alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-19-00438-CR

IN RE SHANE MIX

Original Proceeding

OPINION

Shane Mix, a jail inmate, seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the trial court to rule 

on the relief requested by Mix in an application for writ of habeas corpus filed on 

November 7, 2019. Mix alleges that the habeas application was read to the trial court in 

open court on November 8, 2019 and that the trial court has not ruled on the application.

We asked for a response on December 9, 2019 from the Respondent or the RealParty-in-Interest. In the request, we stated that if the application for writ of habeas corpus

had been ruled on, a copy of the ruling would suffice in place of a response. To this date, 

no response or copy of the ruling has been filed.

This is not like cases where the trial court does not know about the document 

requesting relief. In this case, it appears the habeas application was read to the trial court 
In re Mix Page 2

in open court more than 60 days ago. No reason has been given for the delay in ruling 

on the application or for a need for further consideration.

Accordingly, we conditionally grant the requested writ of mandamus. We are 

confident that the Respondent will promptly consider and rule on Mix’s application for 

writ of habeas corpus filed on November 7, 2019. The writ will issue only if the 

Respondent fails to advise this Court within thirty days of the date of this opinion that 

he has ruled on the application. 

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Neill

Pet. conditionally granted

Opinion delivered and filed January 22, 2020

Publish 

[OT06]
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 6559 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit institutions of 

higher education participating in Federal student assistance programs 

from giving preferential treatment in the admissions process to legacy 

students or donors. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 2, 2022 

Mr. BOWMAN (for himself, Ms. JACKSON LEE, Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ, Ms. 

BUSH, Mr. GARCI ́A of Illinois, Ms. PRESSLEY, and Ms. JAYAPAL) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Education and Labor 

A BILL 

To amend the Higher Education Act of 1965 to prohibit 

institutions of higher education participating in Federal 

student assistance programs from giving preferential 

treatment in the admissions process to legacy students 

or donors. 

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 College Admis5 sions for Students Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6559 IH

1 SEC. 2. BAN ON LEGACY OR DONOR PREFERENCES IN AD2 MISSIONS. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 487(a) of the Higher 

4 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1094(a)) is amended 

5 by adding at the end the following: 

6 ‘‘(30)(A) The institution will not provide any 

7 manner of preferential treatment in the admission 

8 process to applicants on the basis of their relation9 ships to— 

10 ‘‘(i) donors to the institution; or 

11 ‘‘(ii) except as provided in subparagraph 

12 (B), alumni of the institution. 

13 ‘‘(B) The Secretary may waive the limitation 

14 described in subparagraph (A)(ii) for an award year 

15 for an eligible institution described in section 371(a) 

16 if such institution demonstrates to the satisfaction of 

17 the Secretary that preferential treatment in the ad18 mission process to applicants on the basis of their 

19 relationships to alumni of the institution is in the 

20 best interest of students who have been historically 

21 underrepresented in higher education.’’. 

22 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

23 subsection (a) shall take effect on the first day of the sec24 ond award year (as defined in section 481(a) of the Higher 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 6559 IH

1 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1088(a))) that begins 

2 after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549



________________





FORM 8-K





CURRENT REPORT,

PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF

THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934





DATE OF REPORT (Date of earliest event reported):  March 13, 2008





CHYRON CORPORATION

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

|New York                                       | 1-9014                   | 11-2117385                          
|---------------------------------------------- | ------------------------ | ------------------------------------
|(State or Other Jurisdiction
of Incorporation) | (Commission File Number) | (I.R.S. Employer
Identification No.)

|5 Hub Drive                              |           
|---------------------------------------- | ----------
|Melville, New York                       | 11747     
|(Address of Principal Executive Offices) | (Zip Code)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (631) 845-2000

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions:



[ ] Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425)

[ ] Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12)

[ ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b))

[ ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c))

---

Item 2.02   Results of Operations and Financial Condition

On March 13, 2008, Chyron Corporation issued a press release announcing its results of operations for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2007. A copy of the press release, including its Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (Unaudited) for the three months and year ended December 31, 2007 and 2006, is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1.

Item 9.01   Financial Statements and Exhibits.

(c) Exhibits

99.1 Press Release of Chyron Corporation dated March 13, 2008.



SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report on Form 8-K to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

CHYRON CORPORATION

| | By:    | /s/ Jerry Kieliszak      
| | ------ | -------------------------
| | Name:  | Jerry Kieliszak          
| | Title: | Senior Vice President and
| |        | Chief Financial Officer  

|Exhibit No. | Description                         
|----------- | ------------------------------------
|            |                                     
|99.1        | Press Release, dated March 13, 2008.

Date: March 13, 2008
#### Curtis FINKS and Wilma Jeanette Finks, Appellants, v. Mary Alice O’CONNOR, a Minor, by her Next Friend, Anne O’Connor, and Anne O’Connor, Appellees.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division B.

July 23, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
July 22, 1997

Citicorp
399 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10043

        Re:    Citicorp and Capital Trusts
               Registration Statement on Form S-3

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The Corporate Tax Division of Citibank, N.A. has been requested by Citicorp to
render federal tax advice in connection with the issuance of capital securities
by certain trusts pursuant to a Prospectus, as supplemented by a Prospectus
Supplement (collectively, the Capital Securities Prospectus"), substantially in
the form filed as part of the above-referenced registration statement (the
"Registration Statement") with respect to the offering of such capital
securities and certain other securities.

I have reviewed the statements set forth in the Capital Securities Prospectus
under the heading "United States Federal Income Taxation" and hereby advise you
that such statements, insofar as they are or refer to statements of United
Stated law or legal conclusions relating thereto, are accurate and complete in
all material respects.

I hereby consent to the use and filing of this opinion as an exhibit to the
Registration Statement and to the reference to this opinion in the Capital
Securities Prospectus and any other prospectus filed in connection with the
Registration Statement. In giving such consent, I do not thereby admit that I
come within the category of persons whose consent is required under Section 7 of
the Securities Act or the rules and regulations of the Commission thereunder.

Very truly yours,

/s/ E. Noel Harwerth

E. Noel Harwerth
Chief Tax Officer
Citibank, N.A.
**Exhibit 21.1**

Listof Subsidiaries

| ICO North America, Inc.                                       |   | Delaware            |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------|
| New ICO Services Limited                                      |   | Great Britain       |
| ICO Global Limited                                            |   | Delaware            |
| ICO Management Corp.                                          |   | Delaware            |
| Double Helix Investment  Corp.                                |   | Delaware            |
| ICO Satellite Management,  LLC                                |   | Delaware            |
| ICO Global  Communications Canada Inc.                        |   | Canada              |
| ICO Global  Communications (Operations) Limited               |   | Cayman Islands      |
| ICO Satellite North  America Limited                          |   | Cayman Islands      |
| ICO Satellite Limited                                         |   | Great Britain       |
| ICO-Pak Communications  (Private) Ltd.                        |   | Pakistan            |
| ICO-Global  Telecomunikasyon Limited Sirketi                  |   | Turkey              |
| ICO Satellite Services  Limited                               |   | Great Britain       |
| ICO Services Limited                                          |   | Great Britain       |
| ICO Global  Communications Holdings (Netherlands Antilles) NV |   | Netherland Antilles |
| ICO Global  Communications Israel Ltd.                        |   | Israel              |
| ICO Satellite Services  GP                                    |   | Delaware            |
| ICO Global  Communications Holdings BV                        |   | Netherlands         |
| ICO Satellite North  America Limited                          |   | Cayman Islands      |
| SSG UK Limited                                                |   | Great Britain       |
| New ICO Satellite  Services GP                                |   | Delaware            |
| Gatecom Leasing GmbH                                          |   | Germany             |
| Gatecom Mexico SA de CV                                       |   | Mexico              |
| ICO Global  Communications Services Inc.                      |   | Delaware            |
| ICO Communications  Partners Ltd.                             |   | Cyprus              |
| Gatecom Netherlands BV                                        |   | Netherlands         |
| ICO Global  Communications (Holdings) PTE Ltd.                |   | Singapore           |
| Closed Joint Stock  Company ICO-R                             |   | Russian Federation  |
| Gatecom Brazil SA                                             |   | Brazil              |
| PT Aditama Fortanusa                                          |   | Indonesia           |
| ICO Telecommunicadcoes Ltda                                   |   | Brazil              |

 

----
#### WOOD et al. v. SINCLAIR REFINING CO. et al.

Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc.

June 8, 1954.

Miller, Pearson & Miller, Miami, for appellants.

Loftin, Anderson, Scott, McCarthy & Preston, Miami, for appellees.

THOMAS, Justice.

The appellants claimed damages 'because of the tortious action of the appellees in conspiring together and with other persons to injure the appellants in their business.

When the matter was heard on motions to dismiss the judge granted the motions “without prejudice to the plaintiff [sic] ,to proceed at law on a claim of breach of *1*contract.” Now we are asked to judge the merits of the complaint.

But we do not feel obliged to decide the point because the order does not appear to be a final judgment from which an appeal may be taken. The judge reserved to the plaintiffs the right to “proceed at law,” but, of course, they were already submitting their cause of action in a court of law. He indicated that their action grew out of a contract instead of a wrongful act.

Under the provisions of Common Law Rule 9, 30 F.S.A., the plaintiffs could have plead both causes of action and now, according to our interpretation of the order, they may proceed ex contractu, so the effect of the order was to allow an amendment though, evidently, the plaintiffs had not sought that privilege. Obviously, if this Court passes upon their contention that they were right in pleading tort and agrees with the view of the trial court, the trial court, and probably this Court, will eventually have to rule also on a complaint setting out a breach of contract. Much judicial labor is yet to be done and the decision we are asked to review is not, therefore, final. See Foley v. State, Fla., 50 So. *2272d 179; and Hoskins v. Jackson Grain Co., Fla., 59 So.2d 24.

As we construe the order in the light of what has been and what may be decided, we do not find that it has the characteristics of a final judgment so the appeal is dismissed without prejudice to the positions any of the parties litigant may take if the matter reaches this Court again, properly.

TERRELL, SEBRING, HOBSON, MATHEWS and DREW, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, C. J., dissents.
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 6648 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 6648

   To prohibit the obligation or expenditure of military or security 
assistance to Ukraine until operational control of the United States -- 
           Mexico border is achieved, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 8, 2022

Mr. Rosendale (for himself, Mr. Biggs, Mr. Good of Virginia, Mr. Gaetz, 
 Mr. Gosar, Mr. Hice of Georgia, Mrs. Miller of Illinois, Mr. Norman, 
Mr. Posey, and Mr. Weber of Texas) introduced the following bill; which 
 was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to 
   the Committee on Armed Services, for a period to be subsequently 
   determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 
 provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To prohibit the obligation or expenditure of military or security 
assistance to Ukraine until operational control of the United States -- 
           Mexico border is achieved, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Secure America's Borders First 
Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION.

    (a) In General.--None of the funds described in subsection (b) may 
be obligated or expended until the date on which--
            (1) a border wall system along the United States -- Mexico 
        border is completed; and
            (2) operational control, as such term is defined in section 
        2 of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 (8 U.S.C. 1701 note), of such 
        border is achieved.
    (b) Funds Described.--The funds described in this subsection are 
the following, with respect to programs, projects, or activities in 
Ukraine:
            (1) Amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made 
        available to the Department of Defense for any fiscal year.
            (2) Amounts authorized to be appropriated or otherwise made 
        available for security assistance or security cooperation for 
        any fiscal year.
    (c) Border Wall System.--For purposes of this Act, a border wall 
system shall include--
            (1) 30-foot high internally hardened steel-bollard physical 
        barrier;
            (2) all-weather access and patrol roads;
            (3) perimeter lighting; and
            (4) enforcement cameras, sensors, and anti-tunnel detection 
        technology.
                                 <all>
```
1014DescriptionofDirectorCompensation


Exhibit 10.14


Summary of CBS Outdoor Americas Inc. Compensation for Outside Directors 
 (Effective March 28, 2014)


Directors who are not employees of CBS Outdoor Americas Inc. (the “Company”) or CBS Corporation (the “Outside Directors”) shall receive the following, to be effective as of 12:01 a.m. on the date on which the Company’s common stock begins trading on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) (such time, the “Effective Time”):




Cash Compensation 


Each Outside Director shall be entitled to receive the following cash compensation:


		
	•
	A $60,000 annual Board retainer, payable in equal installments quarterly in advance;    




		
	•
	A $10,000 annual Committee Chair retainer for the chair of the Audit Committee, payable in equal installments quarterly in advance; and




		
	•
	A per meeting attendance fee of $1,000 to committee members for each meeting of the Audit Committee (or any other ad hoc committee appointed by the Board).




Equity Compensation


Each Outside Director shall be entitled to receive the following awards under the CBS Outdoor Americas Inc. Omnibus Stock Incentive Plan:


		
	•
	An automatic annual grant on the date of the Company’s Annual Meeting of Stockholders of Restricted Share Units (“RSUs”) with a value of $60,000 based on the closing price of the Company’s common stock on the NYSE on the date of grant, which RSUs will vest one year from the date of grant, with dividend equivalents accruing on such RSUs in amounts equal to the regular cash dividends paid on the Company’s Common Stock and such accrued dividend equivalents shall convert to shares of the Company’s Common Stock on the date of vesting; provided that the first annual grant will be awarded at the Effective Time, with the number of shares for this initial grant to be determined based on the public offering price; and




		
	•
	A prorated RSU grant if he or she joins our board of directors following the date of the annual RSU grant, but during the calendar year of the grant. 









Expenses


The board of directors will be reimbursed for expenses incurred in attending board, committee and stockholder meetings (including travel and lodging).
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51274-51275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20307]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


National Renewable Energy Laboratory, et al.; Notice of 
Consolidated Decision on Applications for Duty-Free Entry of Electron 
Microscopes

    This is a decision consolidated pursuant to Section 6(c) of the 
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Materials Importation Act of 1966 
(Pub. L. 89-651, as amended by Pub. L. 106-36; 80 Stat. 897; 15 CFR 
part 301). Related records can be viewed between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. 
in Room 2104, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th and Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.
    Docket Number: 08-022. Applicant: National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model 
Quanta 600 FEG. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended 
Use: See notice at 73 FR 44968, August 1, 2008.
    Docket Number: 08-025. Applicant: Oklahoma State University, 
Stillwater, OK 74078-3011. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model 
Quanta 600 FEG. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended 
Use: See notice at 73 FR 44968, August 1, 2008.
    Docket Number: 08-028. Applicant: National Renewable Energy 
Laboratory, Golden, CO 80401. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model 
NOVA 630 NanoSEM. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended 
Use: See notice at 73 FR 44968, August 1, 2008.
    Docket Number: 08-031. Applicant: University of Rochester Medical 
Center, Rochester, NY 14642. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model 
Hitachi H-7650. Manufacturer: Hitachi High-Technologies Corp., Japan. 
Intended Use: See notice at 73 FR 44968, August 1, 2008.
    Docket Number: 08-035. Applicant: Washington State University, 
Pullman, WA 99164-1020. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model FEI 
Quanta 200. Manufacturer: FEI Company, Czech Republic. Intended Use: 
See notice at 73 FR 44968, August 1, 2008.
    Docket Number: 08-037. Applicant: Duke University, Durham, NC 
27710. Instrument: Electron Microscope, Model JEM-1400. Manufacturer: 
JEOL, Ltd.,

[[Page 51275]]

Japan. Intended Use: See notice at 73 FR 44968, August 1, 2008.
    Comments: None received. Decision: Approved. No instrument of 
equivalent scientific value to the foreign instrument, for such 
purposes as these instruments are intended to be used, was being 
manufactured in the United States at the time the instruments were 
ordered. Reasons: Each foreign instrument is an electron microscope and 
is intended for research or scientific educational uses requiring an 
electron microscope. We know of no electron microscope, or any other 
instrument suited to these purposes, which was being manufactured in 
the United States at the time of order of each instrument.

    Dated: August 27, 2008.
Faye Robinson,
Director, Statutory Import Programs Staff, Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E8-20307 Filed 8-29-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
#### Leona Glass CHAFEE, Appellant, v. Robert S. HATCHER, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Division A.

Nov. 16, 1954.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 13, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 35.2**

** **

**WASHINGTON MUTUAL MORTGAGE SECURITIES CORP.**

** **

**OFFICER’S CERTIFICATEANNUAL STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE**

 

            I, Barbara Campbell, an authorized officer of Washington Mutual Mortgage Securities Corp. (the “AdministrativeAgent”), do hereby certify to WaMu Asset Acceptance Corp. (the “Depositor”) and Washington Mutual Bank (the “Servicer”), pursuant to the Amended and Restated Administrative Agent Agreement dated as of February 1, 2005(the “Servicing Agreement”) by and between the Servicer, and the Administrative Agent the following with respect to Washington Mutual Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates WaMu Series 2006-AR5 Trust for the 2006 fiscal year  (the“Relevant Year”):

 

1.        A review of the activities of the Servicer during the Relevant Year and of performance under the ServicingAgreement has been made under my supervision.

2.        To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under theServicing Agreement in all material respects throughout the Relevant Year, except as set forth in paragraph 3 below.

 

3.         Servicing fees in excess of the amounts provided for under the Servicing Agreement weresubtracted from the funds remitted to investors on the July 2006 distribution date, resulting in an underpayment of interest to most certificateholders.  The interest shortfall was remitted to the applicable trustee within 8 days of the distribution date and acorrected distribution report was made available to investors on August 2, 2006 and was timely filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

 

 

Dated as of March 15, 2007.

 
|  

__/s/ Barbara Campbell________________

Name:  Barbara Campbell

Title:    First Vice President |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|