alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed November

10 , 201 1

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 1 1

- 00 9 5 5

- C R

____________ IN RE LEONARDO M. LOZANO , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 228 th District Court Harris, County, Texas Trial Court No. 1277258



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

On November 2 , 2011, relator Leonardo M. Lozano filed a petition for writ of
mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this court to compel the Honorable Marc Carter, presiding judge
of the 228th District Co urt in Harris County, to let him have his day in court on 12/05/11 or release him from custody.2

To be entitled to mandamus relief, a relator must show that he has no adequate remedy at law to redress his alleged harm, and what he seeks to compel is a min isterial act, not 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). Consideration of a request or motion that is properly filed and before the
court is a ministerial act. State ex rel. Curry v. Gray , 726 S.W.2d 125, 128 (Tex. Crim. App.1987) (orig. proceedin g). A relator must establish the trial court (1) had a legal duty to rule on the motion; (2) was asked to rule on the motion; and (3) failed to do so. In re
Keeter , 134 S.W.3d 250, 252 (Tex. App.

— Waco 2003, orig. proceeding). A relator must
show that th e trial court received, was aware of, and asked to rule on the motion. In re
Villarreal , 96 S.W.3d 708, 710 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo 2003, orig. proceeding).
In his petition for writ of mandamus, relator alleged he has been incarcerated for more than a year without a trial and his right to a speedy trial has been violated

. According to r elator , he has appointed counsel and trial has been set for December 5, 2011.
Relator attached no record to his petition for writ of mandamus evidencing a pending motion befo re the court on which the trial court has failed to rule. Further, to the degree relator seeks release from custody, relator is seeking pretrial habeas corpus relief over which this court does not have jurisdiction. See Ater v. Eighth Court of Appeals , 8 02 S.W.2d 241, 243 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991) (orig. proceeding).
Absent a showing the trial court is aware of and been asked to rule on relator’s request, relator has not established entitlement to the extraordinary relief of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Brown, Boyce, and McCally.
Do Not Publish

— T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b).
Exhibit A 

8:23-cv-00238-BCB-MDN Doc # 1-1 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 1 of 13 - Page ID # 15
8:23-cv-00238-BCB-MDN Doc # 1-1 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 2 of 13 - Page ID # 16
8:23-cv-00238-BCB-MDN Doc # 1-1 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 3 of 13 - Page ID # 17
8:23-cv-00238-BCB-MDN Doc # 1-1 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 4 of 13 - Page ID # 18
8:23-cv-00238-BCB-MDN Doc # 1-1 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 5 of 13 - Page ID # 19
8:23-cv-00238-BCB-MDN Doc # 1-1 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 6 of 13 - Page ID # 20
8:23-cv-00238-BCB-MDN Doc # 1-1 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 7 of 13 - Page ID # 21
8:23-cv-00238-BCB-MDN Doc # 1-1 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 8 of 13 - Page ID # 22
8:23-cv-00238-BCB-MDN Doc # 1-1 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 9 of 13 - Page ID # 23
8:23-cv-00238-BCB-MDN Doc # 1-1 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 10 of 13 - Page ID # 24
8:23-cv-00238-BCB-MDN Doc # 1-1 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 11 of 13 - Page ID # 25
8:23-cv-00238-BCB-MDN Doc # 1-1 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 12 of 13 - Page ID # 26
8:23-cv-00238-BCB-MDN Doc # 1-1 Filed: 06/02/23 Page 13 of 13 - Page ID # 27
<PAGE>


                                                                    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

     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned officers of Rand Capital
SBIC, L.P. (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:

     The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2003 (the
Form10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirement of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in
the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operations of the Company.





Dated: August 6, 2003


                                                  /s/ ALLEN F. GRUM
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       Allen F. Grum, President of Rand Capital
                                                     Corporation
                                       (equivalent of chief executive officer of
                                               Rand Capital SBIC, L.P.)

Dated: August 6, 2003


                                               /s/ DANIEL P. PENBERTHY
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                        Daniel P. Penberthy, Treasurer of Rand
                                                Capital Corporation
                                       (equivalent of chief financial officer of
                                             Rand Capital SBIC, L.P.)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. 06-cr-108-01-JD

Edwin Dorr

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

40) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3131(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: February 16, 2007

cc: Philip H. Utter, Esq.

Helen W. Fitzgibbon, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:06-cr-00108-JD Document 41 Filed 02/16/07 Page 1 of 1
|Structure Data for U.S. Banking Offices of Foreign Entities

Structure and Share | 
About




September 1999


By Country
  By Type
  ASCIIHome | 
Banking Information and RegulationAccessibility | 
Contact us
Last update: June 30, 2008
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

 v. Case No. 07-cr-135-01-SM

David Burns

O R D E R

Defendant's assented-to motion to continue the trial (document no. 8) is granted.

Trial has been rescheduled for the November 2007 trial period. Defendant shall file a

Waiver of Speedy Trial Rights not later than July 26, 2007. On the filing of such waiver,

his continuance shall be effective.

The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh

the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation taking into account the

Case 1:07-cr-00135-SM Document 9 Filed 07/23/07 Page 1 of 2
2

exercise of due diligence under the circumstances.

Final Pretrial Conference: October 29, 2006 at 3:30 PM

Jury Selection: November 6, 2007 at 9:30 AM

SO ORDERED.

July 23, 2007 _________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

Chief Judge

cc: Arnold Huftalen, Esq. 

 Jeffrey Levin, Esq. 

 U. S. Probation

 U. S. Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00135-SM Document 9 Filed 07/23/07 Page 2 of 2
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-1202
In Re: KRIS PLETSCHKE, d/b/a Raw Health,

Petitioner.
On Petition for Writ of Prohibition. (CA-03-214) Submitted: April 29, 2004 Decided: May 5, 2004 Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kris Pletschke, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Kris Pletschke petitions for a writ of prohibition. He seeks an order preventing further legal actions against him in a district court proceeding filed by the Federal Trade Commission. A writ of mandamus or prohibition is available only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. SeeIn re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn. , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus and prohibition are drastic remedies and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. See Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). Mandamus and prohibition may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See In re United Steelwor kers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). Because he does not have a clear right to the relief he seeks, and because he may appeal any final adverse judgment in the district court proceeding, the relief sought by Pletschke is not available by way of a writ of prohibition. Accordingly, we deny the petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 31.2

Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Certifications
--------------

I, Eric Blachno, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Eagle Broadband, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not
misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
     disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
     ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
     consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
     entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
     prepared;

     b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
     procedures and presented in this report our conclusions abut the
     effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
     the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's recent
     fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
     materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial
     reporting; and

5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);

      a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
     operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
     likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
     summarize, and report financial information; and

      b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
     employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control
     over financial reporting.

Date July 11, 2005


/s/ Eric Blachno
Eric Blachno
Chief Financial Officer

                                       27
#### Linda Moore, Respondent, v Challar A. Edison, Appellant.

[811 NYS2d 724]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated March 23, 2005, which denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the complaint is dismissed.

The defendant made a prima facie showing that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) by submitting copies of the plaintiffs deposition testimony and the affirmed medical report of the defendant’s own examining physician *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955 [1992]; *Meely v 4 G's Truck Renting Co., Inc.,*16 AD3d 26 [2005]; *Kearse v New York City Tr. Auth.,*16 AD3d 45 [2005]). In opposition, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact. The plaintiff submitted the affirmation of her own treating physician who last treated *673the plaintiff almost two years prior to the defendant’s motion. While her treating physician stated in his affirmation that he conducted a physical examination of the plaintiff, no date was given as to when this occurred. As such, the results of the examination have no probative value in the absence of a more recent examination *(see Mohamed v Dhanasar,*273 AD2d 451 [2000]; *Evans v Mohammad,*243 AD2d 604 [1997]). The affirmation of the plaintiffs other treating physician also lacked any probative value since that physician was not a physician authorized by law to practice in the State of New York *(see*CPLR 2106; *Palo v Latt,*270 AD2d 323 [2000]). In the absence of admissible objective evidence of injury, the plaintiffs self-serving affidavit was insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact *(see Rodney v Solntseu,*302 AD2d 442 [2003]; *Paulino v Xiaoyu Dai,*279 AD2d 619 [2001]; *Fisher v Williams,*289 AD2d 288 [2001]).

Accordingly, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Cozier, J.P., Luciano, Fisher and Covello, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>
                                                                  Exhibit 32(a)



                                    TXU CORP.
                       Certificate Pursuant to Section 906
                         of Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002
                              CERTIFICATION OF CEO




      The  undersigned, Erle Nye, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
of TXU Corp. (the  "Company"),  DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:

  1.  The Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30,
      2003 (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.  Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the
      Company.

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be
executed this 13th day of August, 2003.




                                         /s/ Erle Nye
                            --------------------------------------------------
                            Name:    Erle Nye
                            Title:   Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive





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

54923 

Federal Register 

Vol. 73, No. 185 

Tuesday, September 23, 2008 

Title 3— 

The President 

Proclamation 8291 

National Farm Safety and Health Week, 2008 

By the President of the United States of America 

A Proclamation 

Agriculture has always been a vital part of America’s economy and culture, 

and our farmers and ranchers are among the best stewards of our land. 

During National Farm Safety and Health Week, we recognize those working 

in agriculture for their contributions to our Nation’s prosperity, security, 

and health, and we also seek to raise awareness about the occupational 

hazards of this industry. 

Farming and ranching are strenuous occupations, and workers can be exposed 

to many dangers, including those associated with extreme weather conditions, 

operating heavy machinery, and working with livestock. Teaching awareness 

about potential dangers, implementing preventative measures, and supervising children as they work and play can help mitigate risks and reduce 

the number of injuries and fatalities on farms and ranches. 

Our Nation’s farmers and ranchers exemplify the American values of hard 

work, deep commitment to faith, and love of family. During National Farm 

Safety and Health Week, we celebrate these extraordinary men and women 

who are building a prosperous future for our country. 

NOW, THEREFORE, I, GEORGE W. BUSH, President of the United States 

of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution 

and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim September 21 through 

September 27, 2008, as National Farm Safety and Health Week. I call upon 

the agencies, organizations, and businesses that serve America’s agricultural 

workers to continue to strengthen their commitment to promoting farm 

safety and health programs. I also urge all Americans to honor our agricultural 

heritage and to recognize our farmers and ranchers for their remarkable 

contributions to our Nation. 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with FRD0
54924 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 185 / Tuesday, September 23, 2008 / Presidential Documents 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this eighteenth day 

of September, in the year of our Lord two thousand eight, and of the 

Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirtythird. 

[FR Doc. E8–22510 

Filed 9–22–08; 11:15 am] 

Billing code 3195–01–P 


jlentini on PROD1PC65 with FRD0GWBOLD.EPS</GPH>
thct_ex108.htm

EXHIBIT 10.8
 
AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING AGREEMENT
 
This Amendment to the CONSULTING AGREEMENT (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into on the 18th day of March, 2019 between Regal Consulting, a limited liability company organized under the laws of the state of Delaware (the “Consultant”), and THC Therapeutics, Inc. a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Nevada, (“Client”).
 
WHEREAS, the Client and Consultant are parties to a consulting agreement effective as of February 18th, 2019 (the “Agreement”). Under the Agreement, the Consultant agrees to provide the services of four tagged press releases per month and four thousand PPC views per month to Client’s custom created informational website.
 
WHEREAS, the parties to this Amendment now desire to make certain modifications and amendments to the Agreement provided herein; and
 
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual provisions, covenants and undertakings set forth in this Amendment and in the Agreement, and other good and valuable consideration which is hereby acknowledged, the parties to this Amendment agree as follows:
 
1. Twelve tagged press releases per month will be released, upon approval from Client.
 
2. Client shall pay Consultant: $20,000 in cash per month and 55,000 restricted Rule 144 shares of THCT common stock per month.
 
3. The contract length will be extended for 12 months and run until 3/18/2020.
 
This Amendment contains all revised terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties. All terms and conditions in the Agreement not amended herein remain in full force and effect.
 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment is executed effective as of the date first set forth above.
 
	 
	1

	
 
	 


 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have duly executed and delivered this Amended Agreement, effective as of the date set forth above.
 
CONSULTANT:
 
Signature: /s/ Parker Mitchell                                                            
 
Parker Mitchell
 
DATE: 3/15/2019
 
Regal Consulting, LLC/ Manager
 
CLIENT:
 
Signature: /s/ Brandon David Romanek                                           
 
Brandon David Romanek
 
DATE: 3/15/2019
 
THC Therapeutics, Inc./ Chairman & CEO
 
 
	2
#### IRIS SECURITIES COMPANY, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 8494.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Feb. 7, 1937.

John C. Altman, of San Francisco, Cal., for petitioner.

James W. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

Before WILBUR, MATHEWS, and STEPHENS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon stipulation of counsel for respective parties, ordered petition to review herein dismissed, that a judgment of dismissal be filed and entered accordingly, and the mandate of this court issue forthwith.
g

,,,,,,,,,,,

1. Excludes deposits and U.S. Treasury securities held for international and regional 3. Held in foreign and international accounts and valued at $42.22 per fine troy ounce; not organizations. included in the gold stock of the United States. 

2. Marketable U.S. Treasury bills, notes, and bonds and nonmarketable U.S. Treasury securities, in each case measured at face (not market) value.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1767

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at

205 South Main Street in Culpepper, Virginia, as the ‘‘D. French

Slaughter Post Office Building’’.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 8, 2001

Mr. WOLF (for himself, Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. SCHROCK, Mr.

SCOTT, Mr. GOODE, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. BOUCHER, and Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Government Reform

A BILL

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service

located at 205 South Main Street in Culpepper, Virginia,

as the ‘‘D. French Slaughter Post Office Building’’.

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

3 SECTION 1. D. FRENCH SLAUGHTER POST OFFICE BUILD4 ING.

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States

6 Postal Service located at 205 South Main Street in Cul7 pepper, Virginia, shall be known and designated as the

8 ‘‘D. French Slaughter Post Office Building’’.
2

•HR 1767 IH

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall

4 be deemed to be a reference to the D. French Slaughter

5 Post Office Building.

Æ