alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04

- 23

- 00942

- CV

IN RE GEOFFREY P. COLACINO, ET AL

. , Relator s

Original Proceeding 1

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Lori I. Valenzuela , Justice

Delivered and Filed: November 1, 2023

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS DENIED

On October 20, 2023, relator s filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the

petition and this recor d, this court concludes relator s are not entitled to the relief sought.

Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2023

- CI

- 21615 , styled, pending in the 3 7th Judicial District Court

, Bexar

County, Texas, the Honorable Angelica Jimenez presiding.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6541

STEVEN L. SAUNDERS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, Senior 

District Judge. (1:09-cv-01204-TSE-IDD)

Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 5, 2010

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Steven L. Saunders, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Steven Saunders appeals the district court’s order 

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition for a 

writ of habeas corpus. While his appeal was pending before the 

court, the presiding district judge in Saunders’s habeas 

proceeding filed a “Memorandum of Intent” indicating to the 

court that Saunders had sent a letter to the judge pointing out 

that the district judge had failed to rule on one of Saunders’s 

habeas claims. The memorandum indicated that Saunders was 

correct and the court had in fact failed to fully dispose of 

Saunders’s claims, and that the letter would be treated as a 

motion for reconsideration. The memorandum advised Saunders to 

file in this court a motion for a limited remand for the 

purposes of granting the district court jurisdiction to consider 

the motion for reconsideration. The district judge has 

indicated that the motion for reconsideration would be welltaken. 

Saunders has made such a motion, and for the reasons 

set forth in the district judge’s memorandum, we grant the 

motion for a remand, and remand the case to the district court 

to consider Saunders’s motion for reconsideration. 

REMANDED
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 Keystone Consolidated Industries,
Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
David L. Cheek, President and Chief Operating Officer (Chief Executive Officer)
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

            (2) The information  contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and result of  operations of the
Company.



/s/  David L. Cheek
-------------------------------------
David L. Cheek
President and Chief Operating Officer
(Chief Executive Officer)
November 14, 2002



<PAGE>
#### STATE v. CONYERS

No. 71.

Case below: 33 N.C. App. 654.

Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 4 October 1977.
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02-20-00055-CR

___________________________

On Appeal from the 211th District Court

Denton County, Texas

Trial Court No. F18-3005-211

Before Womack, J.; Sudderth, C.J.; and Wallach, J.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

JOHN DAVIS III, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

Appellant has moved to dismiss his appeal. Because we have not yet decided 

this case, we grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.2(a), 

43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

Delivered: November 19, 2020
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 27 76

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v. Vict orMan ue l Var el a-Arz ol a, al so kn own as He ct orVarel a, al so kn own as J os e Torr es Varel a, al so kn own as J os e Torres , als o k no wn as Jo se V. Torres , als o kn own as Vi ct orVarel a, al so kn own as M an y Vaarel a, al so kn own as Vi ct or Mar in , als o k no wn as Hect orRo dr ig ue z ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ctof M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Feb ru ary 24 , 20 16 Fi le d: Marc h 1 , 20 16 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re BENTON, BOW MAN, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.Vict or Varel a-Arz ol a ap pe al s aft er he pl ead ed gu il ty to an imm ig rat io n of fen se an d th e Dis tri ct Co ur t im po se d a wit hi n- Gui de li ne s- ran ge se nt en ce. His co un se l ha s 1

m ov ed fo r le av e to wit hd raw an d h a s fil ed a br ie f un de r And ers v. Cal ifo rn ia , 38 6 U.S. 73 8 (1 96 7) , ge ne ral ly ch al le ng in g Varel a-Arz ol a’s se nt en ce. Varel a-Arz ol a ha s fil ed a su pp le m en ta l br ie f arg ui ng —i n refe ren ce to a supe rv is ed -rel eas e rev oc at io n se nt en ce i mp o se d at th e sa m e he ari ng —t ha t he sh ou ld ha ve rece iv ed co nc urren t, rat he r th anco ns ecu ti ve , sen te nc es
.
Afte r car efu l rev ie w, we co nc lu de th atth e Dis tri ctCo urt d idno t co m m itan y si gn ifi can t pr oc edur al se nt en ci ng erro r o r i mpo se a su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le
se nt en ce. See Un i t e d S t a te s v. Dav id , 68 2 F.3 d 10 74 , 10 76 –7 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (d is cu ss in g app el la te rev ie w of se nt en ci ng de ci si on s) ; Un it edSta te s v . Beck er, 6 36 F.3 d 40 2, 40 8 (8 th Ci r. 20 11 ) (“ [A] di st r i c t co ur t ha s th e di sc ret io n to im po se a se nt en ce co nc urren tl y o r c on se cu ti ve ly ba se d on th e sa m e [1 8 U.S.C.] § 35 53 (a) fact or s a s o t he r se nt en ci ng de ci si on s.”)

. Fu rth erm or e, we ha ve in de pe nd en tl y rev ie wed th e reco rd un de r Pen so n v. O h i o , 4 8 8 U.S. 7 5, 80 (1 98 8) , a nd we fin d no no nf riv ol ou s i ss ue s.

Acco rd in gl y , we gr an t co un se l’s m ot io n fo r le av e to wit hd raw, an d we affi rm
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

The Hon or ab le Gary A. Fen ne r, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ctof M is so ur i. -2

-
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 231 (Friday, December 2, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 72324]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-23551]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34754]


Alabama Southern Railroad, Inc.--Lease and Operation Exemption--
The Kansas City Southern Railway Company

    Alabama Southern Railroad, Inc. (ABS), a noncarrier, has filed a 
verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to lease from The 
Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS) and operate approximately 
85.6 miles of rail line consisting of lines on the (1) Tuscaloosa 
Subdivision between milepost 17.0 near Columbus, MS, and milepost 78.9 
near Tuscaloosa, AL; (2) Warrior Branch between milepost 0.0 at 
Tuscaloosa, AL, and milepost 9.3 near Fox, AL; and (3) Brookwood Branch 
between milepost 443.5 at Brookwood Jct., AL, and milepost 429.1 at 
Brookwood, AL. ABS is also being assigned KSC's overhead trackage 
rights over a 44.4-mile line of railroad owned by CSX Transportation, 
Inc., extending between milepost 429.2 at Brookwood, AL, and milepost 
384.8 at Birmingham, AL.
    ABS certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of 
this transaction will not result in it becoming a Class II or Class I 
rail carrier. Because ABS's projected annual revenues will exceed $5 
million, ABS has certified to the Board on September 7, 2005, that it 
sent the required notice of the transaction on September 2, 2005, to 
the national offices of all labor unions representing employees on the 
line and that it posted a copy of the notice at the workplace of the 
employees on the affected lines on September 6, 2005. See 49 CFR 
1150.32(e).
    The transaction was expected to be consummated on or shortly after 
November 20, 2005.
    This transaction is related to STB Finance Docket No. 34755, Watco 
Companies, Inc.--Continuance in Control Exemption--Alabama Southern 
Railroad, Inc., wherein Watco Companies, Inc. has concurrently filed a 
verified notice of exemption to continue in control of ABS upon its 
becoming a rail carrier.
    If the notice contains false or misleading information, the 
exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 
U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to 
revoke will not automatically stay the transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 34754, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, 1925 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one 
copy of each pleading must be served on Karl Morell, Of Counsel, BALL 
JANIK LLP, Suite 225, 1455 F Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

    Decided: November 23, 2005.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-23551 Filed 12-1-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<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>                   6-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                            DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                               JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                 JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           767,231
<SECURITIES>                                           0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    409,993
<ALLOWANCES>                                     308,000
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,874,875
<PP&E>                                         7,888,223
<DEPRECIATION>                                   219,019
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                11,196,764
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,763,496
<BONDS>                                        5,917,842
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                         317,048
<OTHER-SE>                                     1,523,532
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  11,196,764
<SALES>                                        5,384,575
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               5,405,385
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,324,332
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               268,590
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   81,053
<INCOME-TAX>                                      47,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               34,053
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      34,053
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0



</TABLE>
<PAGE>

Exhibit 99.4



                   Certificate Furnished Under Section 906
                      Of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Barry C. Cooper, Chief Financial Officer of Laclede Gas Company, hereby
certify that

     (a)  To the best of my knowledge, the accompanying report on Form 10-Q
          for the quarter ended December 31, 2002 fully complies with the
          requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
          Act of 1934, and

     (b)  To the best of my knowledge, the information contained in the
          accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December
          31, 2002 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
          condition and results of operations of Laclede Gas Company.


Date: January 29, 2003
     ------------------




                             /s/ Barry C. Cooper
                             ----------------------------------------

                             Barry C. Cooper
                             Chief Financial Officer
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 16, 2019.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D18- 2161

Lower Tribunal No. 14

- 10507

________________



### Andria Pardes,

Petitioner,

vs.



### Michael Pardes, et al.,

Respondents.

On Petition for Writ of Certiorari from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade

County, Stanford Blake, Judge.

Weissman & Dervishi, P.A., and Jeffrey M. Weissman (Fort Lauderdale),

for petitioner.

Law Offices of Paul Morris, P.A., and Paul Morris; Law Offices of

Kornreich & Associates, and Gerald I. Kornreich and Amber Kornreich, for

respondent Michael Pardes.

Before FERNANDEZ, LOGUE and SCALES, JJ.

PER CURIAM.In this dissolution of marriage case, Petitioner Andria Pardes seeks certiorari

review of a trial court order denying her motion to disqualify the attorney of

Respondent Michael Pardes. The factual findings in the trial court’s order are

supported by competent substantial evidence in the record, and the trial court’s

legal conclusions do not depart from the essential requirements of law. We

therefore deny the petition.

Petition denied.

2
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 7- 29 31

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Sh aro n L. Me ek s ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el la nt

v. Dep art m en t o f Hum an Serv ic es ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l

Defe nd an t - Ap pe ll ee

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Eas te rn Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s - Li tt le Ro ck

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Ju ly 19, 2 01 8 Fi le d: Ju ly 24, 2 01 8 [Un pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, BOW MAN, an d ERI CKSON, Ci rcu it Ju dg es
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM.

Sh aro n Mee ks ap pe al s fro m th e or de r of th e Dis tri ct Co ur t gr an ti ng su m m ary 1 jud gm en t to he r fo rm er em pl oyer th e Ark an sa s Dep art m en t of Hum an Serv ic es in he r

The Hon or ab le Kris ti ne G. Bak er, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e East ern 1 Dis tri ctof Ark an sa s.Tit le VII ret al ia ti on act io n. Afte r de no vo rev ie w, we co nc lu de th at th e Dis tri ct Co ur t

di d n o t e r r
. See Hut to n v. Maynard , 8 12 F.3 d 67 9, 68 3– 84 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (s et ti ng fo rth th e ev id en ce ne ces sa ry to su rv iv e a m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm en t on a Tit le VII ret al ia ti on cl ai m ); se e al so Co no ll y v. Cl ark , 45 7 F.3 d 87 2, 87 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (“ [A] pr op erl y su pp or te d m ot io n fo r su m m ary jud gm e n t i s no t de feat ed by se lf- se rv in g affi da vi ts .”).

W e aff irm th e jud gm en t o f th e Dis tri ctCo ur t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2

-
Case 1:06-cv-14971-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 3 Filed 05/07/2007 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 32.1
  CERTIFICATION
OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
  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 Symyx Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008, to which this Certification is
attached as Exhibit 32.1 (the “Report”), I, Isy Goldwasser, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, pursuant to Title
18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United Stated Code, that to the best of my
knowledge:
 
 1)
              The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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
      at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
 
 
 By:
                /s/ Isy GoldwasserIsy
      GoldwasserChief
      Executive OfficerMarch
      13, 2009
 
 
 This
certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by
reference into any filing of Symyx Technologies, Inc. under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether
made before or after the date of the Form 10-K), irrespective of any general
incorporation language contained in such filing.
Case 1:07-cv-03494-DLC Document 79 Filed 03/31/2008 Page 1 of 1
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 10-5 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 10-5 Filed 05/23/2007 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-16 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-16 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 2 of 2
#### Otto Zweitusch v. Robert Lowy.

t. *Practice—Limiting*Arguments.—Limiting counsel for a defendant to five minutes, in which to address the jury in behalf of his client, is reversible error.

Memorandum.—Assumpsit. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. John Barton Payne, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at October term, 1894.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed December 20, 1894.

John C. Patterson, attorney for appellant.

P. J. O’Shea, attorney for appellee.

Mr. Justice Gary

delivered the opinion of the Court.

The appellee sued' the appellant for damages for an alleged improper discharge of the appellee from the services of the appellant. The conflicting evidence fills eight pages of the printed abstract. When the evidence was in, the court allowed the counsel of the appellant only five minutes to address the jury, and to that limit the appellant excepted.

The right to open and close an argument before a jury is regarded as important and error may be committed in de. *107nying it. Carpenter v. First Nat. Bk., 19 Ill. App. 549. The limit in this case in effect cut off any substantial presentation of reasons for a verdict in favor of the appellant. It is not too much to say of the evidence that such a verdict would not have been inconsistent with it.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirement set forth in Rule 13a-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Section 1350 of
Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code (18 U.S.C. Section 1350), Kevin M. Carney, Chief Financial Officer of Website Pros, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company"), hereby certifies that, to the best of his knowledge:



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has set his hand hereto as of this 11th day of March, 2008.

| |  | By: |  | /s/ Kevin M. CarneyKevin M. Carney
Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and
Accounting Officer)
| |  | --- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"This
certification accompanies the Form 10-K to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated by reference into
any filing of Website Pros, Inc. under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of the
Form 10-K), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing."

---



QuickLinks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------------- X 

DWAYNE PANNELL, Individually and on Behalf of : 

All Other Persons Similarly Situated, 

Plaintiffs, ORDER 

- against - 07 Civ. 3503 (RMB) 

DR. JAY' S INC., 

Defendant. ....................................................................... X 

The parties are directed to appear at a conference on Friday, January 1 1, 2008, at 1 1 :00 a.m. 

in Courtroom 2 ID, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007, regarding, among other things, 

preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement. 

Dated: New York, New York 

January 8,2008 

RICHARD M. BERMAN, U.S.D.J. 

Case 1:07-cv-03503-RMB Document 6 Filed 01/08/2008 Page 1 of 1
#### STATE v. THOMAS

No. 685P82.

Case below: 59 N.C. App. 739.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed for order remanding defendant’s motion for appropriate relief for hearing to the Superior Court 8 March 1983.
#### CONE v. CONE

No. 110PC

Case below: 50 NC App 343

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 May 1981.
#### STATE v. GLENN

No. 669P82.

Case below: 59 N.C. App. 362.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 March 1983.