alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
## EATI'OR~EYGENERAI. OF ?IrEns
AUSTIN IL*, TEXAS

HonorableW. J. Townsend CountyAttorney Angellna County Iufkin, Texas Dear Sir: Opinion No. Q-6479 Re: May the'

Tax Assessor of'

Angelina County Bell Broperty for"delinquent taxes and give a validdeed? We have received and consideredyour request for opinion dated March 15, 1945,which reads as follows:

'May the Tax-Assessor of this state.seIl property for delinquent taxes and glve'.a valid-. tax deed as can be given under any Texas tax~law? If so,what procedure is to be followedby sueti' officer in the making of said sale. If this 'can be done legally, it will be the shorterand less expensive route, and savemany dollars in the prosecution of tax suits for the collection of delinquent taxes." We wish to call your attention to Acts 1929, 4lst Legislature, page 103, Chapter 48, Section 1 (Article7328a, V.A.C.S.):

"Thatall sales of real estatemade for the collection of delinquent taxes due thereon shall be made only after the fbreclosure of tax lien securing same has been had in a court of competent jurisdiction Inaccordance-'with existing laws governing the fo;eclosure of tax liens in delinquent tax suits. The institutionahd prosecution of-tax ‘Suits ,iscontrolled bg,Acts 1937, 45th Legislature, age 1494-a, Chapter 506 (Article 7345b,V.A.C.S.,wi.thamendments
. P,.

.,... Under both Article'734513 andArticle 7330, the'only personauthorized tb execute a-'deedIn case land may be sold for default in the payment of taxes Is the sheriff.

. you are therefore advised'that the Tax Assessormay'not sell property for delinquent taxes. The procedure set out inHonorableW. J. Townsend,page 2 

## O-6479

the statutes referred to is exclusive of any summary seizure and sale. Very trulyyours ATTORNBYGENERAL OF TEXAS

ALM:db:wc By: s/ArthurL. MolleiArthur--L.

Moller Assistant

APPROWD MAR 31, 1945 s/CarlosC. Ashley FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL Approved Opinion CommitteeBy s/BWB Chairman
##### 



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADDED BY
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; and2.
    
    The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the consolidated financial condition and
results of the Company as of and for the period covered by this
Report.
 By:
    
    /s/ William J. McGurkWilliam J. McGurkPresident and Chief Executive OfficerSeptember 28, 2005
Opinion issued July 23, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-13-00464-CV

———————————

IN RE ANDRE LAMOND MORGAN, Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator Andre Lamond Morgan filed a petition for writ of mandamus1

complaining that Respondent, the Honorable Wesley R. Ward, failed to rule on 

Relator’s motion for default judgment. 

 1 The underlying case is Andre L. Morgan v. Rosario Stornello, No. 2012-69630,

from the 234th District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Honorable Wesley 

Ward, presiding.
2

To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish both that he has 

no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and that what he seeks to 

compel is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary or judicial decision. State 

ex rel. Young v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Appeals, 236 S.W.3d 207, 210 (Tex. 

Crim. App. 2007). If the relator fails to meet either of these requirements, then the 

petition for writ of mandamus should be denied. See id. It is the relator’s burden 

to properly request and show entitlement to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer,

827 S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding).

The district clerk’s records indicate that Relator’s civil suit was dismissed 

for want of prosecution on May 7, 2013. The May 7, 2013 dismissal is an

appealable final judgment. Relator has an adequate remedy at law because he 

could have challenged Respondent’s failure to grant his motion for default 

judgment on appeal. See Aguilar v. Livingston, 154 S.W.3d 832, 833 (Tex. App.—

Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, no pet.) (although denial of motion for default 

judgment is interlocutory order not subject to appeal, appellate courts may consider 

issue when denial is challenged in appeal from final judgment).

Accordingly, Relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Sharp and Massengale.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23

                   CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated
March 17, 2003 except for Note 17, as to which the date is March 31, 2003,
relating to the consolidated financial statements of Q Comm International, Inc.
and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2002, and for the periods then ended,
appearing in the company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended
December 31, 2002, in the Company's Registration Statements on Form S-8, SEC
File No. 333-38362, 333-57502 and 333-43450.


/s/ PRITCHETT, SILER & HARDY, P.C.

Salt Lake City, Utah
June 12, 2003
#### Ted BOGART et al., Petitioners, v. Joseph SOMER and Phyllis Somer, Respondents.

No. C-7603.

Supreme Court of Texas.

Oct. 26, 1988.

Robert B. Cousins, Jr. and Suzanne Bass, Bird & Keneker, Bruce E. Longenecker, Dallas, for petitioners.

Dennis N. Ryan and Retta A. Miller, Jackson & Walker, Dallas, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

At issue here is the standard of proof required to negate a presumption of gift in a constructive trust case. The trial court ruled that the proof required was by a preponderance of the evidence. The court of appeals reversed and remanded the cause to the trial court for a new trial. 749 S.W.2d 202. We denied the application for writ of error.

Allen and Gertrude Bogart purchased certain real property and placed record title in the name of their son-in-law, Joseph Somer. In April 1979, Gertrude Bogart died. Her estate beneficiaries were Phyllis (Bogart) Somer, Theodore Bogart and Lynn Bogart, her children, and Irene Warsaw, her sister. In February 1980, Allen Bogart died leaving his children, Phyllis (Bogart) Somer, Theodore Bogart, and Lynn Bogart as beneficiaries. After Gertrude and Allen Bogart’s death, Theodore Bogart, Lynn Bogart and Irene Warsaw sought title to the realty held in Joseph Somer’s name.

The trial court submitted an issue on lack of donative intent to the jury. The issue as submitted required a preponderance of the evidence to disprove intent. Based on the jury response that Allen and Gertrude Bogart lacked such intent, judgment was rendered that the beneficiaries of the Bogart estate owned the property and that Joseph Somer held it in constructive trust for them.

Somer appealed to the court of appeals which held that a presumption of gift exists when a father- and mother-in-law place property in their son-in-law’s name, and the party seeking to disprove the presumption must prove lack of donative intent by clear and convincing evidence. The court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause for a new trial. 749 S.W.2d 202.

We approve the holding of the court of appeals that the burden of proof in refuting the presumption of gift is by clear and convincing evidence. The motion for rehearing on denial of the application for writ of error is overruled.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 15, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 31724]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-12510]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Renal/Urological Small Business Activities.
    Date: July 8, 2021.
    Time: 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Santanu Banerjee, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institute of Health, 
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 2106, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-5947, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#6705060902150d02021452270a060e0b49090e0f49000811"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87e5e6e9e2f5ede2e2f4b2c7eae6eeeba9e9eeefa9e0e8f1">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel; Member Conflict: Speech, Language and Communication.
    Date: July 9, 2021.
    Time: 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Rockledge II, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Sara Louise Hargrave, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Center for Scientific Review, National Institute of Health, 
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 3170, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 443-7193, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f777e6d786d7e697a6c735f727e76733171767731787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5d353c2f3a2f3c2b382e311d303c343173333435733a322b">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 10, 2021.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-12510 Filed 6-14-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

September 28, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-40117

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ANTHONY T. BOLDING,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. L-03-CR-436-ALL

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

Before JOLLY, HIGGINBOTHAM, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Anthony T. Bolding appeals his conviction and sentence for

possession with intent to distribute over 100 kilograms of

marijuana. Bolding’s pro se motion requesting judicial notice of

Blakely v. Washington, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), is DENIED, because

there is no right to hybrid representation in a direct criminal

appeal. See United States v. Ogbonna, 184 F.3d 447, 449 & n.1

(5th Cir. 1999). 
No.04-40117

-2-

Bolding first contends that 21 U.S.C. § 841 is facially

unconstitutional in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466

(2000). As Bolding concedes, his argument is foreclosed by

circuit precedent. See United States v. Slaughter, 238 F.3d 580,

582 (5th Cir. 2000). He raises the issue only to preserve it for

Supreme Court review. 

Bolding also contends, and the record reflects, that the

district court’s oral sentence included a requirement that

Bolding complete 200 community-service hours within the first

three years of his supervised release, while the written judgment

requires Bolding to complete the hours within the first two years

of his supervised release. “When there is a conflict between a

written sentence and an oral pronouncement, the oral

pronouncement controls.” See United States v. Moreci, 283 F.3d

293, 299 (5th Cir. 2002). Therefore, we remand the case for the

district court to reform the written judgment to conform to the

oral sentence. See United States v. Martinez, 250 F.3d 941, 942

(5th Cir. 2001).

For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of

conviction and sentence. We REMAND the case to the district

court to amend its written judgment to conform to its oral

sentence.
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #16934 and #16935; Kentucky Disaster Number KY-00085]

# AGENCY:

Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 3.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the Commonwealth of Kentucky (FEMA-4595-DR), dated 04/23/2021.

*Incident:* Severe Storms, Flooding, Landslides, and Mudslides.

*Incident Period:* 02/27/2021 through 03/14/2021.

# DATES:

Issued on 06/07/2021.

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:* 06/22/2021.      ( print page 31779)    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:* 01/24/2022.

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, dated 04/23/2021, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Madison.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 59008)

Barbara Carson,

Acting Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2021-12542 Filed 6-14-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8026-03-P
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Consent of IndependentAccountants**

 

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the RegistrationStatements on Form S-8 (No. 333-46894 and No. 333-55256) of Simple Tech, Inc.of our reports dated January 31, 2003, except for Note 10, as to which the dateis February 26, 2003, relating to the consolidated financial statements andconsolidated financial statement schedule, which appear in this Form 10-K.

 

 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

 

Orange County,California

March 21, 2003

 

 

----
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**I, Randal B. Tofteland, certify that:1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of SoftBrands, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport; 4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the Registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the Registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the Registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theRegistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe Registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the Registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.   /s/ RANDAL B. TOFTELAND Randal B. Tofteland  *President and Chief Executive Officer*  May 15, 2007
Exhibit 32.1








CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002








In connection with the Quarterly Report of GULF UNITED ENERGY, INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of operations of the Company.










/S/ JOHN B. CONNALLY, III


___________________________


John B. Connally III, President and C.E.O.


(Principal Executive Officer)





Dated:  January 13, 2011














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 GULF UNITED ENERGY, INC. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of operations of the Company.







/S/ DAVID POMERANTZ


__________________________


David Pomerantz


Principal Financial Officer and


Principal Accounting Officer





Dated:  January 13, 2011
#### Valerie Kaye BROOKS v. STATE.

No. 0447-92.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Dec. 23, 1992.

Appeal from the 209th District Court, Harris County; Michael McSpadden, Judge.

On appellants’ petitions for discretionary review: petition granted and remanded to the Court of Appeals.
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

*Docket Numbers:* RP01-382-031.

*Applicants:* Northern Natural Gas Company.

*Description:* Northern Natural Gas Company submits Carlton Reimbursement Report under RP01-382.

*Filed Date:* 6/1/21.

*Accession Number:* 20210601-5295.

*Comments Due:* 5 p.m. ET 6/14/21.

*Docket Numbers:* RP21-891-000.

*Applicants:* WTG Hugoton, LP.

*Description:* § 4(d) Rate Filing: WTGH Address Change Filing (July 1, 2021) to be effective 7/1/2021.

*Filed Date:* 6/8/21.

*Accession Number:* 20210608-5052.

*Comments Due:* 5 p.m. ET 6/21/21.

*Docket Numbers:* RP21-892-000.

*Applicants:* Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC.

*Description:* Compliance filing Rate Schedule S-2 Flow Through Refund Report OFO Penalty to be effective N/A.

*Filed Date:* 6/8/21.

*Accession Number:* 20210608-5074.

*Comments Due:* 5 p.m. ET 6/21/21.

The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (*https://elibrary.ferc.gov/​idmws/​search/​fercgensearch.asp*) by querying the docket number.

Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.

eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at: *http://www.ferc.gov/​docs-filing/​efiling/​filing-req.pdf.* For other information, call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Dated: June 9, 2021.

Debbie-Anne A. Reese,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-12508 Filed 6-14-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P