| The Court: |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Declares that, by failing to adopt, within the prescribed period, all the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/74/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002, amending Council Directive 80/987/EEC on the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, the Kingdom of Spain has failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |

| | | |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | Orders the Kingdom of Spain to pay the costs. |
# C_2008022EN.01003903.xml

| 26.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 22/39 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 22/39

---

Order of the President of the Court of 8 November 2007 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-223/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 22/71)

Language of the case: Swedish

Language of the case: Swedish

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 140, 23.6.2007.

1

---
EXHIBIT 32.2

               CERTIFICATES OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
         SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003 (18 U.S.C. 1350)


      Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, I, the
undersigned Chief Financial Officer of Sew Cal Logo, Inc. (the "Company"),
hereby certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
of the Company for the quarter ended November 30, 2004 (the "Report"):

      1. Fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934: and

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



/s/ Judy Songer
-----------------------
Judy Songer
Chief Financial Officer
April 15, 2006
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 06-8064

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

GREGG LAMONT SMITH, 

 Defendant – Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District 

Judge. (8:02-cr-00215-AW; 8:05-cv-02532-AW) 

Submitted: September 25, 2008 Decided: October 22, 2008 

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Gregg Lamont Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Michael R. Pauze, OFFICE 

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Gregg Lamont Smith seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer    I, B. Alva Schoomer, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Innocap, Inc.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 presented in this quarterly report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the 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 who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over financial reporting.     /s/ B Alva Schoomer B. Alva Schoomer Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  February 13, 2007