alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

Iltuteb 41)tate5 Court of awe&

for tbe feberat Circuit

DOUGLAS S. MARSHALL,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE,

Respondent.

2010-3128

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection

Board in case no. NY0353100042-I-1.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Douglas S. Marshall moves for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT Is ORDERED THAT:

The motion granted.
MARSHALL v. USPS 2

FOR THE COURT

JUL 2 7 2010 /s/ Jan Horbaly 

Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

cc: Douglas S. Marshall

Elizabeth A. Speck, Esq.

s20

FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

JUL 2 7 2010

JAN HORBALY

CLERK
SAFETY-KLEEN

                         SENIOR EXECUTIVE SEVERANCE PLAN

PURPOSE
-------
To provide meaningful  security to Senior Executives to remain with Safety-Kleen
during the turnaround and re-structuring process. This Plan has been approved by
the Company's Board of Directors and confirmed by the Bankruptcy Court.

ELIGIBILITY
-----------
Selected  Senior  Executives  of  the  Company  whose   participation  has  been
specifically  approved  by the  Chairman  & CEO  and  the  President  & COO.  No
individual,  group or  position  type is  guaranteed  participation,  and  every
individual who is selected to participate  will receive written  confirmation of
their  selection.  Participation  does  not  guarantee  an  award,  nor  does it
guarantee continued employment with the Company.

SEVERANCE AMOUNT
----------------
Two years base  salary and  benefits  for  termination  by the  Company  without
"Cause" or by the Senior Executive for Good Reason.  (defined in Section 4.3 and
4.4 of the  Change of  Control  Agreement  which is being  awarded to the Senior
Executive simultaneous with participation in the Severance Plan.)

SEVERANCE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
------------------------------
Upon  termination,  30% (7.2 months) of the entire severance amount will be paid
to the Senior Executive.  If the Senior Executive  remains  unemployed after 7.2
months, Senior Executive will return to normal payroll until such time as Senior
Executive is employed subject to a maximum  severance and benefit payment of the
remaining 16.8 months. If Senior Executive obtains  employment 10% of any unpaid
severance will be paid in a lump sum and benefits will cease.

OUTPLACEMENT
------------
Outplacement benefits with a cap of $25,000.

PLAN INTERPRETATION
-------------------
In  the  event  of any  questions,  disagreements  or  disputes  concerning  the
application  of the Plan's  Administrative  Rules,  the  Severance  Amount,  the
Severance Terms and Conditions,  Eligibility or any other matter related to this
Plan, the Senior Vice  President,  Administration,  Safety-Kleen  will interpret
and/or resolve the issue,  and his decision will be final and binding.  All Plan
Participants must sign a copy of this Plan document acknowledging that they will
be  bound  by  the   Administrative   Rules  and  policies  as  a  condition  to
participation in the Plan.

SETTLEMENT & RELEASE
--------------------
The Company's  Settlement  and Release  Agreement  must be executed prior to any
severance payments.

CONFIDENTIALITY
---------------
As there  are a  limited  number  of these  awards  available,  you are asked to
maintain the confidentiality of this agreement.

I  acknowledge  receipt  of this  severance  plan  and  agree to all  terms  and
conditions contained herein.

---------------------------------------                   ----------------
Name - print                                                     DATE

---------------------------------------
Name - signature
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-15-00080-CR

IN RE DONNY JOE CURRY

Original Mandamus Proceeding

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

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
2

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Donny Joe Curry, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus in 

which he asks this Court to direct the Honorable J. Andrew Bench and other officials/employees 

of Hunt County and the City of Commerce to unseal certain “[f]inancial [i]nstruments,” to use the 

proceeds to discharge his outstanding liabilities, and to take various other actions. 

In his petition, Curry does not state that he has filed any motion or other pleading in the 

trial court asking for such relief. He also does not allege that he has requested a hearing on any 

motion or pleading he may have filed. 

To be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must show (1) that he has no adequate remedy 

at law and (2) that the action he seeks to compel is ministerial, not one involving a discretionary 

or judicial decision. 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). The relator is obligated to provide 

this Court with a record sufficient to establish his right to mandamus relief. Walker v. Packer, 827 

S.W.2d 833, 837 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding); In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 187 S.W.3d 197, 

198–99 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2006, orig. proceeding); see TEX. R. APP. P. 52.3. Before 

mandamus may issue, the relator must show that the trial court had a legal duty to perform a 

ministerial act, was asked to do so, and failed or refused to act. In re Villarreal, 96 S.W.3d 708, 

710 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding); see also In re Blakeney, 254 S.W.3d 659, 662 

(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, orig. proceeding) (“Showing that a motion was filed with the court 

clerk does not constitute proof that the motion was brought to the trial court’s attention or presented 

to the trial court with a request for a ruling.”). Curry has provided this Court with neither a copy 
3

of a motion or other pleading filed in the trial court nor any evidence that such motion or pleading

was brought to the trial court’s attention and that rulings were requested. Therefore, even assuming 

that the trial court had jurisdiction to consider his motion, Curry has failed to demonstrate that he 

is entitled to mandamus relief. 

We deny Curry’s petition for a writ of mandamus.

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: May 21, 2015

Date Decided: May 22, 2015

Do Not Publish
|   | EXHIBIT 32.1 |   |
|--------|--------------|--------|

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

| In connection with the Annual Report of ALL Fuels & Energy Company (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for theperiod ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), theundersigned, Chief Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company,certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that, based on his knowledge and belief: |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and |
|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date: April 15, 2011. | ALL FUELS & ENERGY COMPANY |   |
|-----------------------|--------------------------------|--------|

| By: | /s/ DEAN E. SUKOWATEY |   |
|-----|-----------------------|--------|

|   | Dean E. Sukowatey, President and Chief Executive Officer,Acting Chief Financial Officer, Principal Financial Officer andPrincipal Accounting Officer |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to ALL Fuels & Energy Companyand will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 32.1
 
 STATEMENT REQUIRED BY 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 on Form 10-Q of BMX Development Corp. for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael J. Bongiovanni, our President and Chief Executive Officer, certify that:
 
 *   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
 
 *   information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, our consolidated financial condition and results of operations.
 
 
 /s/ Michael J. Bongiovanni
 Michael J. Bongiovanni
 President, Chief Executive Officer
 
 
 November 9, 2010
 
 This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by us for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss Civil Trial and Case (Doc. 89),

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Civil Trial and Case (Doc. 89) is 

granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the May 11, 2021 trial is vacated. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any pending hearings are vacated.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall terminate this action. 

Dated this 19th day of April, 2021.

Honorable Steven P. Logan

United States District Judge

Jesse Wilson, 

 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Phoenix Police Department, et al., 

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-17-04198-PHX-SPL

ORDER

Case 2:17-cv-04198-SPL Document 90 Filed 04/20/21 Page 1 of 1
#### Richard J. KOELLER, Petitioner-Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, STATE of MISSOURI, Respondent-Appellant.

No. 56314.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 24, 1989.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Nov. 28, 1989.

Application to Transfer Denied Feb. 13, 1990.

*653William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jatha B. Sadowski, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent-appellant.

Ben N. Messina, St. Louis, for petitioner-respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner filed an ex parte application for limited driving privileges pursuant to § 302.309.3, RSMo 1986.1 The circuit court approved the application; Director appeals.

The disposition of this case is governed by *Manner v. Director of Revenue,*762 S.W.2d 881 (Mo.App.1989). “Because Director was not a party in the court below, he has no right to appeal the court’s order, and we are without jurisdiction.” *Id.*at 882.

In *Manner,*we quoted the following language from *Robinson v. Director of Revenue,*762 S.W.2d 872, 874 (Mo.App.1989): “[I]t would seem that Director should also be a party to actions in which the driver is seeking hardship driving privileges. It is axiomatic that there should be some representation by the State in a proceeding related to the granting of a hardship license to ensure statutory compliance.” We then noted, “However, § 302.309.3 provides for an ex parte proceeding, and does not provide for notice to the director. We are constrained under this section to dismiss the appeal, and we note that if the procedures governing hardship driving privileges are to be changed, it is a matter to be determined by the legislature.”2

Appeal dismissed.

1

. Although Director was named in the caption of the application, there is no indication in the record that Director was served with a copy of the application, that Director filed an answer, or that Director entered an appearance. In any event, proceedings under § 302.309.3 are ex parte.

2

. Director has referred us to a recent Southern District case, Higgins v. Director of Revenue, No. 16296 (Mo.App. Oct. 16, 1989), which he contends supports his position on the merits of this appeal. We note that in *Higgins,*the Director filed a motion to intervene and the trial court granted the motion. No such motion appears in the record presented to us in this case.
EXHIBIT
32
  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 Annual Report of Crown Equity Holdings Inc. on Form 10-K for
the period from ended December 31, 2008 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 the best of 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 operation of the Company.
  /s/
      Kenneth BosketKenneth
      Bosket
                CEO
                Dated:
      March 10, 2009
 
 This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.


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 Annual Report of Crown Equity Holdings Inc. on Form 10-K for
the period from ended December 31, 2008 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 the best of 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 operation of the Company.
  /s/
      Montse ZamanMontse
      Zaman
                CFO
                Dated:
      March 10, 2009
 
 This
certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
EXHIBIT 32.7

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF

UCFH II FINANCE, INC.

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In
connection with the quarterly report of UCFH II Finance, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending April 1, 2007 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John R.
Sprouls certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated: May 11, 2007



By:

/s/ JOHN R. SPROULSJohn R. Sprouls President (Principal Executive Officer)




36
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5931 

To require a briefing from a senior official of the Department of Defense 

on actions by the People’s Republic of China in Africa that pose a 

threat to United States national security. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

OCTOBER 11, 2023 

Mr. ROSE introduced the following bill 

OCTOBER 25, 2023 

Referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To require a briefing from a senior official of the Department 

of Defense on actions by the People’s Republic of China 

in Africa that pose a threat to United States national 

security. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Countering Chinese 

5 Threats to U.S. National Security in Africa Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5931 IH

1 SEC. 2. BRIEFING ON ACTIONS BY THE PEOPLE’S REPUBLIC 

2 OF CHINA IN AFRICA THAT POSE A THREAT 

3 TO UNITED STATES NATIONAL SECURITY. 

4 Not later than 180 days after the date of the enact5 ment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, acting through 

6 the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Af7 fairs or another appropriate senior official of the Depart8 ment of Defense, shall brief members of Congress on the 

9 actions by the People’s Republic of China in Africa that 

10 pose a threat to United States national security and the 

11 plan of the Department to counter such threats. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
#### Kathy Stringer JORDAN and Jerry Jordan, Petitioners, v. Susan B. JORDAN and Ron Jordan, Respondents.

No. 95-0166.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 8, 1995.

*472Curtis W. Fenley, Jr., Lufkin, Michael W. Minton, Dallas, for petitioners.

D. Joe Albright, Lisa H. Pennington, Houston, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This case involves the jurisdiction of the court of appeals to review the granting of a bill of review. Because the bill of review in this ease was interlocutory, the court of appeals did not have jurisdiction. Pursuant to Tex.RApp.P. 170, a majority of the Court, without hearing oral argument, grants the application for writ of error, reverses the decision of the court of appeals and dismisses the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

Susan and Ron Jordan sued Kathy and Jerry Jordan in 1990, seeking damages arising from a boating accident in 1989. Suits were filed in both state and federal court. Kathy and Jerry filed an answer in federal court but not in state court. In 1991, the trial court rendered default judgment against Kathy and Jeny. Later that year, Kathy and Jerry initiated a bill of review proceeding, asking the trial court to vacate the prior judgment and render judgment against Susan and Ron. The trial court vacated the prior judgment and ordered a trial on the merits. The court of appeals then reversed the trial court.

A bill of review which sets aside a prior judgment but does not dispose of the case on the merits is interlocutory and not appealable. *Tesoro Petroleum v. Smith,*796 S.W.2d 705 (Tex.1990); *Warren v. Walter,*414 S.W.2d 423 (Tex.1967). The trial court in this case has ordered a trial on the merits, indicating that all issues are not resolved. Consequently the court of appeals lacked jurisdiction.
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 593 

AN ACT 

To rename the Department of Veterans Affairs communitybased outpatient clinic in Hinesville, Georgia, as the 

‘‘John Gibson, Dan James, William Sapp, and Frankie 

Smiley VA Clinic’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 593 EH

1 SECTION 1. NAME OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

2 COMMUNITY-BASED OUTPATIENT CLINIC, 

3 HINESVILLE, GEORGIA. 

4 The Department of Veterans Affairs community5 based outpatient clinic in Hinesville, Georgia, shall after 

6 the date of the enactment of this Act be known and des7 ignated as the ‘‘John Gibson, Dan James, William Sapp, 

8 and Frankie Smiley VA Clinic’’. Any reference to such 

9 clinic in any law, regulation, map, document, record, or 

10 other paper of the United States shall be considered to 

11 be a reference to the John Gibson, Dan James, William 

12 Sapp, and Frankie Smiley VA Clinic. 

Passed the House of Representatives November 13, 

2023. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 593 

AN ACT 

To rename the Department of Veterans Affairs 

liam Sapp, and Frankie Smiley VA Clinic’’. Georgia, as the ‘‘John Gibson, Dan James, Wilcommunity-based outpatient clinic in Hinesville,
**Exhibit 32**

**CERTIFICATIONS 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 report of Ridgewood Energy O Fund, LLC (the “Fund”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007 as furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

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

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

| Dated:     May   11, 2007 | RIDGEWOOD   ENERGY O FUND, LLC |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------|
|                                               |                           |   |
|                                               | By:                            | /s/ ROBERT   E. SWANSON |
|                                               |                           |  |
|                                               | Name:                          | Robert E.   Swanson |
|                                               | Title:                         | President   and Chief Executive Officer |
|                                               |                           | (Principal   Executive Officer) |
|                                               |                           |   |
| Dated:     May   11, 2007 |                           |   |
|                                               | By:                            | /s/ KATHLEEN   P. MCSHERRY |
|                                               |                           |  |
|                                               | Name:                          | Kathleen P.   McSherry |
|                                               | Title:                         | Senior Vice   President and Chief Financial Officer |
|                                               |                           | (Principal   Financial and Accounting Officer) |

A signed original of this written statement or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement has been provided to Ridgewood Energy O Fund, LLC and will be retained by Ridgewood Energy O Fund, LLC and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

24