alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Fernando IRIZARRY, Appellant, v. Joe MORON, Appellee.

No. 13-91-562-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Corpus Christi.

March 4, 1993.

*719Fernando Irizarry, pro se.

Jay T. Kimbrough, Beeville, for appellee.

Before SEERDEN, DORSEY and HINOJOSA, JR., JJ.

OPINION

SEERDEN, Justice.

This is an appeal from an order requiring appellant to turn over 25% of his monthly income to the Court Clerk and to file a report of all income and expenses to appel-lee’s attorney each month, as well as to submit to monthly questioning by the attorney regarding his income and expenses. Appellant complains that he was denied a fair hearing and that there was no evidence upon which the court could base its order. We reverse and remand to the trial court.

Appellee obtained a judgment for $23,735 plus attorney fees on May 3, 1990, against appellant. On January 4, 1991, appellee filed an application for turnover relief pursuant to section 31.002 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code. The statement of facts shows that a hearing on the application was held on March 21, 1991. No evidence was received at the hearing. Appellee’s attorney advised the court that appellant had been notified of the hearing and requested that it be re-set because he was in prison and wanted to be present at the hearing.

When describing the relief requested, ap-pellee's attorney stated, at the hearing, that the application was “an attempt to locate and obtain assets ... which we think are out there.” After the court was satisfied that appellant had been notified of the proceedings and was not entitled to a delay, he instructed counsel for appellee to proceed. Counsel replied, “We would simply urge that relief be granted that’s requested in our application_” The request was granted by the court.

Section 31..002 of the Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code provides, in pertinent part:

> (a) A judgment creditor is entitled to .aid from a court of appropriate jurisdiction ... to reach property to obtain satisfaction on the judgment if the judgment debtor owns property, including present or future rights to property, that:

> (1) cannot readily be attached or levied on by ordinary legal process; and

> (2) is not exempt from attachment, execution, or seizure for the satisfaction of liabilities.

Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. § 31.002 (Vernon 1986).

By his second point of error, appellant complains that there is no evidence to support the judgment of the court. Appellee has elected not to file a brief. There is no evidence of any income or property either owned or anticipated to be owned by appellant, whether exempt from process or not. Consequently, it was error for the court to enter the order in this case. Appellant’s second point of error is sustained.

Because of our ruling on point two, it is not necessary that we rule on appellant’s first point.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

September 9, 2010 

s0830 

Order 

 

September 9, 2010 

141207 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141207 

 COA: 289019 

Kent CC: 08-004777-FC 

DARIUS E. DIXON, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 27, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10050]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-245, 50-336 AND 50-423]


Millstone Nuclear Power Station; Establishment of Temporary Local 
Public Document Room

    Notice is hereby given that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 
has designated the Waterford Public Library, Waterford, Connecticut, as 
a temporary local public document room (LPDR) for Northeast Nuclear 
Energy Company's Millstone Nuclear Power Station. The NRC's official 
full service LPDR, located at the Three Rivers Community Technical 
College, Thames Valley Campus, Norwich, Connecticut, is still open and 
operational.
    Members of the public may now inspect and copy Millstone related 
documents dated April 1, 1996, forward at the Waterford Public Library, 
49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford, Connecticut 06385. The library is open 
on the following schedule: Monday through Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 
p.m.; Friday 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.; and Saturday 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 
p.m.
    For further information, interested parties in the Waterford area 
may contact the LPDR directly through Mr. Vincent Juliano, Library 
Director, telephone number (860) 444-5805. Parties outside the service 
area of the LPDR may address their requests for records to the NRC's 
Public Document Room, Washington, DC 20555, telephone number (202) 634-
3273.
    Questions concerning the NRC's local public document room program 
or the availability of documents should be addressed to Ms. Jona 
Souder, LPDR Program Manager, Freedom of Information/Local Public 
Document Room Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and 
Publications Services, Office of Administration, U. S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, telephone number (301) 
415-7170 or toll-free 1-800-638-8081.
    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of April, 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Carlton Kammerer,
Director, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, 
Office of Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-10050 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 501 Engrossed in House (EH)]

H. Res. 501

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                          June 4, 2009.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 626) to provide that 4 of the 12 weeks of parental leave made 
available to a Federal employee shall be paid leave, and for other purposes. The 
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against 
consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 
of rule XXI. General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed 
one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member 
of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. After general debate the 
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
shall be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the bill 
are waived. Notwithstanding clause 11 of rule XVIII, no amendment to the bill 
shall be in order except those printed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified 
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for 
division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. All 
points of order against such amendments are waived except those arising under 
clause 9 or 10 of rule XXI. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with such 
amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question shall be considered 
as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without 
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
Exhibit C 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/19 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF ARl,Z.ONA 

···wens t=argo Bani<, N:A. 

vs 

Wyo Tech Investment Group, LLC, et at 

State of Arizona } 

County of Maricopa } ss.: 

Plaintiff 

Defendant 

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 

The undersigned, being duly sworn, deposes and says; 

Deponent is not a party herein, is over 18 years of age and resides in the state of Arizona, 

That on 02/04/2019 at 7:12 PM at 2552 East Los Alamos Street, Gilbert, AZ 85295 

CIVIL ACTION NO,: 2:17-

CV -04140-DWL 

deponent served a(n) Subpoena to Produce Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit Inspection of Premises in a 

Civil Action, Appendix A, Exhibits A-C 

on Richard W. Davis witness therein named, by delivering thereat a true copy of each to "John Doe" (would not give his first and last 

name), a person of suitable age and discretion. Said premises is witness's dwelling place/ usual place of abode within the state. Recipient, 

was not cooperative. Deponent asked him, "Are you Charles J. Davis or Richard W. Davis?" He replied, "Who are you?" Deponent said, 

"I aman officer of the Superior Court, and I have some legal papers for Charles Davis cir Richard Davis from Wells Fargo Bank." He said, 

"Give me the papers." Deponent said, "Are you Charles or Richard?" He said again, "Give me the papers." Deponent served him the 

documents for both Charles J. Davis and Richard W. Davis. Then he followed deponent to the street and started picking on him. He was 

still talking when deponent got into his car. 

~crlMlbn .• of Pern,w•Served: 

Gender: Male 

Skin:Whlte 

Hair: Dark Hair 

Age: 45 - 50 Yrs. 

Height: 5' a• 

Weight:160 Lbs. 

Sworn to before me this 

'3]{;)Z1J ; __ _ --- --·GAIL 

-=-

A. 

-=- DAMMANN ---- NCJTARY PUBLIC AliilONA 

MARICOPA (,IJIJNTY 

• • COMMtSSIOl\i 11 ~49:153 

NOTARY PUBLIC 

MY COMMISSION t:XPIRES 

AUGUST 24 2022 

Serving By Irving, Inc.cf 233 Broadway, Suite 2201 I New York, NY 10279 

New York City Dept. of Consumer Affairs Lice11Se No. 07611 60 

WilliamD.L 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 160-3 Filed 06/19/19 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.9



                          ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND AGREEMENT



         This Acknowledgment and Agreement dated as of February 28, 2003, is
executed by Hughes Electronics Corporation ("Hughes").

         WHEREAS, DIRECTV Enterprises LLC, formerly DIRECTV Enterprises, Inc.,
("DIRECTV") is a shareholder of Crown Media Holdings, Inc. ("Company"), and is a
party to that certain Second Amended and Restated Stockholders Agreement dated
as of August 30, 2001, by and among DIRECTV, Hallmark Entertainment Holdings,
Inc. (as transferee from Hallmark Entertainment, Inc.), Liberty Media
Corporation, Liberty Crown, Inc., VISN Management Corp., and JP Morgan Partners
(BHCA), L.P. (the "Stockholders Agreement"); and

         WHEREAS, DIRECTV has transferred to its parent company, Hughes, all of
DIRECTV's shares of Class A Common Stock of the Company; and

         WHEREAS, such transfer is permitted pursuant to Section 3.4 of the
Stockholders Agreement.

         NOW, THEREFORE, Hughes hereby acknowledges and agrees as follows:

         Hughes shall hereby become a signatory to the Stockholders Agreement
and shall receive the same rights set forth therein and be bound by the same
obligations set forth therein as DIRECTV, except as provided in Section 3.4 and
Section 3.5 of the Stockholders Agreement.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Hughes has caused this Acknowledgement and
Agreement to be executed as of the date set forth above.

                         HUGHES ELECTRONICS CORPORATION


                         By:      /s/  MIKE GAINES
                            --------------------------------
                         Name:   Mike Gaines
                               -----------------------------
                         Title:   VP & CFO
                               -----------------------------
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**  I, Oliver T. Carr, III, certify that: 1) I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2006of Columbia Equity Trust, 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) [Omitted in reliance on SEC Release No. 33-8238; 34-47986, Section III.E.];  c) 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  d) 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 equivalentfunctions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date: November 14, 2006         /s/ Oliver T. Carr, III           Oliver T. Carr, III      President and Chief Executive Officer
Certification


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003


     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-QSB for the quarter
ended June 30, 2005 (the  "Report") of Parke  Bancorp,  Inc. (the  "Company") as
filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission,  we, Vito S.  Pantilione,
President  and Chief  Executive  Officer,  and Ernest D.  Huggard,  Senior  Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that:

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

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


/s/Vito S. Pantilione                     /s/Ernest D. Huggard
-------------------------------------     --------------------------------------
Vito S. Pantilione                        Ernest D. Huggard
President and Chief Executive Officer     Senior Vice President and Chief
(Principal Executive Officer)               Financial Officer
                                          (Principal Financial and Accounting
                                            Officer)


August 15, 2005
NO. 07-04-0434-CV

NO. 07-04-0435-CV

NO. 07-04-0436-CV

NO. 07-04-0437-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

SEPTEMBER 8, 2004

______________________________

IN RE ASHLEY GUTIERREZ BY AND THROUGH

HER NEXT FRIEND MICHELLE CORDOVA, RELATOR

IN RE JOSEPH ALARCON GONZALEZ, RELATOR

_________________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

AND PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

By these original proceedings, Relators Ashley Gutierrez, by and through her next

friend Michelle Cordova, and Joseph Alarcon Gonzalez, natural parents of Ashley

Gutierrez, seek a writ of mandamus denying “the standing of “ Jeffrey Donald Gurney and

Alicia Munoz Gurney to pursue “their second cause of action” relating to cause number

54,925-B, District Court, Randall County, Texas. They also request that we issue a writ of
2

prohibition that the Honorable John Board, Judge of the 181st District Court, and the

Honorable James Anderson, Judge of the County Court at Law of Randall County, not

proceed with hearings in cause numbers 51,715-B and 54,925-B until a ruling on the

petitions for writ of mandamus.

A writ of mandamus will only issue to correct a clear abuse of discretion or violation

of a duty imposed by law when there is no adequate remedy at law by appeal. Walker v,

Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 837-38 (Tex. 1992). Moreover, an appeal, not an original

proceeding, is the appropriate method to remedy a trial court’s failure to give preclusive

effect to a final judgment and thus appellate courts have no authority to issue writs of

prohibition to protect unappealed judgments. See Holloway v. Fifth Court of Appeals, 767

S.W.2d 680, 683 (Tex. 1989). Accordingly, the petitions for writ of mandamus and writ of

prohibition are denied.

Per Curiam
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Wells Fargo Bank NA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Wyo Tech Investment Group LLC, et al., 

Defendants.

No. CV-17-04140-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

 Defendants CWT Canada II Limited Partnership, Resource Recovery Corporation, 

and Jean Noelting (collectively, the “CWT Parties”) have filed a motion seeking an order 

to show cause. (Doc. 159.) Specifically, the CWT Parties ask the Court to order seven 

nonparties—(1) Danzik Applied Sciences, LLC, (2) Charles J. Davis, (3) Richard W. 

Davis, (4) Ashley Mosharrafa, (5) Tamir Mosharrafa, (6) Ali M. Mosharrafa, and (7) 

Kristin Joiner Mosharrafa—to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for 

their failure to respond to the subpoenas served on them. 

Based on the Motion and the Court’s record, and good cause appearing, 

IT IS ORDERED that: 

(1) The CWT parties’ motion for an order to show cause (Doc. 159) is granted; 

(2) The Court will hold a Show-Cause Hearing on June 27, 2019, at 11:00 a.m.

in Courtroom 601 to address why the relief requested in the Motion should not be granted; 

(3) Nonparties Danzik Applied Sciences, LLC, Charles J. Davis, Richard W. 

Davis, Ashley Mosharrafa, Tamir Mosharrafa, Ali M. Mosharrafa, and Kristin Joiner 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 161 Filed 06/20/19 Page 1 of 2
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Mosharrafa shall file any response to the Motion, which response may not exceed 10 pages 

in length, no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 25, 2019; 

(4) The CWT Parties may file a reply in support of the Motion, which reply may 

not exceed 5 pages in length, no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 26, 2019; and 

(5) Service of a copy of this Order, together with the papers upon which it was 

granted, upon nonparties Danzik Applied Sciences, LLC, Charles J. Davis, Richard W. 

Davis, Ashley Mosharrafa, Tamir Mosharrafa, Ali M. Mosharrafa, and Kristin Joiner 

Mosharrafa by overnight courier on or before June 21, 2019, will be deemed good and 

sufficient service. 

 Dated this 20th day of June, 2019. 

Case 2:17-cv-04140-DWL Document 161 Filed 06/20/19 Page 2 of 2
#### John A. HUSKEY, Petitioner/Respondent, v. Betty A. HUSKEY, Respondent/Appellant.

No. 68541.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

April 23, 1996.

Michael C. Margherio, Amelung, Wulff & Willenbrock, P.C., St. Louis, for appellant.

Robert M. Wohler, O’Fallon, for respondent.

Before CRANE, C.J., AHRENS, J., and BLACKMAR, Senior Judge.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s judgment in a dissolution ease. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. *Murphy v. Carrón,*536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). An opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
#### Howard C. DAILEY, Appellant, v. DEAN MACHINERY COMPANY, Respondent.

No. WD 48443.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

June 7, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 2, 1994.

Phillip S. Smith, Kansas City, for appellant.

Melodie A. Powell, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appellant-Employee appeals the decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying him compensation for a disease which he claims arose out of his employment with the Respondent-Employer, a diesel engine repair shop. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission concluded that the Appellant’s disease was not causally related to his employment with the Respondent.

The decision is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).