alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Deny Writ and Opinion Filed October 3, 2013 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01228-CV 

IN RE STEPHEN A. BERGENHOLTZ, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 366th Judicial District Court 

Collin County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. 366-51444-2008 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Bridges, O'Neill, and Lewis 

Opinion by Justice Bridges 

Relator contends the trial court erred in denying a motion to transfer this case to Denton 

County. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. 

Based on the record before us, we conclude relator has not shown he is entitled to the relief 

requested. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a); Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839-40 (Tex. 1992) 

(orig. proceeding). Accordingly, we DENY relator=s petition for writ of mandamus and 

emergency motion for temporary relief to stay underlying proceedings. 

131228F.P05 

/David L. Bridges/ 

DAVID L. BRIDGES 

JUSTICE
I

104TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4235

To amend the Fair Housing Act to prevent certain abuses.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 27, 1996

Mr. FOX of Pennsylvania introduced the following bill; which was referred to

the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend the Fair Housing Act to prevent certain abuses.

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 ‘‘Fair Housing Amend5 ments Act of 1996’’.

6 SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON LITIGATION.

7 Section 813 of the Fair Housing Act is amended by

8 adding at the end the following:

9 ‘‘(f) LIMITATION ON LITIGATION.—No person may

10 commence a civil action under this section with respect

11 to a discriminatory housing practice relating to a particu12 lar dwelling who cannot demonstrate, upon motion by the
2

•HR 4235 IH

1 defendant, that such person has the ability and intent to

2 inhabit the dwelling if the dwelling is offered to that per3 son.’’.

4 SEC. 3. REQUIRING INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION FOR

5 DISCRIMINATORY HOUSING PRACTICE.

6 Section 802(f) of the Fair Housing Act is amended

7 by inserting ‘‘, committed with the intent to discriminate,’’

8 after ‘‘act’’.

9 SEC. 4. EXEMPTION RELATING TO PUBLISHING OF INFOR10 MATION.

11 Section 807 of the Fair Housing Act is amended by

12 adding at the end the following:

13 ‘‘(c) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to permit

14 the imposition of any liability for a discriminatory housing

15 practice on any publisher of information, such as a news16 paper, that reasonably relies on the advertising copy pre17 sented for publication.’’.

18 SEC. 5. LITIGATION COSTS.

19 Section 812(c)(2) of the Fair Housing Act is amend20 ed by striking ‘‘the court, in its discretion, may allow the

21 prevailing party’’ and inserting ‘‘the court shall allow the

22 prevailing party (whether plaintiff or defendant)’’.

Æ
#### HOWE SCALE CO. v. POUPART.

No. 14158.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Dec. 19, 1932.

Joseph A. Casse, of New Orleans, for appellant.

E. Carter Johnson, Jr., of New Orleans, for appellee.' •

JANVIER, J.

This matter comes before us on appeal from a judgment rendered by default.

We are not favored by oral argument or by brief on behalf of appellant, but we are told by counsel for appellee that appellant’s contention is that the judgment below was rendered on insufficient evidence.

We find that the certificate as to the contents of the transcript of appeal does not contain a statement to the effect that in the said transcript is to be found all of the evidence adduced below. In the absence of such certificate, we must assume that there was sufficient evidence, because there is a prima facie presumption of correctness which attaches to all judgments. If the certificate as to the * contents of a transcript 'contains a statement to the effect that all evidence offered below is contained in the said transcript, and if it is then found that there is not therein sufficient evidence, then the presumption of correctness is destroyed by the actual fact that the evidence does not support the' said judgment.

Here we have no means of knowing whether there was other evidence, and, therefore, we must presume that if the evidence that is before us is not sufficient that there was additional proof below but which did not find its way into the transcript.

In a matter involving this identical question, Streat v. Unity Industrial Life Ins. Co., 140 So. 709, 711, we quoted from an earlier decision of the Supreme Court as follows:

> “ ‘The clerk does not certify that the record contains all the evidence adduced in the case, and the judgment purports to have been rendered on due proof being made of plaintiff’s demand. Evidence may have been, and we are bound to believe, was offered to satisfy the court below; but the plaintiff was under no obligation to have it taken down in writing, for the use of his adversary, in case he should wish to appeal.’ Eowler v. Smith & Husband, 1 Rob. 448.” Citing numerous other authorities.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
EX-10.69



 Exhibit 10.69 

April 3, 2014 

Mr. Brad Sell 
 c/o Kids Line/CoCaLo 

Dear Brad: 
 I would like to congratulate you on
your recent promotion to President, Kids Line/CoCaLo (Soft Home). As approved by the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Kid Brands, Inc. (the “Company”), and as discussed, this letter serves to confirm the following: 

Base Salary: $275,000 per year, effective as of January 29, 2014 

IC Bonus: 30% target (0-60% range); based on attainment of Soft Home EBITDA target or other factors determined by Compensation Committee of the Board;
to be eligible for bonus, you must be actively employed in good standing at the time of payment (typically March for prior fiscal year). 
 Bonus
Guarantee: For 2014 only, the bonus referenced in IC bonus above will be guaranteed at a minimum bonus of $35,000 (paid March 2015). 
 Equity
Award: On March 21, 2014, you were awarded 50,000 stock appreciation rights (SARs) under the Company’s 2013 Equity Incentive Plan at an exercise price of $1.00 per share, with a five-year vest and a ten-year life. You will also be
considered for future grants of equity at a level commensurate with your position, in the discretion of the Compensation Committee. 
 Severance: In
the event that your employment with the Company or its affiliates is terminated without cause, you shall be entitled to receive severance for a period of six months, less any applicable withholdings, at your then base salary. Such severance shall be
paid out over the severance period in accordance with the Company’s normal pay schedule (not in a lump sum) commencing on or about the next payroll period following the termination date and receipt from you of an executed general release in the
Company’s form. “Cause” shall have the same meaning as set forth in the Company’s 2013 Equity Incentive Plan. The severance shall cease if you secure gainful employment during the severance period. 







 Other Benefits/Term: You will continue to be eligible to participate in the Company’s benefit plans
and/or replacement plans (to the extent that they continue to be offered to eligible employees) and to the vacation you were previously entitled. Your employment is “at will”. 

Thank you for your ongoing contributions to the success of our Company. 

 

	
	Very truly yours,
	
	/s/ Raphael Benaroya
	 Raphael Benaroya

	 Chairman, President and CEO

	 Kid Brands, Inc.




  
 2
Exhibit 4.2

 


Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm


We have issued our
report dated February 7, 2020, with respect to the financial statement of Advisors Disciplined Trust 1990 contained in Amendment
No. 1 to the Registration Statement on Form S-6 (File No. 333-234726) and related Prospectus. We consent to the use of the aforementioned
report in the Registration Statement and Prospectus, and to the use of our name as it appears under the caption “Experts”.




	 	/s/ GRANT THORNTON LLP






 


Chicago, Illinois


February 7, 2020
#### Ray Morgan et al v. State.

No. 25725.

March 19, 1952.

Hon. Charles D. Berry, Judge Presiding.

*118
      *Crunk & Morgan,*Greenville, for appellants.

*Ralph R. Rash,*District Attorney, and *O. S. Moore,*County-Attorney, Greenville, and *George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment against sureties in a bond forfeiture case.

The statement of the facts adduced upon the hearing does not reflect that the state introduced in evidence the judgment nisi. It is insisted that the absence of such proof renders the evidence insufficient to support the judgment.

The judgment nisi is a necessary and essential element of the state’s cause of action in a bond forfeiture case, for without a judgment nisi there can be no final judgment. Watkins, et al. v. State, 16 Tex. App. 646; Gass, et al. v. State, 110 Tex.. Cr. R. 238, 8 S. W. 2d 123; Texas Jurisprudence, Vol. 5, p. 969, Sec. 96. In Nelson, et al v. State, 44 Tex. Cr. R. 595, 73 S. W. 398, and authorities there cited, the failure to introduce the judgment nisi in evidence was fatal to a valid judgment.

The state appears to recognize the seriousness of the situation confronting it by the failure to introduce in evidence the judgment nisi and insists that inasmuch as the trial was to the: court without the intervention of a jury, the trial court could', and would take judicial knowledge of its own judgments, thereby rendering unnecessary the introduction in evidence of the judgment nisi.

It is unnecessary to here determine the question presented, for we note a variance between the bond and the judgment nisi", of such nature and seriousness as that appellants would have been entitled to urge such variance if the judgment nisi had', been introduced in evidence. They would be deprived of such-right in the absence of an effort by the state to introduce the-judgment nisi in evidence.

The variance referred to lies in the following facts:

The bond described the offense with which the principal:, stood charged as a “felony.” No further description of the? nature of that offense was made or attempted.

*119The judgment nisi describes the offense with which the principal stood charged as “failure to stop and render aid.” It is not recited that such offense was a felony.

“Failure to stop and render aid” is not an offense eo nomine and cannot be said, as a matter of law, to be a felony.

Because of the failure to introduce in evidence the judgment nisi, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

Opinion approved by the court.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 457 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 457

To authorize the Secretary of the Army to provide technical assistance 
 to local interests for planning the establishment of a regional water 
                    authority in northeastern Ohio.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 9, 1995

Mr. Traficant introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To authorize the Secretary of the Army to provide technical assistance 
 to local interests for planning the establishment of a regional water 
                    authority in northeastern Ohio.

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

SECTION 1. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR PLANNING OF REGIONAL WATER 
              AUTHORITY IN NORTHEASTERN OHIO.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Army is authorized to provide 
technical assistance to local interests for planning the establishment 
of a regional water authority in northeastern Ohio to address the water 
problems of the region.
    (b) Federal Share.--The Federal share of the cost of planning 
activities described in subsection (a) shall not exceed 75 percent.
                                 <all>
```
#### LEE TRANSIT CORPORATION, as Owner of the Tug THE GRACE ANN LEE, Libelant-Appellee, v. Steamtug THE DAUNTLESS NO. 8, Hartford Transportation Company, Claimant-Appellant.*

No. 208.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 21, 1938.

Lynch, Hagen & Atkins, of New York City (Charles W. Hagen and Henry C. Eidenbach, both of New York City, of counsel), for claimant.

Foley & Martin, of New York City (James A. Martin and Christopher E. Heckman, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before MANTON, AUGUSTUS N. HAND, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

*

Writ of certiorari denied 58 S.Ct. 1041, 82 L.Ed. —.

PER CURIAM.

Decree affirmed.
2:09-cv-13695-PDB-MAR Doc # 29 Filed 09/16/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 560
2:09-cv-13695-PDB-MAR Doc # 29 Filed 09/16/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 561
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. 23-0745

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

RONALD LEWIS AMELINE,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including June 28, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 20 2024

05/20/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0745
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-09-00715-CV

In re Michael Perkins

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

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

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

J. Woodfin Jones, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Jones, Justices Waldrop and Henson

Filed: December 31, 2009
Exhibit 32.1 - President/CFO Certification (Section 906)

                        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 amended Quarterly Report of Political Calls, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report").
I, David Gallagher, President/CFO of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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

/s/ David Gallagher
----------------------------
    David Gallagher
    President/CFO


Date  September 24, 2007
      ------------------


<PAGE>
1

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit A. Plaintiff’s Complaint filed on September 14, 2009

Exhibit B. Order of Dismissal of TS Holdings, Inc. dated November 17, 2010

Exhibit C. Answer to Count I 

Exhibit D. Affidavit of Barry Schwab

Exhibit E. Affidavit of Frederick Fehlauer

Exhibit F. Patent No. 7,418,474B2

Exhibit G. Drawings and/or notes of Defendant, Barry Schwab, as it pertains to 

Patent Nos. 7,418,474B2.

Exhibit H. Plaintiff’s deposition testimony 

Exhibit I. Incomplete Assignment forms dated October 22, 2008

Exhibit J. January 6, 2009 stock certificate #003 of TS Holdings, Inc.

Exhibit K. Combined Declaration and Power of Attorney

Exhibit L. Consulting Agreement between TruckScan, LLC and TeleScan 

Technologies, LLC

Exhibit M. Dissolution of TS Holdings, Inc. (I)

Exhibit N. Incorporation of T. S. Holdings, LLC

Exhibit O. Corporate records of I.D. Resources, Inc.

Exhibit P. Marketing brochure of I.D. Resources, Inc.

Exhibit Q. Agency agreement between Frederick Fehlauer and TS Holdings, Inc. (II)

4:09-cv-13632-MAG-MKM Doc # 49-1 Filed 03/14/11 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 373
#### R. Gordon McNeil, Appellant, v. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Suffolk and Others, Respondents.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion, Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Rich and Miller, JJ., concurred.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ CRYSTAL G. GOLDEN, Plaintiff - Appellant,

v. COMMISSIONER, SSA, Defendant - Appellee. No. 20-5026 (D.C. No. 4:18-CV-00542-JFJ) (N.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

________________ _________________ Before MATHESON , BACHARACH , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ This matter is before the court on the parties’ Joint Motion for Vacatur and
Remand to the District Court . Upon careful considerati on, the joint motion is GRANTED. The district court’s judgme nt is VACATED, and this matter is REMANDED for further procee dings consistent with the Supreme Court’s intervening
decision in Carr v. Saul , 141 S. Ct. 1352 (2021).
The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court

Per Curiam

* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, exce pt under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral es toppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### May 25, 2021 Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court
### NUMBER 13 - 16 - 00 219 - C V 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

IN R E FEDERAL CORPORATION

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.



## ORDER
Before Justices Benavides, Perkes, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

Relator , Federal Corporation , f iled a petition for writ of mandamus in the above

cause on April 14, 2016

. Through this original pro ceeding, relator seeks to compel the respondent trial court judge to vacate his order of March 14, 2016 compelling relator to respond to discovery. T hrough its motion for emergency relief, relator see ks a stay of the order compelling discovery

. The Court, having examined and fully considered the motion for emergency relief , is of th e opinion that the motion should be granted

. The motion for emergency relief is GRANTED and the trial court’s order of March 14, 2016 compelling discovery is ordered2

STAYED pending further order of this Court, or until the case is finally decided. See T E X

. R. A PP

. P . 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”). The Court requests that the real party in interest, Jose Gonzalez, or any others whose interest would be directly a ffected by the relief sought, file a response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before the expiration of ten days from the date of this order. See id. R. 52.2, 52.4, 52.8. IT IS SO ORDERED. PER CURIAM
D elivered and filed the 1 5 th day of April , 201 6

.
#### Mary Kritorian v. Tatios J. Kritorian.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs.
<PAGE>
 
EXHIBIT 11

                        CAPITOL COMMUNITIES CORPORATION

                       Computation of Earnings Per Share
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
 
 
                                            Fiscal Year Ended
                                              September 30,

 
                                                 1996                1995
<S>                                         <C>                 <C> 
Shares Outstanding Beginning                   7,000,000          2,227,004 
 Of Period                                                                  
                                                                            
Shares Issued During Period                                       4,772,996 
    July 1, 1995                                                            
                                             -----------         ----------
Weighted average number of                     7,000,000          3,416,984 
 shares outstanding                                                         
                                                                            
Shares deemed outstanding from assumed                 -                  - 
exercise of stock options                                                   
                                             -----------         ----------
Total                                          7,000,000          3,416,984 
                                                                            
Earnings (loss) applicable to                $(1,109,053)        $ (885,918)
 common shares                                                              
                                                                            
Earnings (loss) per share of                 $    (0.158)        $   (0.259) 
  common stock
</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 45757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18011]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EF08-5161-000]


Western Area Power Administration; Notice of Filing

July 31, 2008.
    Take notice that on July 16, 2008, the Deputy Secretary of the 
Department of Energy approved and confirmed Rate Order No. WAPA-136 on 
an interim basis, effective August 1, 2008, and Rate Schedule SNF-7, 
for a non-firm power formula rate from the Washoe Project, Stampede 
Division and submitted for conformation and approval on a final basis, 
under the authority vested in the Commission by Delegation Order No. 
00-037.00, Rate Order No. WAPA-136 and Rate Schedule SNF-7, effective 
August 31, 2008, and ending July 31, 2013.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ecaaa9beafa38280858289bf999c9c839e98ac8a899e8fc28b839a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7f393a2d3c30111316111a2c0a0f0f100d0b3f191a0d1c51181009">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on August 15, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-18011 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>