alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DENY; and Opinion Filed May 15, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-00572-CV

IN RE STATE OF TEXAS, Relator

Original Proceeding from the County Court at Law No. 2

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 002-82534-2013

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Bridges, Lang-Miers, and Myers 

Opinion by Justice Lang-Miers

This petition for writ of mandamus arises from a March 12, 2014 order of the trial court

holding the comprehensive zoning ordinance of Melissa, Texas unconstitutionally vague. The 

trial court’s ruling arose following a consolidated hearing related to fifty-five citations issued 

against the operator of a convenience store in Melissa, Texas, most of which were for providing 

check cashing and money transmission services at the store, but which also included citations for 

construction without a permit and failure to appear. The citations were originally tried in 

municipal court and resulted in fines totaling $92,240.00. The operator of the convenience store 

appealed to county court and, in the course of the proceedings, the county court found the city’s 

comprehensive zoning ordinance unconstitutionally vague. The county court has not yet 

dismissed the charges against the convenience store operator.

In a criminal case, an applicant for mandamus relief must establish that the applicant has 

no adequate remedy at law to redress the harm the applicant has suffered, and must show that the 
–2–

act the applicant seeks to compel or prohibit does not involve a discretionary or judicial decision. 

Simon v. Levario, 306 S.W.3d 318, 320 (Tex. Crim. App. 2009). A writ of mandamus is a 

drastic remedy to be invoked only in extraordinary situations. State ex rel. Healey v. McMeans, 

884 S.W.2d 772, 774 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994); Perkins v. Third Court of Appeals, 738 S.W.2d 

276, 284 (Tex. Crim. App. 1987). Mandamus “is not a substitute for and cannot be used to 

perform the office of an appeal.” McMeans, 884 S.W.2d at 774; Bradley v. Miller, 458 S.W.2d 

673, 675 (Tex. Crim. App. 1970). 

The State is entitled to “appeal an order of a court in a criminal case if the order: (1) 

dismisses an indictment, information, or complaint or any portion of an indictment, information 

or complaint.” TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. ANN. art. 44.01(a) (West 2013). Here, the State will have 

a right to appeal the county court’s decision holding the comprehensive zoning ordinance 

unconstitutionally vague when the county court completes the disposition of the charges against 

real party in interest in accordance with its ruling on the constitutionality of the ordinance. 

Accordingly, the State will have an adequate remedy via appeal upon the disposition of the 

charges and mandamus is not appropriate. Accordingly, we DENY the petition for writ of 

mandamus. 

. 

140572F.P05

/Elizabeth Lang-Miers/

ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS

JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
      THIS SCHEDULE  CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL  INFORMATION  EXTRACTED FROM THE
      INTERIM  CONSOLIDATED  STATEMENT  OF  INCOME  FOR THE  NINE  MONTHS  ENDED
      SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 AND THE CONSOLIDATED  BALANCE SHEET AS OF SEPTEMBER 30,
      1997 AND IS  QUALIFIED  IN ITS  ENTIRETY BY  REFERENCE  TO SUCH  FINANCIAL
      STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000075679
<NAME>                        GCI, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         46,565
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  35,948
<ALLOWANCES>                                   909
<INVENTORY>                                    3,213
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               49,324
<PP&E>                                         218,043
<DEPRECIATION>                                 53,626
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 530,439
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          43,954
<BONDS>                                        242,395
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       205,870
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,746)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   530,439
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               167,023
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  85,814
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               68,431
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               2,167
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             12,668
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,057)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (744)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,313)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                433
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,746)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (17,460.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (17,460.00)
        


</TABLE>
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






Pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief
Executive Officer of Beazer Homes USA, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies
that the Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended September 30,
2007, accompanying this certification, fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.






Date:
      May 12, 2008
              
              /s/ Ian
      J. McCarthyIan
      J. McCarthyPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b)
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 1350 of Title 18,
United States Code, and is not being filed as part of the report or as a
separate disclosure document.
STRATASYS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Registered
Public Accounting Firm

We have issued our reports dated March 13, 2008, accompanying the
consolidated financial statements and schedule and managements assessment of
the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting included in the
Annual Report of Stratasys, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,
2007. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in the
Registration Statements of Stratasys, Inc. on Form S-3 (File No. 333-108816,
effective December 2, 2003) and on Forms S-8 (File No. 33-93362 effective
June 9, 1995, File No. 333-32782, effective March 17, 2000 and File No. 333-116210,
effective June 4, 2004).

|                             | /s/ Grant Thornton
      LLP
|---------------------------- | ----------------------------
|                            
|Minneapolis,
      Minnesota |                             
|March 13,
      2008         |                             

---
#### Q-PHARMA, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. THE ANDREW JERGENS COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 03-1184.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

March 6, 2003.

ON MOTION

LINN, Circuit Judge.

*ORDER*

The Andrew Jergens Company moves for reconsideration of this court’s January 27, 2003 order dismissing its appeal for failure to pay the fee, the filing fee now having been paid. Q-Pharma, Inc. opposes.

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The motion is granted, the mandate is recalled, the court’s January 27, 2003 order is vacated, and the appeal is reinstat*347ed. Jergens’ brief is due within 30 days of the date of filing of this order.
#### Angelo Adamo, Appellant, v. Gaetano Di Pietro, Respondent.

Motion granted, with ten dollars costs. Present — Woodward, Jenks, Hooker, Gaynor and Miller, JJ.
Exhibit 32.2

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 Protection One, Inc. on Form 10-K for the year ended
December 31, 2009 (the "Report"), which this certification accompanies, I, Darius G. Nevin, in my capacity as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Protection
One, Inc., certify that to the best of my knowledge the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Protection One, Inc.

Date: March 23, 2010

/s/DARIUS G. NEVIN Darius G. Nevin Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer,
Protection One, Inc.


The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Companies as part
of the Report or as a separate disclosure document for purposes of Section 18 or any other provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---



QuickLinks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, NO. 09-CR-20297

-vs- HON. GERALD E. ROSEN

D-4 AUSTIN GOMAN,

Defendant.

______________________________/

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter coming before the Court on the government's motion, the Court

grants the government leave to dismiss the Indictment and First Superseding Indictment

against Austin Goman, and those charges are hereby dismissed. The Court also orders

that the unexecuted arrest warrants for Austin Goman be canceled.

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

GERALD E. ROSEN

Date: May 24, 2012 Chief United States District Judge

5:09-cr-20297-GER-VMM Doc # 61 Filed 05/24/12 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 345
#### Glen Maddox v. State.

No. 25341.

June 6, 1951.

*152Hon. Lee Nowlin, Judge Presiding.

*Chas. H. Dean,*Plainview, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

MORRISON, Judge.

The offense is possession of whiskey for the purpose of sale; the punishment, a fine of $150.00.

Appellant complains that the evidence is insufficient to sustain the verdict.

Officers armed with a search warrant searched the second floor apartment at 817 Beach Street in city of Plainview. There they found 5 pints of whiskey in a chest of drawers. The appellant was not present at the time of the search. The apartment in question was rented by appellant’s mother and occupied by her, appellant, appellant’s uncle, and two of appellant’s sisters. There was no showing that the whiskey was found in a room under the appellant’s control.

In Peters v. State, 142 Tex. Cr. R. 146, 151 S.W. 2d 592, we said:

> “* * * where the evidence shows an opportunity or equal opportunity of another or others to possess the liquors charged to have been possessed by the accused, the State’s case, to be sufficient to convict upon circumstantial evidence must disprove such outstanding hypothesis. Such rule is complied with, however, when the facts show that such other person or persons exercised no control over, or possession of, the liquors, and had no opportunity to do so.”

We feel that such rule has not been complied with in this case.

*153Because the evidence is not sufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
Exhibit 32

Certification of CEO and CFO 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 Health Net, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), Jay
M. Gellert, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Joseph C. Capezza, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each 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 their respective knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Jay M. Gellert     
|Jay M. Gellert         
|Chief Executive Officer

February 24, 2010



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Joseph C. Capezza  
|Joseph C. Capezza      
|Chief Financial Officer

February 24, 2010
#### Stephen Farrelly v. Mary A. Skelly.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs.
Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with this Amendment No.1 to the Annual Report of Banco Totta &
Acores, S.A. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended 2002 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Miguel de Campos Pereira de Braganca, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 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 Company.


                                     By: /s/ Miguel de Braganca
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                     Name:  Miguel de Campos Pereira de Braganca
                                     Title: Chief Financial Officer
                                     Date:  July 21, 2003

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

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 62 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 62

  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified 
  estate and gift tax credit to an amount equivalent to a $1,200,000 
                               exemption.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 4, 1995

Mr. Livingston introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the unified 
  estate and gift tax credit to an amount equivalent to a $1,200,000 
                               exemption.

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

SECTION 1. INCREASE IN UNIFIED ESTATE AND GIFT TAX CREDIT.

    (a) General Rule.--Sections 2010(a), 2102(c)(3)(A), and 2505(a)(1) 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 are each amended by striking 
``$192,800'' and inserting ``$427,800''.
    (b) Filing Requirement.--Paragraph (1) of section 6018(a) of such 
Code is amended by striking ``$600,000'' and inserting ``$1,200,000''.
    (c) Technical Amendment.--Paragraph (2) of section 2001(c) of such 
Code is amended by striking ``$21,040,000'' and inserting ``the amount 
at which the effective tax rate under this section is 55 percent''.
    (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall 
apply to the estates of decedents dying, and gifts made, after the date 
of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-3005

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* Western District of Missouri.

Joseph A. May, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: March 6, 1997

 Filed: March 21, 1997

___________

Before LOKEN, HANSEN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

After Joseph A. May pleaded guilty to criminal tax charges in

violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203, the district court ordered him to

pay costs of prosecution, including the fees of two mental-health

professionals who had examined May to determine his competency to

stand trial. May appealed, arguing that the assessed costs were

unreasonable and he was financially unable to pay. We remanded

because the government initially paid the doctors, casting doubt on

their status and the thoroughness of the court approval required

under Federal Rule of Evidence 706. We directed the district court

to review the experts' invoices with careful scrutiny and to order

May to pay costs of prosecution, including whatever court-appointed

expert fees the court approved and taking into account May's
-2-

financial ability to pay. See United States v. May, 67 F.3d 706

(8th Cir. 1995). 
 The HONORABLE D. BROOK BARTLETT, Chief Judge of the United 1

States District for the Western District of Missouri.

-3-

On remand, the district court conducted a lengthy hearing,

1

following which it concluded that the doctors were in fact courtappointed experts, that their fees were reasonable with one rather

minor exception, and that May had the financial ability to pay

costs of prosecution. On appeal, May argues that neither doctor

was entitled to compensation as a court-appointed expert because

one never was formally appointed, both functioned as prosecution

witnesses, and the government usurped the court's power by

prematurely paying them. After careful review of the record, we

conclude that the district court properly construed our prior

opinion, thoroughly explored the issues that prompted us to remand,

and did not clearly err in its findings of fact nor abuse its

discretion in awarding costs of prosecution in the amount of

$15,663.50. Accordingly, we affirm.

A true copy.

Attest:

 CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                                  ------------



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


In connection with the Annual Report of Paradigm Medical Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
John Y. Yoon, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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




                                           /s/ John Y. Yoon
                                           ----------------
Date: May 12, 2005                         John Y. Yoon
                                           President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Julius I. Bacot v. Levi A. Fessenden.

Motion denied, with ten dollars qost§,
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 575 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 575

  To amend chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
annuities for Members of Congress be computed under the same formula as 
    applies to Federal employees generally, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 19, 1995

Mr. Goodlatte introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend chapter 84 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
annuities for Members of Congress be computed under the same formula as 
    applies to Federal employees generally, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. COMPUTATION OF ANNUITY.

    Section 8415 of title 5, United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a) by inserting ``or Member'' after 
        ``employee''; and
            (2) by repealing subsection (b).

SEC. 2. CONTRIBUTIONS.

    (a) Deductions From Pay.--Section 8422(a)(2) of title 5, United 
States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A) by inserting ``or Member'' after 
        ``employee)''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B) by striking ``Member,''.
    (b) Government Contributions.--Section 8423(a)(1) of title 5, 
United States Code, is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A)(i) by striking ``subparagraph 
        (B)),'' and inserting ``subparagraph (B)) and Members,'';
            (2) in subparagraph (A)(ii) by inserting ``and Members'' 
        before ``(under'';
            (3) in subparagraph (B)(i) by striking ``Members,''; and
            (4) in subparagraph (B)(ii) by striking ``and Members''.

SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE; SAVINGS PROVISION.

    (a) Effective Date.--This Act shall take effect as of the first day 
of the first applicable pay period beginning after the end of the 12-
month period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
    (b) Savings Provision.--Any annuity or portion of an annuity 
computed based on service performed before the effective date of this 
Act shall be computed in accordance with applicable provisions of law, 
as in effect immediately before the effective date of this Act.
                                 <all>
```