alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 21

- 00623

- CV

In re Guadalupe Padilla

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

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

Relator G uadalupe Padilla , an inmate in the Texas Department of Criminal
Ju s tice, filed a pro se petition for writ of mandamus

. See Tex. Gov ’ t Code § 22.221 ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.1. Padi lla ’ s petition requests issuance of a writ of mandamus directed to the Travis County District Clerk. However, as an intermediate app ell ate court, we may issue writs of mandamus only against a district judge or county judge sitting in our district, or to enforce our jurisdiction

. See Tex. Gov ’ t Code § 22.221

. W e lack jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus against a
district clerk un les s doing so is necessary to enforce our jurisdi ction. See id. ; In re Washington , 7 S.W.3d 181, 182 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding) ; In re Simpson , 997 S.W.2d 939 , 939 (Tex. App.

— Waco 1999, orig . proceeding); In re Strickhausen , 99 4 S .W.2d 936 , 936 (Tex. App.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding)

. Here, Padilla
failed to demonstrate that the exercise of our writ power is necessary to enforce our jurisdiction

.2 Accordingly, the mandamus petition is dismissed for want of juri sdi ction.

_____________________________________ _____ Darlene Byrne , Chief Justice
Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and K elly
Filed: Dece mber 8, 2021
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 185 (Friday, September 24, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 58364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24033]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board


Foreign-Trade Zone 189--Kent/Ottawa/Muskegon Counties, Michigan 
Site Renumbering Notice

    Foreign-Trade Zone 189 was approved by the FTZ Board on January 15, 
1993 (Board Order 616, 58 FR 6614, 2/1/1993) and currently consists of 
seven ``sites'' totaling 236 acres in Kent, Ottawa and Muskegon 
Counties, Michigan. The current update does not alter the physical 
boundaries that have previously been approved, but instead involves an 
administrative renumbering that separates certain non-contiguous sites 
for record-keeping purposes.
    Under this revision, the site list for FTZ 189 will be as follows: 
Site 1 (8 acres) located at 44th Street and Clay Avenue in the City of 
Wyoming, Kent County; Site 2 (18 acres) located at 1920 Lakeshore Drive 
in the City of Muskegon, Muskegon County; Site 3 (64 acres) located at 
5353 52nd Street in Cascade Township, Kent County, adjacent to Kent 
County International Airport; Site 4 (40 acres) located at 500 Mart 
Street in the City of Muskegon, Muskegon County; Site 5 (5 acres) 
located at 449 Howard Avenue in Holland Township in Ottawa County; Site 
6 (80 acres) located at 48th & Thornapple River Drive in Cascade 
Township, Kent County; Site 7 (500,000 sq. ft.) located at 1210 and 
1218 East Pontaluna Road, Norton Shores, Muskegon County; Site 8 (15 
acres) located at 900 Hall Street SW., Grand Rapids, Kent County; and, 
Site 9 (6 acres) located at 2900 Dixie Street, Grandville, Kent County.
    For further information, contact Elizabeth Whiteman at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#41042d283b20232435296f16292835242c202f0135332025246f262e37"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1f5a7376657e7d7a6b77314877766b7a727e715f6b6d7e7b7a31787069">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 482-0473.

    Dated: September 20, 2010.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-24033 Filed 9-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


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

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5631]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

              MORE ON THE UNITED STATES-JAPAN AUTO DISPUTE

  (Mr. WISE asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute.)
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I would yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
[Ms. Kaptur].
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, in referring to what the previous speaker said, he made 
an untrue statement. United States manufacturers manufacture 60 
different models of right-hand drive vehicles both in this country and 
around the world, and for a Member from the State of Michigan to speak 
out against the United States, and we are hemorrhaging in terms of 
these trade deficits with Japan for over two decades, I think is 
unconscionable.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, dealing with the other part of 
the gentleman's remarks, I think it ought to be pointed out what the 
President is budgeting are those who would almost eliminate the Safe 
Schools Act, the Drug Free Schools Act, eliminate, almost eliminate, 
summer youth programs, all of which has been funded, is in line with 
the budget, a budget, I might add, cutting the deficit one-half in 
relation to our gross domestic product over what it was a few years 
ago, a budget which will mean the third straight year of deficit 
reduction, the first time that has happened since Harry Truman.

                          ____________________
```
#### Moore Bros. v. Corley & Brown.

(No. 6560.)

Error from McLennan County.

Moore & Moore, counsel for appellants.

A. C. Prendergast, counsel for appellees.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 138. *Attachment; variance between amount sued for and amount claimed in affidavit for writ of; effect of; pleading; amended petition takes place of original.*Plaintiffs in error sued defendants in error upon an account for merchandise sold and delivered, claiming bal*200anee of $488.44, At the institution of the suit, plaintiffs in error sued out an attachment, which was levied upon property of defendants in error. Upon motion of defendants in error, said attachment was quashed, and a trial upon the merits resulted in a judgment for plaintiffs in error against the firm of Corley & Brown, and. Corley individually, for $488.44, and interest, and in favor of defendant in error upon his plea of minority. In an amended petition it is alleged that the indebtedness sued for became due March 18, 1888. Plaintiffs in error’s original petition was filed February 4, 1888, before said indebtedness was due, and the attachment was issued same day.

Plaintiffs in error assign the quashing of the attachment proceeding as error. We think the proceeding was properly quashed upon the ground that there is a material variance between the amount of the debt sued for and that claimed in the affidavit for the writ. The amount sued for is $488.44, while the amount stated in the affidavit and writ is $508.82. This variance is fatal to the validity of the proceeding. [Joiner v. Perkins, 59 Tex. 300.] In passing upon this question, we must be controlled by the amended petition, as it takes the place of the original, and we can no longer consider the allegations in the original. [Rule 14 for District and County Courts.]

§ 189. *Attachment proceeding; quashing of; effect of on suit brought for debt not due.*Holding, as we do, that the attachment proceeding was properly quashed, we must further hold that the suit also should have been dismissed because it was prematurely brought; the indebtedness not being due at the time of the filing of the original petition, as shown by the allegations in the amended petition. When the attachment proceeding failed, the suit itself should have gone with it, because the right to institute the suit at the time it was instituted depended upon a valid attachment proceeding. *201[Snyder v. Totham, 6 Tex. 189; Focke v. Hardeman, 67 Tex. 173.] Even if a portion of the indebtedness sued for was due at the time of the institution of the suit, the portion due was a less amount than $200, and therefore not within the jurisdiction of the county court; and the suit should have been dismissed as to such portion for the want of jurisdiction.

June 18, 1890.

Reversed and dismissed.
CONSENT  OF  INDEPENDENT  CERTIFIED  PUBLIC  ACCOUNTANTS



SpaceDev,  Inc.
San  Diego,  California



We  hereby  consent  to  the  use  in the Prospectus constituting a part of this
Registration  Statement  of  our  report dated February 13, 2003 relating to the
consolidated  balance  sheet  as  of  December  31,  2002  and  the consolidated
statements  of operations, stockholders' deficit, and cash flows for each of the
years  ended December 31, 2002 and 2001 of SpaceDev, Inc., which is contained in
that  Prospectus.  Our  report  contains  an explanatory paragraph regarding the
Company's  ability  to  continue  as  a  going  concern.

We  also  consent  to  the  reference  to  us under the caption "Experts" in the
Prospectus.



/s/  Nation  Smith  Hermes  Diamond


San  Diego,  California
July  21,  2003
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 28, 2022

No. 04-22-00250-CV

EX PARTE T.T.

From the 379th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021W0607

Honorable Ron Rangel, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The State's Motion for Leave to File State's Amended Restricted Appellate Brief by 

Travis County Attorney is hereby GRANTED.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 28th day of June, 2022.

___________________________________

Michael A. Cruz, 

Clerk of Court
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

June 18, 2018

No. 04-17-00505-CR & 04-17-00506-CR

Richard Anthony GALINDO,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 451st Judicial District Court, Kendall County, Texas

Trial Court No. 5792, 5793

Honorable Bill R. Palmer, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief is hereby GRANTED. The 

Appellant’s brief is due on July 16, 2018. No further extensions, without extraordinary 

circumstances.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of June, 2018.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>
=============================================================================

                               UNITED STATES
                    SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
                         Washington, D. C.  20549

                            ___________________

                               FORM 10-Q/A-2

         [X]  QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
                    THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

               For the Quarterly Period Ended June 30, 1997

                                    OR

        [   ]  TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
                    THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

               For the transition period from            to
                                     
                        Commission File No. 0-23596
                            ___________________

                         C-CUBE MICROSYSTEMS INC.
          (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

            Delaware                       77-0192108
(State or other jurisdiction of         (I.R.S. Employer
 incorporation or organization)       Identification No.)

                    1778 McCarthy Boulevard
                  Milpitas, California  95035
     (Address and zip code of principal executive offices)

Registrant's telephone number, including area code:    (408) 944-6300

Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last
year:     N/A

Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports
required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the
Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to
such filing requirements for the past 90 days.

                        [X]  Yes         [   ]  No

Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes
of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

As of July 31, 1997, 36,520,587 shares of the Registrant's Common Stock
were outstanding.

=============================================================================

<PAGE>
The registrant hereby makes a second amendment to its Quarterly Report on Form
10-Q filed August 14, 1997, to refile exhibit no. 10.38 to the Form 10-Q.

<PAGE>



                                Signatures



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


                                           C-Cube Microsystems Inc.
                                           (Registrant)


Dated:  December 21, 1998                  By:  /s/ Walt Walczykowski
       -------------------                     ---------------------------
                                                    Walt Walczykowski
                                                Vice President of Finance
                                               and Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (SEC File Nos. 333-59307, 333-350660,333-67520 and 333-108868) and on Form S-3 (SEC File Nos. 333-60552 and 333-71940) of our report dated November 3, 2004, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Notify Technology Corporation for the year ended September 30, 2004, whichappears in this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB. 

 

/s/    Burr, Pilger & Mayer LLP 

 

Palo Alto, California 

December 21, 2004
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)**

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, UnitedStates Code), each of the undersigned officers of Force Protection, Inc., aNevada corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify, to such officer’sknowledge, that:

The Amended Annual Report for the year ended December31, 2006 (the “Form 10-K/A”) of the Company fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,and the information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.
| Date: October 12, 2007    |     |
|---------------------------|----------|
|                      |     |
| /s/ Gordon McGilton       |     |
| Gordon McGilton           |     |
| *Chief Executive Officer* | * * |
| * *                  | * * |
| * *                  | * * |
| Date: October 12, 2007    |     |
|                      |     |
| /s/ Michael Durski        |     |
| Michael Durski            |     |
| *Chief Financial Officer* | * * |

 

----
News United States Air Force
 US, Turkish KC-135 units fly together for first timePublished March 21, 2016
                        
                        By Senior Airman David Bernal Del Agua
                        
                        
                        22nd Air Refueling Wing Public Affairs
                **NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. (AFNS) --**
                To better understand how each nation completes the vital air refueling mission, the U.S. Air Force and Turkish air force flew KC-135 Stratotankers together in formation for the first time March 8 over the Nevada Test and Training Range, northeast of Nellis Air Force Base.U.S. Air Force Capt. David Puchalla, a 350th Air Refueling Squadron instructor pilot, flew with a Turkish KC-135 crew. Turkish air force Maj. Orcun Kus, the 101st Air Refueling Squadron commander, flew with an American crew during the second week of Red Flag 16-2."The Turkish air force KC-135 aircrew, maintenance and accompanying support personnel are the utmost professionals and are highly capable," Puchalla said. "They have been an asset to Red Flag 16-2's Tanker Task Force, and I have no doubts about their ability to fuel the fight of the future. I have witnessed nothing but the best during my flights aboard their Stratotanker."The exchange during the exercise allowed both countries' tanker units to see their differences and similarities in how their tanker crews perform their missions of sustaining the fight and extending the global reach of their nations."I am very thankful we had the opportunity to make history with this flight between our aircraft and our nations," Kus said. "This Red Flag flight will be remembered as an example of the cooperation between allies."The primary mission of Red Flag is to provide advanced, realistic and relevant training for aircrews and support personnel to think in a contested, degraded and operationally limited environment. Having coalition forces fly together during an exercise prepares them for future real-world missions."The ability to interoperate air refueling operations with our Turkish allies showcases a distinct capability while demonstrating new methods of tanker employment," said U.S. Capt. Alex Durstein, a 344th ARS pilot. "The lessons learned at Red Flag will help advance integration with our NATO partners and provide future coalition combatant commanders with increased operational flexibility."red flag 



nellis afb 



turkey 



KC-135
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
  
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended September 30, 2010, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 10, 2010 (the Report), fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
    
the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company for the periods presented
therein.
  /s/
CURTIS H. SMITHCurtis H. Smith
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
422 A.2d 1172

#### Commonwealth v. Gordon, Appellant.

Submitted August 28, 1979.

Patrick McFalls, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant; Robert L. Eberhardt, Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before VAN der VOORT, LARSEN and LAVELLE, JJ.*

*

 Justice Rolf Larsen of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and Judge John E. Lavelle of the Court of Common Pleas of Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, are sitting by designation.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
583 A.2d 351

#### FLOYD WILLIAMS, ET AL. v. DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES. SAM JIMPERSON, ET AL. v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES.

April 4, 1990.

This matter having been remanded on December 28, 1989, to the Department of Human Services (DHS) to develop the record on which the Court would predicate its decision whether to defer the effective date of the Court’s judgment in the within appeal; and

It appearing that in response to the remand, the Chief Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), to whom DHS had referred the matter to develop the factual record, conducted an extensive hearing and submitted an initial decision and recommendation finding that the administrative changes implemented by DHS did not yet “make it reasonably certain that [General Assistance (GA) ] recipients will be assured of continuing shelter upon the termination of emergency assistance [EA],” but that “defects in DHS’s safety net program * * * can be cured by a rulemaking clearly fixing the responsibility for insuring the provision of continuing shelter for a recipient whose emergency assistance has expired;” and

It appearing that the Acting Commissioner of DHS has, with what plaintiffs call “commendable candor,” substantially adopted the recommended findings of the Chief ALJ (with one *668reservation concerning Fiscal Year 1991 appropriations) and has instituted rulemaking to embody in regulations the programs that will make it “reasonably certain” that post-EA/GA claimants will find shelter, including specifically the “delineation of responsibility to agencies of government at the local level clearly stating their obligation to provide continuing shelter to eligible GA claimants upon termination of five months of EA”;

It is ORDERED that final judgment is entered in accordance with the Court’s opinion of August 1, 1989, 116 *N.J.*102, 561 *A.*2d 244; and it is further

ORDERED that the challenged regulation, *N.J.A.C. 1*0:85-4.-6, is upheld, conditioned on adoption of the proposed regulations.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities

# AGENCY:

National Endowment for the Arts.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Notice is hereby given of the names of members of the Performance Review Board for the National Endowment for the Arts. This notice supersedes all previous notices of the PRB membership of the Agency.

# DATES:

Upon publication.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Craig McCord, Sr., Director of Human Resources, National Endowment for the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 627, Washington, DC 20506, (202) 682-5473.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

*See*                     4314 (c)(1) through (5) of Title 5, U.S.C., requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES Performance Review Boards. The Board shall review and evaluate the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor, along with any response by the senior executive, and make recommendations to the appointing authority relative to the performance of the senior executive.                

The following persons have been selected to serve on the Performance Review Board of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA):

Joan Shigekawa—Senior Deputy Chairman. 

Larry Baden—Deputy Chairman for Management and Budget. 

Michael Burke—Chief Information Officer. 

Sunil Iyengar—Director, Research & Analysis. 

William O'Brien—Senior Advisor for Program Innovation.

Kathleen Edwards,

Director of Administrative Services, National Endowment for the Arts.

[FR Doc. 2010-23770 Filed 9-22-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7537-01-P