alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed February 9, 2012.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals 

____________

NO. 14-11-01045-CV

____________

DONALD M. HOLDEN, Appellant

V.

JOHN C. OSBORNE AND 

THE LAW OFFICES OF JOHN C. OSBORNE, Appellees

On Appeal from the 80th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-02891

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

This is a cross-appeal from a judgment signed August 25, 2011. The notice of 

cross-appeal was filed on November 30, 2011. To date, our records show that appellant has 

neither established indigence nor paid the $175.00 appellate filing fee. See Tex. R. App. P.

5 (requiring payment of fees in civil cases unless indigent); Tex. R. App. P. 20.1 (listing 

requirements for establishing indigence); see also Order Regarding Fees Charged in Civil 

Cases in the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals and Before the Judicial Panel on 
2

Multidistrict Litigation, Misc. Docket No. 07-9138 (Tex. Aug. 28, 2007) (listing fees in 

court of appeals); Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 51.207 (Vernon 2005) (same). 

On January 12, 2012, this court ordered appellant to pay the appellate filing fee on 

or before January 23, 2012, or the cross-appeal would be dismissed. The appellate filing 

fee has not been paid. Accordingly, the cross-appeal is ordered dismissed. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case because appellant has failed to comply 

with notice from clerk requiring response or other action within specified time). 

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Hedges, Justices Jamison and McCally.
#### JOHN J. TREACY, RECEIVER OF THE JEWETT REALTY CORPORATION, A CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF, v. SAMUEL VIGERSKY, DEFENDANT.

Decided March 18, 1932.

For the plaintiff, *Hudspeth & Harris.*

For the defendant, *Hey man •& Heyman.*

Ackekson, S. C. C.

This action is upon a promissory note alleged to have been made by the defendant to the order *411of the Jewett Eealty Corporation, of which company the plaintiff is receiver.

The matter now comes before me upon a motion to strike the answer, consisting principally of four separate defenses, upon the grounds that the third separate defense is frivolous, and that the balance of the answer and defenses are sham. As to the latter ground, it is sufficient to say that the defendant’s affidavit raises questions of fact which save the answer from being stricken out as sham.

"With respect to the third separate defense we find that it alleges in substance that the Jewett Eealty Corporation, the payee of said note, was engaged in the general business of loaning money and discounting mortgages, contrary to the “General Corporation act” (Eevision of Laws, 1896), under which said company was incorporated, and that the note in question was accepted and discounted by said corporation in pursuit of said prohibited business, contrary to the aforesaid statute, and is, therefore, illegal and unenforceable.

The “General Corporation act,” (Eevision of 1896), does not make a note, discounted by a corporation other than a bank, void, but only prohibits general corporations from engaging in the business of “discounting bills, notes or other evidences of debts,” &c. Since the transaction is not, therefore, void, it will not lie in the mouth of this defendant, who has obtained the consideration therefor, from the plaintiff, to urge such a defense. *Campbell*v. *Perth Amboy Ship Building,*70 *N. J. Eq.*40; *Fritz*v. *Palmer,*132 *U. S.*282; *Earle*v. *American Sugar Refining Co.,*74 *N. J. Eq.*763. This defense is therefore frivolous and will be stricken out for that reason. The balance of the answer, however, must stand.

No costs will be allowed on this motion, and the case will be put in the commercial calendar for April, 1932. An order may be presented in accordance with the conclusion thus reached.
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.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Agency Holding the Meeting:

Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# Federal Register Citation of Previous Announcement:

70 FR 194.

# Previously Announced Time and Date of the Meeting:

11 a.m., Wednesday, October 26, 2005.

# Changes in the Meeting:

The Rule Enforcement Review has been moved to Friday, October 28, 2005, at 11:45 a.m.

# Contact Person For More Information:

Jean A. Webb, (202) 418-5100.

Jean A. Webb, 

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 05-21319 Filed 10-20-05; 2:24 pm]

BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
AMENDMENT TO
                            STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT(S)



         WHEREAS,  GLOBAL  NATURAL  RESOURCES  INC.  ("Global")  has  previously
adopted the GLOBAL NATURAL  RESOURCES INC. KEY EMPLOYEE STOCK OPTION PLAN (1989)
and the GLOBAL NATURAL RESOURCES INC. 1992 STOCK OPTION PLAN (collectively,  the
"Global Option Plans"); and

         WHEREAS, Section 3.3 of the Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger")
by and among Seagull Energy Corporation ("Seagull"),  GNR Merger Corporation and
Global Natural Resources Inc. dated as of July 22, 1996 (the "Merger Agreement")
provides  that options  outstanding  under the Global  Option Plans (the "Global
Options")  shall be assumed by Seagull and become  options to  purchase  Seagull
common stock in accordance with the provisions thereof; and

         WHEREAS,  in  conjunction  with the Merger,  Seagull  agreed to adopt a
policy (the  "Policy") of vesting and  extending  the exercise  period of Global
Options  granted to  Retained  Employees  (as such term is defined in the Merger
Agreement)  who  terminate  employment  with  Global or Seagull on or before the
second  anniversary of the Effective Time (as such term is defined in the Merger
Agreement); and

         WHEREAS,  certain  nonstatutory  stock  options  (the  "Options")  have
heretofore been granted to the undersigned employee of Global, who is subject to
the Policy (the  "Employee"),  that are currently  outstanding  under the Global
Option Plans,  each of such Options being listed on the schedule attached hereto
and evidenced by a Nonstatutory Stock Option Agreement (the "Agreements"); and

         WHEREAS, the Employee's employment with the Company has been terminated
and Seagull desires to amend the Agreements in certain respects;

         NOW, THEREFORE,  the Agreements shall be amended as follows,  effective
as of _______________ (Employee's employment termination date):

         1.       The  vesting  schedule  contained in the Agreements  shall  be
waived and all Options outstanding under such Agreements shall be exercisable in
full.

         2.       Notwithstanding  any  provision  in   the  Agreements  to  the
contrary, all Options shall  continue to be  exercisable  by the  Employee,  his
estate or the person  who  acquires   such  Options  by  will  or  the  laws  of
descent  and distribution,  at any time on or before  the  first anniversary  of
Employee's employment termination date.

         3.       As amended  hereby, the  Agreements are specifically  ratified
and reaffirmed.



<PAGE>



         IN WITNESS  WHEREOF,  Seagull  has  caused  this  amendment  to be duly
executed by one of its officers thereunto duly authorized,  and the Employee has
executed this amendment, effective as of ________________ (Employee's employment
termination date).

                                                      SEAGULL ENERGY CORPORATION



                                                      By _______________________




                                                      --------------------------
                                                      Employee
#### McNULTY v. CHANEY

No. 601

Case below: 1 N.C. App. 610.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 23 August 1968.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 214 (Monday, November 7, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 67462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22119]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Senior Executive Service; Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Designation of Performance Review Board Chair.

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

SUMMARY: This notice provides the Performance Review Board Chair 
designee for the Department of Energy: James T. Campbell.

DATES: This appointment is effective as of September 30, 2005.

    Issued in Washington, DC October 24, 2005.
Claudia A. Cross,
Chief Human Capital Officer/Director, Office of Human Capital 
Management.
[FR Doc. 05-22119 Filed 11-4-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-24-00330-CV

In re Phillip “Baby Shark” Scott

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM COMAL COUNTY

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator has filed a document, which we treat as a petition for writ of mandamus,

complaining of the trial court’s denial of his attempts to waive his right to counsel and represent

himself in the underlying criminal proceeding. Having reviewed the petition and the record 

provided, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a); see also 

Osorio-Lopez v. State, 663 S.W.3d 750, 757 (Tex. Crim. App. 2022) (“A defendant must be 

competent before he can knowingly and intelligently waive his right to counsel and 

represent himself.”). 

__________________________________________

Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Kelly and Theofanis

Filed: May 24, 2024
#### EATON v. KLOPMAN MILLS, INC.

No. 603

Case below: 2 N.C. App. 363.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals denied 29 October 1968.
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Global Gold Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the year December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Drury J. Gallagher, the Chairman, Chief
Executive Officer and Treasurer 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: March 28, 2006                     /s/ Drury J. Gallagher
      Amended Date: September 6, 2006          Drury J. Gallagher
                                               Chairman, Chief Executive Officer
                                               and Treasurer
FILED IN COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS August 13, 2015 ABELACOSTA, CLERK AARON JACOB MOORE VS. STATE OF TEXAS No. PD-1634-14
IN THE PD-1634-1 COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL AUSTIN, TEXA Transmitted 8/13/2015 8:55:42 Al

Accepted 8/13/2015 10:11:47 Af ABEL ACOST, CLER
§ COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
STATE OF TEXAS STATE'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY BRIEF TO APPELLANT'S BRIEF ON THE MERITS TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS: 

### COMES NOW the State ofTexas by and through its District Attorney, 268th 

### Judicial District, Fort Bend County, and pursuant to Rule ofAppellate Procedure 70.4 

### moves this Court to grant leave to filea reply toAppellant's briefon the merits ofthe State's petition for discretionary review. This Court granted the State's petition on one issue: 

### Does the court of appeals's construction of "the state" in Section 

### 54.02(j)(4)(A), Family Code require dismissal ofa case with prejudice withoutconsideration ofthe factors for oppressive delay in violation of the separation ofpowers doctrine? Moore v. State, No. PD-1634-14 (Tex. Crim. App. April 22, 2015). The State filed its briefon June 9, 2015, and Appellant filed his briefon July 27, 2015. This Court has set this case for submission on August 19, 2015. 

### The State believes that its reply to Appellant's briefwill aid this Court in its 

### decision by concisely addressing flaws inAppellant's argument, such asthatthe office ofthe district attorney is legislatively, rather than constitutionally created, and thatWilliamsv. State, 938 S.W.2d 456 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997), supports a finding that 

### Section 54.02(j)(4)(A) is contractual in nature like the Interstate Agreement for
Detainers Act. 

### WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the State respectfully asks this 

### Court to grant it leave to file its reply toAppellant's briefon the merits ofthe question granted. Respectfully submitted, k John F. Healey, Jr. SBOT # 09328300 DistrictAttorney, 268thJudicialDistrict Fort Bend County, Texas /s/ Gail Kikawa McConnell Gail Kikawa McConnell SBOT# 11395400 Assistant District Attorney 301 Jackson Street, Room 101 Fort Bend County, Texas 77469 

### (281) 238-3205 / (281) 238-3340 (fax) 

### Gail.McConnell@fortbendcountytx.gov
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### Ihereby certify that a copy ofthe foregoing State's motion for leave to file its reply briefwas served on August 13, 2015, by the electronic filing manager or by email August 13, 2015, on Ms. Carmen Roe, Attorney for Appellant, <carmen@,carrneiiroe.corn>. and on Ms. Lisa McMinn, State Prosecuting Attorney, 

### <Lisa.McMinn@spa.texas.gov>. Gail Kikawa McConnell Gail Kikawa McConnell
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5551 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5551

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To require the Secretary of the Treasury to make a certification when 
    making purchases under the Small Business Lending Fund Program.

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

SECTION 1. CERTIFICATION UNDER THE SMALL BUSINESS LENDING FUND PROGRAM.

    Before the Secretary of the Treasury makes the first purchase 
(including a commitment to purchase) under the Small Business Lending 
Fund Program under the Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, the 
Secretary shall certify, under oath, to the Inspector General of the 
Department of the Treasury, with a copy to the Comptroller General of 
the United States, that the purchase-decision process has been designed 
so that each purchase decision is made solely on the basis of economic 
fundamentals and not because of any political considerations.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 23, 2010.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                               H. R. 5551

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To require the Secretary of the Treasury to make a certification when 
    making purchases under the Small Business Lending Fund Program.
```
#### PETTY v. ASSOCIATED TRANSPORT

No. 59 PC.

Case below: 4 N.C. App. 361.

Petition for writ of *certiorari*to North Carolina Court of Appeals allowed 11 July 1969.
# 20.a - Recently Published

&"-,Bold"&14&UGAO Engagements in Final Report Stage	
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-475https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-483https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-466https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-482https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-519https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-609SPhttps://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-486https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-500

# 20.a - Published (Archive)

https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-145

# 20.a - Other

# 20.b - Open Recommendations

&"Times New Roman,Regular"&12&A	

&"Times New Roman,Regular"&12Page &P	

# Sheet1
1

The Honorable Beverly Stites Jones, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-1818

___________

Lingi Anderson, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

Whirlpool Corporation, * Eastern District of Arkansas.

*

Appellee. * [UNPUBLISHED]

___________

 Submitted: October 4, 2001

 Filed: October 16, 2001

___________

Before McMILLIAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Lingi Anderson appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in her lawsuit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e et seq. We have carefully reviewed the record and the parties’ submissions

on appeal. For the reasons stated by the district court, we conclude that
-2-

Ms. Anderson’s charge of discrimination was untimely filed, see Shempert v.

Harwick Chem. Corp., 151 F.3d 793, 796 n.3 (8th Cir. 1998) (noting Arkansas

plaintiff had 180 days to file charge with Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission), cert. denied, 525 U.S. 1139 (1999), and that the circumstances did not

justify equitable tolling of the filing period, see Dring v. McDonnell Douglas Corp.,

58 F.3d 1323, 1328-29 (8th Cir. 1995) (EEOC filing period should be tolled only

when plaintiff is unable to obtain vital information bearing on existence of her claim;

question is whether reasonable person in plaintiff’s situation would have been

expected to know of existence of possible unlawful discrimination); Heideman v.

PFL, Inc., 904 F.2d 1262, 1266 (8th Cir. 1990) (“Equitable tolling is appropriate only

when the circumstances that cause a plaintiff to miss a filing deadline are out of his

hands.”), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1026 (1991). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir.

R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 995/2004

of 18 May 2004         

on import licences in respect of beef and veal products originating in Botswana, Kenya, Madagascar, Swaziland, Zimbabwe and Namibia

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1254/1999 of 17 May 1999 on the common organisation of the market in beef and veal (1),

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 2286/2002 of 10 December 2002 on the arrangements applicable to agricultural products and goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP States) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1706/98 (2), and in particular Article 5 thereof,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 2247/2003 of 19 December 2003 laying down detailed rules for the application in the beef and veal sector of Council Regulation (EC) No 2286/2002 on the arrangements applicable to agricultural products and certain goods resulting from the processing of agricultural products originating in the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP States) (3), and in particular Article 4 thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The following Member States shall issue on 21 May 2004 import licences for beef and veal products, expressed as boned meat, originating in certain African, Caribbean and Pacific States, in respect of the following quantities and countries of origin:

Article 2

Licence applications may be submitted, pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EC) No 2247/2003, during the first 10 days of June 2004 for the following quantities of boned beef and veal:

Article 3

This Regulation shall enter into force on 21 May 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 18 May 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Agriculture Director-General

----

(1)OJ L 160, 26.6.1999, p. 21. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1782/2003 (OJ L 270, 21.10.2003, p. 1).

(2)OJ L 348, 21.12.2002, p. 5.

(3)OJ L 333, 20.12.2003, p. 37.

(4)OJ L 302, 31.12.1972, p. 28. Directive as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 807/2003 (OJ L 122, 16.5.2003, p. 36).

----
**Exhibit 32.3**

 

**Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350**

 

Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Wisconsin Power and Light Company (the “Company”), hereby certify, based on our knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended March 31, 2005 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

/s/ Erroll B. Davis, Jr.

Erroll B. Davis, Jr.

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

 

/s/ Eliot G. Protsch

Eliot G. Protsch

Chief Financial Officer

 

May 5, 2005