alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

_________________________

No. 06-12-00123-CR

______________________________

IN RE: RALPHAEL SCOTT

Original Mandamus Proceeding

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Morriss
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Ralphael Scott has filed a petition for writ of mandamus with this Court. Scott seeks an 

order compelling the trial court to rule on motions Scott claims to have filed. He states the trial 

court has failed to rule on his motion for speedy trial and his motion or motions regarding the 

Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act.1

The standard for mandamus relief articulated by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals 

requires the relator to establish that (1) there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged 

harm, and (2) only a ministerial act, not a discretionary or judicial decision, is being sought. 

State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). Due to the nature of this remedy, it is Scott’s burden 

to properly request and show entitlement to the mandamus relief. Barnes v. State, 832 S.W.2d 

424, 426 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1992, orig. proceeding) (per curiam) (“Even a pro se 

applicant for a writ of mandamus must show himself entitled to the extraordinary relief he 

seeks.”). 

Scott has failed in his obligation to provide this Court with a sufficient record 

establishing his right to mandamus relief. He has provided no copies of the motions he claims to 

have filed in the trial court. It is true a trial court has a ministerial duty to consider and rule on a 

properly filed and pending motion within a reasonable time. See In re Shaw, 175 S.W.3d 901, 

904 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2005, orig. proceeding). However, without copies of the purported 

 

1

See TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 51.14 (West 2006).
3

pleadings, we can determine neither the merits of Scott’s requested relief nor whether the trial 

court has had adequate time to rule. 

We deny Scott’s requested relief.

Josh R. Morriss, III

Chief Justice

Date Submitted: July 25, 2012

Date Decided: July 26, 2012

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 32.1



Section 1350 Certifications

---



I, John R. Plachetka, Pharm.D., Chief Executive Officer, and I, Matthew E.
Czajkowski, Chief Financial Officer, of POZEN Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certify that, to my knowledge:



(1) The Companys periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30,2003 (the Form 10-Q) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(2) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



*            
*             *



|CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER  |  |                             |  | CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER     
|------------------------ |  | --------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|                         |  |                            
|/s/    JOHN R. PLACHETKA |  |                             |  | /s/    MATTHEW E. CZAJKOWSKI
|                         |  |                             | 
|                         |  | John R. Plachetka, Pharm.D. |  |                             
|                         |  |                             |  |                             
|Date:                    |  | November 6, 2003            |  |                             



24
#### FARMERS NATIONAL BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. E. D. TURNER and His Wife, BERNICE E. TURNER.

(Filed 27 January, 1932.)

(Por digest see *Bmk v. Turner, ante,*162.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Clement, J.,*at April Special Term, 1931, of Foesyth.

Affirmed.

This action was heard by the judge of the Superior Court of Forsyth County on the appeal of the defendant, Bernice E. Turner, from the judgment of the judge of the Forsyth County Court, affirming the order of the clerk of said court, denying the motion of the defendant that the judgment by default final rendered against the defendant in this action be set aside and vacated, on the ground that her neglect to file an answer to the complaint within the time prescribed by statute was excusable. C. S., 600.

The clerk of the Forsyth County Court found from all the evidence that the defendant, Bernice E. Turner, has a meritorious defense to the action. This finding was approved by the judge of the Forsyth County Court and also by the judge of the Superior Court of Forsyth County. Defendant’s assignments of error based on her exceptions to the conclusion of law by the clerk which was approved by the judge of the Forsyth County Court, that the neglect of defendant to file an answer to the complaint was not excusable, were sustained by the judge of the Superior Court of Forsyth County.

From judgment reversing the judgment of the judge of the Forsyth County Court, and remanding the action to said court, with direction that the judgment by default final be set aside and vacated, and that defendant be allowed to file an answer to the complaint, in said court, plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court.

*DuBose & Weaver for plaintiff.*

*Peyton B. Abbott and Hastings & Booe for defendant.*

CoNNOK, J.

The question of law presented by this appeal is identical with that presented by the appeal in *Bank v. Turner, ante,*162. In accordance with the decision in that case, the judgment herein is

Affirmed.
Ex-99.2 a)

[Liberty Lending logo and letterhead]



               MANAGEMENT ASSERTION REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH THE
                       UNIFORM SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM
                FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS MINIMUM SERVICING STANDARDS

As of and for the year ended December 31, 2002, Liberty Lending Services, Inc.,
(Liberty Lending) complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing
standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's UNIFORM
SINGLE ATTESTATION PROGRAM FOR MORTGAGE BANKERS. As of and for this same period,
Liberty Lending had in effect a fidelity bond policy in the amount of $6,000,000
and an errors and omissions policy in the amount of $6,000,000.

                                           /s/ Edward S. Chatfield
                                           ------------------------------
                                           Edward S. Chatfield
                                           Vice President, Loan Servicing


                                           February 28, 2003
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BIOSHIELD TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR THE 6 MONTHS ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                       3,525,550
<SECURITIES>                                    70,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  181,847
<ALLOWANCES>                                    15,000
<INVENTORY>                                    131,072
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,949,549
<PP&E>                                         148,838
<DEPRECIATION>                                  27,708
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,170,126
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          309,861
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,480,678
<OTHER-SE>                                  (2,620,413)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,170,126
<SALES>                                        232,697
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               232,697
<CGS>                                           96,072
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  413,994
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               701,241
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 3,095
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,652
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (958,009)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (958,009)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (958,009)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.18)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Diluted loss per common share is not disclosed because the effect of the
exchange or exercise of common stock equivalents would be antidilutive
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0001059749
<NAME> UNITED VENTURE CAPITAL FUND INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          16,437
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                16,437
<PP&E>                                           3,929
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  20,366
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,038
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,328
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    20,366
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,552
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               (2,552)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,552)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,552)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### JOHN KEAIS HOYT, Administrator, v. A. S. COPELAND et al.

(Filed 2 July, 1930.)

Appeal by defendants from *Small, J.,*at April Term, 1930, of BEAUFORT.

Civil action for the construction of a will as it relates to a share of testator’s personal property, and for direction as to the distribution of said share.

From the decree entered conformably to the prayer of the petition the defendants appeal, assigning error.

*McLean, & Bodman for plaintiff.*

*Dawson & J ones for defendants.*

Pee CukiaM.

No error is apparent on the record, and, as the case involves no new question of law, it seems of little avail to set out the will or the facts inducing its interpretation. That the decision is authorized, would seem to be supported by what was said in *Trust Co. v. Lentz,*196 N. C., 398, 145 S. E., 776.

Affirmed.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

October 18, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2005

REHAU Automotive LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that this particular product is available 

only from China.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1998             NOV-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1997             DEC-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998             FEB-28-1999
<CASH>                                           2,971                   2,834
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,191                   3,279
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (222)                   (215)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,016                   1,227
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                11,814                   9,221
<PP&E>                                         106,137                 161,519
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,867                  21,745
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 109,496                 159,091
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,728                  17,646
<BONDS>                                         97,679                 153,458
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (7,539)                (12,013)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   109,496                 159,091
<SALES>                                              0                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,467                  17,421
<CGS>                                                0                       0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   16,460                  15,270
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,544                   2,572
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    463                   (421)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       166                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                297                   (421)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       297                   (421)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     3.91                  (5.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0                       0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 249 (Thursday, December 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 67126]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-31447]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP96-110-000]


Northern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

December 21, 1995.
    Take notice that on December 18, 1995, Northern Natural Gas Company 
(Northern), 1111 South 103rd Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124-1000, filed 
in Docket No. CP96-110-000 a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205 and 
157.212 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 
CFR 157.205, 157.212) for authorization to construct and operate 
delivery point facilities in Lancaster County, Nebraska, to accommodate 
deliveries of natural gas to UtiliCorp United, Inc. (UCU), under 
Northern's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-401-000 
pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set 
forth in the request that is on file with the Commission and open to 
public inspection.
    Northern proposes to construct and operate the delivery point and 
400 feet of 2-inch branchline for UCU to make deliveries to the Wanek 
Town Border Station #1 to accommodate the growth of residential gas 
requirements in the area. It is stated that the facilities would be 
used for the delivery of up to 63 MMBtu equivalent of natural gas on a 
peak day and 13,000 MMBtu equivalent on an annual basis. It is 
explained that these volumes will be the result of a realignment of 
existing firm entitlement contracted under Northern's throughput 
service agreements with UCU. Northern estimates the construction cost 
for the facilities at $47,500. It is asserted that the deliveries 
through the proposed facilities would not increase UCU's existing firm 
entitlement from Northern. It is further asserted that Northern's 
tariff does not prohibit additional delivery points and that Northern 
has sufficient capacity to accomplish the deliveries without detriment 
or disadvantage to Northern's other customers.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Sec. 157.205 of the 
Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the 
request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, the 
proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day 
after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and 
not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-31447 Filed 12-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 23

                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Form 10-KSB of WhatsForFree
Technologies, Inc. (formerly Ranes International Holding, Inc.) (A Development
Stage Enterprise) of our report dated March 17, 2000, relating to the balance
sheets of WhatsForFree Technologies, Inc. (formerly Ranes International Holding,
Inc.) (A Development Stage Enterprise) as of December 31, 1999 and the related
statements of operations, stockholders' equity, and cash flows for each of the
three years in the period then ended, and for the cumulative period from
February 15, 1990 (inception) through December 31, 1999.

We also consent to the addition of the financial statement schedule, listed it
the accompanying Index to Financial Statements and Financial Statement Schedule,
to the financial statements covered by our report dated March 17, 2000.




/s/ J. Paul Kenote, CPA
-----------------------
J. Paul Kenote, CPA, P.C.
Portland, Oregon
March 17, 2000
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2041

Reelcraft Industries:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20. 

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

      CERTIFICATIONS OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of LMI Aerospace,
Inc., a Missouri corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify that, to the
best of our knowledge:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2005
(the "Form 10-Q") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in this Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Date: August 12, 2005                      /s/ Ronald S. Saks
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Ronald S. Saks
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: August 12, 2005                      /s/ Lawrence E. Dickinson
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Lawrence E. Dickinson
                                           Secretary and Chief Financial Officer

This certification is being furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to and solely for purposes of
18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 and shall not be, except as to the extent required by such Act,
deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to LMI Aerospace, Inc. and will be retained by LMI Aerospace, Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.