alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Denied and Opinion Filed July 13, 2021

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05 - 21 - 00337 - CV IN RE JAMES MEEHAN , BODMD MEDICAL GROUP (OK), P.C. AND

CATALYST UTICA, P.C. , Relator s Original proceeding from the 380th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 380 - 06699 - 2018 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Myers, Partida

- Kipness, and Carlyle

Opinion by Justice Myers James Meehan, BODMD Medical Group (OK), P.C., and Catalyst UTICA, P.C. b ring this original proceeding asking that we order the trial court to rule on five discovery motions that have been pending fr om six months to over a year. The evidence presented to the appellate court must be in an appendix containing “a certified or swor n copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of” or in a record consisting of “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underly i ng pro ceeding .” T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.3(k) (1)(A) , 52.7(a) (1)
.– 2

–

The documents in relators’ appendix and record are mostly neither certified nor sworn and therefore do not comply with the rules. The issues relators raise in their petition for writ of mandamus are a cause of concern for this Court, but we cannot grant the petition unless the evidence properly before the Court demonstrates that the trial court abused its discretion. See In re Hug hes , 607 S.W.3d 136, 137

– 38 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2020 , orig. proceeding) (court of appeals cannot “cut through the ‘red tape’ ” and reach the merits when the record is defective) ; In re Butler , 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2008, orig. proceeding) (denying petition for writ of mandamus because the record was not authenticated)
. “ Because the record in a mandamus proceeding is assembled by the parties, this Court strictly enforces the authentication requirements of rule 52 to ensure the integrity of the mandamus record. ” In re McKinney , 05

- 14

- 01513

- CV, 2014 WL 7399301, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Dec. 15, 2014, no pet. , orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to relators fil ing a petition that complies with the rules of appellate procedure.

210337f.p05 /Lana Myers/ / LANA MYERS JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
KNICKERBOCKER VILLAGE INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           9,358
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  664,273
<ALLOWANCES>                                   380,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,674,671
<PP&E>                                       6,893,057
<DEPRECIATION>                                 304,055
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               9,322,997
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        7,448,282
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       317,048
<OTHER-SE>                                     923,011
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 9,322,997
<SALES>                                      7,183,866
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             7,196,062
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,158,010
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             472,748
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 38,052
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             31,052
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    31,052
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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

Notice is hereby given in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act that a meeting of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park Advisory Commission will be held at 9:30 a.m. on Friday, January 20, 2006, at park headquarters, 1850 Dual Highway, Hagerstown, Maryland.

The Commission was established by Public Law 91-664 to meet and consult with the Secretary of the Interior on general policies and specific matters related to the administration and development of the Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park.

The  members of the Commission are as follows:

Mrs. Sheila Rabb Weidenfeld, Chairman.

Mr. Charles J. Weir.

Mr. Barry A. Passett.

Mr. Terry W. Hepburn.

Ms. JoAnn M. Spevacek.

Mrs. Mary E. Woodward.

Mrs. Donna Printz.

Mrs. Ferial S. Bishop.

Ms. Nancy C. Long.

Mrs. Reynolds.

Dr. James H. Gilford.

Brother James Kirkpatrick.

Topics that will be presented during the meeting include:

1. Update on park operations.

2. Update on major construction/development projects.

3. Update on partnership projects.

                    The meeting will be open to the public. Any member of the public may                           ( print page 71557)                        file with the Commission a written statement concerning the matters to be discussed. Persons wishing further information concerning this meeting, or who wish to submit written Statements, may contact Kevin Brandt, Superintendent, C&O Canal National Historic Park, 1850 Dual Highway, Suite 100, Hagerstown, Maryland 21740.                

Minutes of the meeting will be available for public inspection six weeks after the meeting at park headquarters, Hagerstown, Maryland.

Dated: October 31, 2005.

Kevin D. Brandt, 

Superintendent, Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park.

[FR Doc. 05-23383  Filed 11-28-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4312-52-M
n^ts

CCA # 13-13-00283-CR

Miscellaneous/Other Criminal

OFFENSE: including Misdemeanor or Felony

MARK ANTHONY MONCADA ESTRADA v.

STY LE: THE STATE 0 F TEXAS COUNTY: Hidalgo

TRIAL COURT: 139th District Court MOTION FOR REHEARING IS: Denied 05/27/15

TRIAL COURT #: CR-712-08-C DATE:

TRIAL COURT JUDGE: Hon. J. R. 'Bobby' Flores JUDGE: Gregory T. Perkes

DISPOSITION: Affirmed

DATE: April 23, 2015

JUSTICE: Gregory T. Perkes PC S

PUBLISH: DNP: x

CLK RECORD: 1 SUPP CLK RECORD

RPT RECORD: 0 SUPP RPT RECORD

STATE BR: 1 SUPP BR

APPBR: 1 PRO SE Response BR 1

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

cca# 72£-/£"

)RO SB Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED: PC:

PUBLISH: DNP:

MOTION FOR REHEARING IN MOTION FOR STAY OF MANDATE IS:

CCA IS:

JUDGE:

ON ON

JUDGE:
EXHIBIT 11



STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION

OF PER
SHARE EARNINGS



|                                                 |  |           |  |                           |  |        |  | 
|------------------------------------------------ |  | --------- |  | ------------------------- |  | ------ |  | 
|                                                 |  |           |  |                           |  | SHARES |  | 
|Basic Shares outstanding at September 30, 2004   |  |           |  | 1,762,447                 |  |       
|                                                 |  |           |  |                          
|Net income after tax                             |  | $115,196  |  | =         $ .07 per share |  |        |  | 
|Basic Shares outstanding                         |  | 1,762,447 |  |                           |  |        |  | 
|                                                 |  |           | 
|Diluted Shares outstanding at September 30, 2004 |  |           |  | 1,834,081                 |  |       
|                                                 |  |           | 
|Net income after tax                             |  | $115,196  |  | =         $ .06 per share |  |       
|Diluted Shares outstanding                       |  | 1,834,081 |  |                           |  |        |  | 



Note: Basic earnings per share is
computed as earnings divided by weighted average basic shares outstanding. When a loss occurs, Diluted (loss) per share and Basic (loss) per share are the same.



14
----

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,

| (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. |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                                 |                                                    |                               |
|--------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------|
|                                 | SKYE      INTERNATIONAL, INC.                           |
|                                 |                                                    |                               |
| Date:  April      14, 2008 | By:                                           | /s/       Perry D.      Logan |
|                                 | Perry      D. Logan                                     |
|                                 | Chieg      Executive Officer and Chief FinancialOfficer |
<PAGE>


                                                                 Exhibit 99.1

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Kellwood Company (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended May 3, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned hereby individually certify that, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:


         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
         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 as of and for the period covered in the Report.




/s/ Hal J. Upbin
------------------
Hal J. Upbin, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer


June 11, 2003



/s/ W. Lee Capps, III
-----------------------
W. Lee Capps, III, Senior Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer


June 11, 2003




A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Kellwood Company and will be retained by Kellwood Company and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
Antonson & Kibler
                                  1000 Colfax
                              Gary, Indiana 46406
     
     
                                PROMISSORY NOTE
     
     $1,499,304.00                                 Date: December 31, 1997
     
     
     For value received, the undersigned US 1, Industries, Inc. (the 
     "Promisor") promises to pay to the order of Harold Antonson and 
     Michael Kibler (the "Payee"), at 1000 Colfax, Gary, Indiana 46406, (or 
     at such other place as the Payee may designate in writing) the sum of 
     $1,499,304.00 with interest from date of receipt as detailed below, on 
     the unpaid principal at the rate of .75 percent over the National 
     Price as published in the Wall Street Journal.                           
     
     The unpaid principal shall be payable on January 31, 1999 with accrued 
     interest payable monthly.  All payments on this Note shall be applied 
     first in payment of accrued interest and any remainder in payment of 
     principal.                        
     
     If any payment obligation under this Note is not paid when due, the      
     Promisor promises to pay all costs of collection, including reasonable   
     attorney fees, whether or not a lawsuit is commenced as part of the      
     collection process.                                                      
     
     No renewal or extension of this Note, delay in enforcing any right of    
     the Payee under this Note, or assignment by Payee of this Note shall     
     affect the liability of the Promisor.  All rights of the Payee under     
     this Note are cumulative and may be exercised concurrently or            
     consecutively at the Payee's option.                                     
     
     This Note shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State    
     of Indiana.                                                              
     
     If any one or more of the provisions of this Note are determined to be   
     unenforceable, in whole or in part, for any reason, the remaining        
     provisions shall remain fully operative.                                 
     
     All payments of principal and interest on this Note shall be paid in     
     the legal currency of the United States.                                 






     
     
     Promisor waives presentment for payment, protest, and notice of protest  
     and nonpayment of this Note.                                             
     
               
     Signed this 31th day of December, 1997, at Gary, Indiana.
     
     
      US 1 Industries, Inc.
     
     
     
     
      By: ____________________________________________________
              Michael Kibler
              President
Exhibit 32.1

 

KINDER MORGAN, INC.CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Kinder Morgan, Inc. (the"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2004, as filedwith the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated below, hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

     (1) TheReport fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

     (2) Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

| Dated:  August 5, 2004 |  | /s/ Richard D.    Kinder                                  |
|----------------------------------|--|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                                  |  | Richard D. Kinder    Chairman and Chief Executive Officer |

----

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-1995

CASSANDRA HARRISON-BELK; BEVERLY JEAN HARRISON; TANQUONYA MOANEY, in her official capacity as Special Administratrix for the Estate of Laniee Marie Moaney, Plaintiffs – Appellees,

and CYNTHIA DOLLARD; MARIE MOANEY, Plaintiffs,

v. RICHIE D. BARNES, Defendant – Appellant,

and ROCKHAVEN COMMUNITY CARE HOME, INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:07-cv-00054-CMC)

Submitted: February 20, 2009 Decided: March 25, 2009

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Richie D. Barnes, Appellant Pro Se. Lovic Alston Brooks, III, BROOKS LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

23 PER CURIAM: Richie D. Barnes appeals the district court’s order awarding attorneys’ fees of $22,424, and costs of $1,494.30, to Appellees Cassandra Harrison-Belk, Beverly Jean Harrison, and Tanquonya Moaney, acting as Special Administratrix for the Estate of Laniee Marie Moaney, resulting from their suit for payment of overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (2006). We have reviewed the record and

determined that the district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding attorneys’ fees to Appellees. See Hitachi Credit America Corp. v. Signet Bank , 166 F.3d 614, 631 (4th Cir. 1999) (noting that a district court’s decision to award attorneys’ fees is reviewed for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court, HarrisonBelk v. Barnes , No. 3:07-cv-00054-CMC (D.S.C. July 31, 2008), and deny as moot Barnes’s motion to stay the execution of judgment. 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.

AFFIRMED
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T KEVI N EZE LL , P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t, v. DE P AR T ME NT OF R E HA B I L I T AT I ON , D ef

endant- A pp el l ee . N o. 12- 55274 D . C. N o . 2 : 1 1 - c v - 0 1 9 4 0 - D SFA JW ME MOR AN DU M *

A p p e a l f r o m th e U n ite dS ta te s D is tr ic t C o u rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia D a l e S . F i s c he r , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J une 18, 2013 ** B efo re: T A L L M A N , M . S M IT H , an dH U R W IT Z , C i rcu i tJu d g es. K e v in E z e ll ap p e a ls p r o s e f r o m th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t d is m is s in g h is A m e r i c a ns w i th D i s abi l i t i e s A c ta c t i on f orf a i l ur e t o pr os e c ut e . W e ha ve ju r is d ic tio n u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w f o ra n ab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n , A sh v. Cv e tkov , 7 3 9 F. 2 d 4 9 3 , 4 9 5 ( 9 th Ci r . 1 9 8 4 ) , a n dw e a f f i rm. 

# FI LED

JU N 20 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 55274 2 T he di s tr i c tc ourtdi d notabus e i t s di s c r e t i on i n di s m i s s i ng E z e l l ’ s a c t i on w i thoutpr e

j udi c e f orf a i l ur e t o pr os e c ut e a f

t e rE z e l l f

a i l e d pr ope r l yt o s e rve d e f e n d a n t. See F e d. R . C i v. P . 4( j ) ( 2) ( r e qui r i ng tha tas t a t e - c r e a t e d a ge nc ybe s e rv e d e ith e rb y“d e liv e r in g ac o p yo f th e s u m m o n s a n do f

th e c o m p la in t to its c hi e f e xe c ut i ve of

f i c e r ” orby“ s e rvi ng ac opyof e a c h i n the m a nne rpr e s c r i be d by tha ts t a t e ’ s l a w ” ) . P l a i nt i f f’ s a tt e m pt s a ts e rvi c e di d notc ons t i tut e “ de l i ve ry ” on d ef en d an t’ s c h ief e x ec u ti v e o ff iceran dd idn o t co m p ly w ith C alifo rn ia’s r e q u ir e m e n ts f

o rs e rv ic e o n as ta te a g e n c y . See C al . C i v. P roc. C od e § 41 6. 50 (a ) ( s t a t i ng tha ts e rvi c e m a ybe e f f e c tua t e d on apubl i c e nt i tyby“ de l i ve r i ng ac opyof the s um m ons a nd of

the c om pl a i ntt o the c l e rk, s e c r e t a ry , pr e s i de nt , pr e s i di ng o f f ic e r , o ro th e rh e a d o f

its g o v e rn in g b o d y ” ) ; s e e al s o i d. § 415. 20 ( l i s t i ng the r e q u ir e m e n ts f

o rs u b s titu te ds e rv ic e ) ; i d. § 415. 30 ( l i s t i ng the r e qui r e m e nt s f or se rvi ce by m ai l ). E z e ll’s “m o tio n f

o rap p lic a tio n f

o rr e lie f ,” f ile do n A u g u s t 1 0 , 2 0 1 2 , is de ni e d. AF F I RME D.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**EDWARD L. DOMES,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 252 WAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 27th day of October, 2016, the Petition for A llowance of Appeal** 

**is** DENIED

**.**
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1833 Referred in House (RFH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1833

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 19, 2019

     Referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To transfer a bridge over the Wabash River to the New Harmony River 
Bridge Authority and the New Harmony and Wabash River Bridge Authority, 
                        and for other purposes.

    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 ``Restore the Harmony Way Bridge 
Act''.

SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF BRIDGE AND LAND.

    Notwithstanding any provision of the Act of April 12, 1941 (55 
Stat. 140, chapter 71), not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the White County Bridge Commission shall convey, 
without consideration, to the New Harmony River Bridge Authority and 
the New Harmony and Wabash River Bridge Authority, any and all right, 
title, and interest of the Commission in and to the bridge across the 
Wabash River at or near New Harmony, Indiana, the approaches to the 
bridge, and the land underneath or adjacent to the bridge and the 
approaches to the bridge.

SEC. 3. REPEAL.

    The Act of April 12, 1941 (55 Stat. 140, chapter 71), is repealed 
effective on the date that the White County Bridge Commission completes 
the conveyance described in section 2.

            Passed the Senate July 17, 2019.

            Attest:

                                                JULIE E. ADAMS,

                                                             Secretary.
```