alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued July 31, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-14-00449-CR

———————————

IN RE MANUEL NAVA, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

On July 23, 2014, relator Manuel Nava filed a motion requesting dismissal 

of his petition for writ of mandamus in this original proceeding.1 No prior opinion 

has been issued on relators’ petition for writ of mandamus. We grant the motion 

and dismiss the petition for writ of mandamus. We lift the stay of proceedings.

 

1

The underlying case is State of Texas v. Manuel Nava, cause number 1919049, 

pending in the County Criminal Court at Law No. 14 of Harris County, Texas, the 

Honorable Mike Fields presiding.
2

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Jennings, Bland, and Massengale.

Do not publish. TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
##### 



Exhibit 32.2
 CERTIFICATION
OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    the report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended December 31, 2006
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a)-14(b) or 15(d)-14(b) 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/ PERVEZ QURESHIPervez QureshiActing Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

April 29, 2015

t0422 

# Order

Clerk April 29, 2015

150178

BCIC PARKS, LLC,

Plaintiff

- Appell ee,

v SC: 150178

COA: 321356

Oakland CC: 2013

- 131496

- NM

JAFFE, RAITT, HEUER & WEISS,

PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the August 21, 2014

order of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of

granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for

consideration as on leave granted.
#### BRYCE E. NEAL, Executor of the Estate of WILLIE BENNETT NEAL, Deceased, v. ATLANTIC GREYHOUND CORPORATION.

(Filed 5 March, 1952.)

Appeal and Error § 40f—

The Supreme Court will not attempt to chart the course of the trial upon appeal from an order denying motion to strike, and will not disturb the order when it does not appear that the allegations attacked are not germane, certainly when appellant can fully protect its rights by objections to the evidence and to the issues.

Appeal by defendant from *Pless, J.,*at September Term, 1951, of Foesyth.

Civil action beard upon a motion to strike various parts of tbe complaint.

The plaintiff’s testate allegedly suffered fatal injuries on 20 October, 1950, in a collision occurring at Madison, N. C., between a private automobile in which the testate was riding and a passenger-carrying motor bus owned and operated by the defendant. The complaint undertakes to state two causes of action against the defendant, one for damages for the wrongful death of the testate, and the other for damages for the pain and suffering of the testate during the period between the injury and the death. *Hohe v. Greyhound Gorp.,*226 N.C. 332, 38 S.E. 2d 105. The defendant moved to strike eleven separate portions of the complaint for irrelevancy and redundancy under G.S. 1-153. Judge Pless entered an order denying the motion in its entirety, and the defendant appealed, assigning error.

*Ratcliff, Vaughn, Hudson, Ferrell & Garter for plaintiff, appellee.*

*Beal, Hutchins é Minor for defendant, appellant.*

EeviN, J.

No good purpose will be served by our analyzing in detail the various allegations of the complaint challenged by the motion to strike, or by our attempting to chart in advance the course of the trial in the court below. It is altogether likely that most of the questions which counsel debate before us with marked earnestness and manifest research will fall by the wayside when the cause is heard on its merits in the Superior Court. We cannot see clearly at this stage of the action that the allegations under attack have no possible bearing on the subject matter of the litigation. 71 C.J.S., Pleading, section 474. Besides, it is apparent, we think, that the defendant can fully protect its legal rights in the premises by objections to testimony and objections to the submission of issues. *Hinson v. Britt,*232 N.C. 379, 61 S.E. 2d 185. For these reasons, the order denying the motion to strike will not be disturbed.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 99.01


CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)





In connection with the Annual Report of Education Management Corporation, a Pennsylvania
corporation (the Company), on Form 10-K for the year ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Robert B. Knutson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
§ 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1350), that to my knowledge:





| | (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/    ROBERT B. KNUTSONRobert B. Knutson Chief
Executive Officer September 27, 2002
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 27 (Thursday, February 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 7765]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3191]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP92-122-003]


Trunkline LNG Co.; Notice of Annual Reconciliation Report

February 3, 1995.
    Take notice that on January 31, 1995, Trunkline LNG Company (TLC) 
tendered for filing working papers reflecting its second annual 
reconciliation report.
    TLC states that the information is submitted pursuant to Article 
VIII, Section 4 of the Stipulation and Agreement in the above-captioned 
proceeding which requires TLC to submit, on an annual basis, a report 
of the cost and revenues which result from the operation of the PLNG-2 
tariff dated June 26,1987, as amended December 1, 1989.
    TLC states that copies of this filing have been served on all 
participants in the proceeding and applicable state regulatory agencies
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol 
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rule 211 of 
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure 18 CFR 385.211. All 
such protests should be filed on or before February 10, 1994. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make Protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-3191 Filed 2-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Henry Fulmer, Respondent, v. William P. Abendroth, Appellant, Impleaded, etc.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Opinion by

Brady, J
#### In the Matter of the Application of Kate Stoneman for Admission as Attorney and Counsel.

Application denied.

Opinion by

Landon, J.

The Code being thereafter amended the application was renewed and granted.
#### STATE v. CLEM J. WILSON, JR.

(Filed 4 November, 1959.)

1. Criminal Law § 23—

Defendant’s plea of guilty is equivalent to conviction of the offense charged and no other proof of guilt is required, and after judgment has been pronounced thereon, defendant, upon withdrawal of his original ■counsel from the case, may not contend to the contrary in the absence of a motion for leave to withdraw the plea.

Higgins, J., not sitting.

Appeal by defendant from *Olive, J.,*March Term, 1959, of EoRSyth.

Criminal prosecution on a two-count indictment charging (1) larceny .and (2) receiving.'Stolen goods in violation of G.S. 14-71. Each count related to described meat of the value of $225.28.

Defendant, represented by counsel, entered a plea of guilty to receiving stolen goods as charged in the second count. Thereupon, after hearing certain evidence relative to appropriate punishment, the court pronounced judgment imposing a sentence of eight months.

Judgment was pronounced on March 4, 1959. On March 6, 1959, these events occurred: (1) Original counsel was granted leave to withdraw as defendant’s counsel. (2) Defendant excepted to the judgment and appealed.

*Attorney General Seaiuell and Assistant Attorney General Love for the State.*

*Hastings, Booe & Mitchell for defendant, appellant.*

PeR CuRiam.

While the evidence heard by the court, solely for the purpose stated above, showed defendant had received the meat from the same persons in a course of dealings, defendant asserts it shows he did not receive meat of a value in excess of $100.00 *at any one time.*Plis complaint seems to be that the court, *ex mero motu,*should have stricken out his plea of guilty and directed that defendant be prosecuted on multiple warrants charging separate offenses, each involving the receiving of stolen meat of a value less than $100.00.

Since the State, in the circumstances, had no reason to bring forward all available evidence, we do not consider whether the facts, if fully developed, were such as to warrant conviction of the offense charged. Suffice to say, defendant made no motion for leave to withdraw his plea of guilty nor does it appear that the contention now made was brought to the attention of the trial judge.

*175When defend&nt entered bis plea of guilty he bad full knowledge of all circumstances relating to his criminal conduct. Apparently defendant’s original counsel was of opinion that the entry of the plea of guilty as charged was to defendant’s advantage; and, in view of the judgment pronounced, we cannot say this was not the wiser course.

Defendant’s plea of guilty was equivalent to a conviction of the offense charged and no other proof of guilt was required. Absent a motion for leave to withdraw such plea, the court properly pronounced judgment thereon.

Affirmed.

HiggiNS, J., not sitting.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

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

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of  NewCom  International,  Inc.,  a
Delaware  corporation,  (the  "Company")  on Form  10-QSB for the period  ending
September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Chris Marshall,  Chief Executive  Officer of the
Company,  certify the following  pursuant to Section 18, U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002:

         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.


/s/ Chris Marshall
-----------------------------------------
, Chief Executive Officer
November 19, 2003
#### Lee *v.*Williams, Appellant

(No. 2).

Argued Jan. 9, 1906.

Appeal, No. 34, Jan. T., 1906, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Luzerne Co., March T., 1898, No. 231 1/2, on verdict for plaintiff in case of George F. Lee and Frank J. Scouton, copartners, trading as Lee & Scouton, v. David Williams and Johanna Owens or Susan Owens, owners or reputed owners, and J. W. Zimmerman and J. E. Zimmerman, *358contractors or builders.

March 12, 1906:

Before Rice, P. J., Porter, Morrison, Henderson, Orlady, Beaver and Head, JJ.

Afffirmed.

Opinion by

Beaver, J.,

This case was tried in the court below and argued here with Lee v. Williams, ante, p. 349.

The assignments of error are in all respects similar to those in the case above referred to, which have been fully considered therein and in which we have this day filed an opinion. What is there said applies equally to this case.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                          41,409
<SECURITIES>                                    19,057
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,274
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,161
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                65,013
<PP&E>                                          12,112
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  72,642
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,230
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            19
<OTHER-SE>                                      61,527
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    72,642
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,240
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,549
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,654<F1>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   436
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  89
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (14,947)
<INCOME-TAX>                                        76
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (15,023)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (15,023)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.78)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.78)
<FN>
<F1>INCLUDES NETWORK & OPERATIONS AND RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT AND AMORTIZATION OF
STOCK-BASED COMPENSATION
</FN>


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


Our audits also included the financial statement schedule of CORE, INC. listed
in Item 14(a).  This schedule is the responsibility of the Company's management.
Our responsibility is to express an opinion based on our audits.  In our
opinion, the financial statement schedule referred to above, when considered in
relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole, present fairly in
all material respects the information set forth therein.

We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption "Selected Financial
Data" and to the incorporations by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 33-59740) pertaining to the Amended and Restated 1986 Stock Option Plan,
1991 Stock Option Plan and Stock Option Plan for Directors of Peer Review
Analysis, Inc., and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-00354)
pertaining to the CORE, INC. 1991 Stock Option Plan, as amended, and in the
Registration Statement (Form S-8, No. 333-4144) pertaining to the CORE, INC.
1991 Stock Option Plan, as amended, and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8
No. 333-15261) pertaining to the CORE, INC. 1991 Stock Option Plan, as amended,
and in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-16961) pertaining to the
CORE, INC. 1991 Stock Option Plan, as amended, of our report dated February 14,
1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and our report
included in the preceding paragraph with respect to the financial statement
schedule of CORE, INC. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended December 31, 1996.


                                                      ERNST & YOUNG LLP



Boston, Massachusetts
March 28, 1997
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 245 (Thursday, December 21, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 66246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30741]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

43 CFR Part 2810

[WO-420-6310-00]

Tramroads and Logging Roads--Subpart 2812--Over O. and C. and 
Coos Bay Revested Lands

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On November 16, 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 
published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal 
Register (60 FR 57561). The notice announced BLM's plans to revise 
regulations governing logging roads over revested Oregon and California 
Railroad grant lands and reconveyed Coos Bay Wagon Road grant lands 
(collectively known as the O&C lands). The changes will bring the 
existing cost-sharing road program under the regulatory framework of 
Section 502 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 
(FLPMA) and incorporate environmental protection and other requirements 
for rights-of-way over public lands found in Title V of FLPMA. The 
notice allowed 30 days for public comment. In response to a request 
from a representative of interested parties, the comment period is 
being extended until January 15, 1996.

DATES: Comments on this advance notice of proposed rulemaking must be 
received by January 15, 1996. Comments postmarked after this date may 
not be considered in the preparation of the proposed rule.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Regulatory Management Team (420), 
Bureau of Land Management, 1849 C Street NW., Room 401LS, Washington, 
DC 20240.
    Comments may be sent via Internet to: WO[email protected]. Please 
include ``ATTN: O&C'' and your name and return address in your Internet 
message.
    Comments may be hand-delivered to the Bureau of Land Management 
Administrative Record, Room 401, 1620 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.
    Comments will be available for public review at the L Street 
address during regular business hours (7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m.), Monday 
through Friday.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Styduhar, Oregon State Office, 
Bureau of Land Management, (503) 952-6454.

    Dated: December 13, 1995.
Patrick W. Boyd,
Regulatory Management Team.
[FR Doc. 95-30741 Filed 12-20-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-84-M
```
#### ELLIOTT RADIO COMPANY v. ETHEL M. HAYNES.

(Filed 19 March, 1930.)

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Nwvn, J.,*at November Term, 1929, of Waiíe. No error.

This is an action to recover upon a contract in writing by which defendant guaranteed the payment of the account of the Radio Corporation of Virginia with the plaintiffs for merchandise thereafter to be sold and delivered.

*821Defendant contends that no credit has been extended to the Radio Corporation of Virginia by the plaintiffs since the date of said contract and that therefore plaintiffs are not entitled to recover in this action.

From judgment on the verdict that plaintiffs recover nothing of defendant by this action, plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court.

*T. D. Parish for plaintiffs.*

*J. G. Little for defendant.*

Pee CuRiAM.

There was no error in the trial of this action.. The judgment is affirmed.

No error.
#### LUCY MERCER v. KNIGHTS OF KING SOLOMON, C. P. RICH, Grand Endowment Secretary of the Knights of King Solomon.

(Filed 26 February, 1930.)

Appeal by defendants from *Granmer, J.,*at November Term, 1929, of Edgecombe. No error.

*R. T. Fountain for plaintiff.*

*J. A. Bdgerton and T. T. Thome for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff alleged that Joyner Battle died 2 July, 1927; that he had been a member of the lodge known as the “Pride of Rocky Mount,” Lodge No. 8, Knights of King Solomon, and that on 21 December, 1924, the Knights of King Solomon issued a mutual benefit certificate of insurance on the life of said Joyner Battle in the sum of $300, the amount of which was to be paid upon the death of said Joyner Battle to Lucy Mercer, beneficiary therein named.

The defendants answered denying liability. The jury found that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the sum of $325 with interest from 23 September, 1927. Judgment was rendered accordingly, and the defendants excepted and appealed.

We are of opinion that the case was tried in substantial compliance with the requirements of law and the record discloses no error which entitles the defendants to a new trial.

No error.
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

-2.00% -4.34% 1.10% 3.32% -0.90% -1.02%

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2009 Trustees Report Office of the Chief Actuary, Social Security

August 26, 2009

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA)

Proposed Provision: Progressive price indexing of PIA formula factors beginning with individuals newly 

eligible for OASDI benefits in 2016. Create new bend point at the 40th percentile of earners. Maintain 

current-law benefits for earners at the 40th percentile and below and reduce upper 2 formula factors 

(32% and 15%) such that maximum worker benefit grows by inflation rather than the growth in average 

wages.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this provision

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

20.0

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provision

Cost rates under present law

Income rates with this provision

Income rates under present law

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

 (assets as a percentage of annual expenditures)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

2009 2019 2029 2039 2049 2059 2069 2079

Year

Percent

Present law With this provision