alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
M A N D A T E

TO THE PROBATE COURT NO. 1 OF EL PASO COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas, on March 9, 2018, the cause upon

appeal to revise or reverse your judgment

IN THE MATTER OF THE TEMPORARY

GUARDIANSHIP OF THE PERSON AND

ESTATE OF EDUARDO FUENTES

VARELA, AN ADULT,

No. 08-17-00205-CV

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

The Court has considered this cause on the Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal and

concludes the motion should be granted and the appeal should be dismissed. We therefore

dismiss the appeal. We further order Appellant pay all costs of this appeal, and this decision be

certified below for observance.

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of

Appeals for the Eighth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly recognized,

obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Clerk of the Court of Appeals, with the Seal thereof affixed, at the City of

El Paso, this May 24, 2018.

Denise Pacheco, Clerk

Trial Court No. 2016-CGD00220

FILE COPY
News United States Air Force
 Airman revamps F-16 munitions tracking, wins top awardPublished May 6, 2015
                        
                        By Senior Airman Jensen Stidham
                        
                        
                        20th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **SHAW AIR FORCE BASE, S.C. (AFNS) --**
                As Tech. Sgt. Robert Kurz sits in his newly acquired office after only three days as an assistant first sergeant, his commander walks through the door to congratulate him on a career-changing award.Kurz, the 20th Equipment Maintenance Squadron assistant first sergeant, received the Air Force level Lt. Gen. Leo Marquez Award for Outstanding Technician Supervisor Munitions Missile Maintenance for 2014."In the maintenance career field, it's like winning an Oscar," Kurz said. "I was happy just winning for the squadron, but finding out I won at the Air Force level -- I was floored."Though the technical sergeant knew his job proficiently, he had never had the opportunity to make an impact that could change the 20th EMS and, possibly, equipment maintenance across the Air Force."All of this happened because I was put in a position to make a difference," Kurz said. "I was put into the alternative mission equipment section during a time it needed to be changed. I started to notice some things that had been overlooked for a while, and I just started implementing changes."After his analysis of a 10-year inspection history, Kurz was able to detect an aircraft structure time-change discrepancy that affected the gun system on the entire F-16 Fighting Falcon fleet across the Air Force."According to (Air Force instructions), certain things needed to be tracked but there was nothing in place to do that," Kurz said. "Once I discovered the issue, it was all about compliance. (I was) just doing what needed to be done."Many of the changes Kurz made to accommodate minimal manning and save money within the 20th EMS are being reviewed at the Air Force-level for widespread distribution."He was swift to identify program and process failures, then find legitimate corrective actions," said Senior Master Sgt. Richard Pelletier, the 20th EMS superintendent. "He had to account for 2,400 pieces of equipment valued at 122 million dollars, track down their history, and realign inspection cycles -- all while closing the loop on the errors left unreconciled from the previous two years."Though Kurz's actions are in the process of changing equipment maintenance squadrons downrange and across the Air Force, he plans to change more than that."I would like to become a full-time first sergeant," Kurz said. "I really like to work on equipment. I am a mechanic and that is one of my hobbies, but I really feel I can benefit the Air Force by making a connection with people."As he hears all of the congratulatory comments and praise, Kurz stays motivated to improve himself and fellow Airmen.Lt. Gen. Leo Marquez Award for Outstanding Technician Supervisor Munitions Missile Maintenance for 2014 



 



F-16 Fighting Falcon
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION      OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**Pursuant      to 18 U.S.C. 1350**

**Section 906      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of      2002**

|        |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |       (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 results of operations of the              Registrant. |

|                                     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |                                 |
|------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|                                     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       |
| Date: December              6, 2006 | By:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              | /s/ Hillel              Moerman |
|                                     | Hillel Moerman                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|                                     | President                and Chief Financial Officer ofAmerican                Property Investors, Inc.(Principal                Financial Officer), the General Partner ofAmerican                Real Estate Holdings Limited                Partnership |
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.2

                               ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

                    CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

     As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the incorporation
of our report dated January 16, 2002 included in this Form 10-K, into the
Company's previously filed Form S-8 Registration Statement File Numbers
333-52130, 333-75352 and 333-75354.

                             /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP


Lancaster, Pa,
March 27, 2002

















Note: This represents a copy of the letter of consent by Arthur Andersen LLP
that was included as Exhibit 22.1 to Waypoint Financial Corp.'s annual report on
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2001 and does not represent a
reissuance of the letter of consent. After reasonable efforts, Waypoint
Financial Corp. has not been able to obtain a reissued letter of consent from
Arthur Andersen LLP.

                                       89
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Theo GEORGE.

No. 2011-KK-0325.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 23, 2011.

PER CURIAM.

| jTIie introduction of evidence of unadju-dicated juvenile offenses is allowed under both C.E. arts. 404(B) and 412.2. Whether the introduction of such offenses is allowed, however, is controlled by C.E. art. 403, which reads:

> Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or waste of time.

Here, the trial judge found that, although defendant’s prior unadjudicated act of attempted forcible rape, committed when he was fifteen years of age, would be highly probative in defendant’s present trial of forcible rape by revealing defendant’s modus operandi and lustful disposition, introduction of the evidence would be barred because of its prejudicial nature. The judge said:

> [I]t is a featherweight balancing test for me, because I find the information to be highly probative. And I also think it’s highly prejudicial. And so if I find both of them to be equal, then which one tips over? And I think it’s the prejudicial effect that I have to lean towards.

*789| ¡^Article 403, though, does not allow for the exclusion of relevant evidence if its probative value is equal to its prejudice. Instead, the evidence of defendant’s prior unadjudicated act of forcible rape should have been ruled inadmissible only if “its probative value is *substantially outweighed*by the danger of unfair prejudice.” Therefore, the trial judge abused her discretion by barring introduction of defendant’s prior unadjudicated juvenile act of attempted forcible rape.

The court’s ruling barring introduction of the alleged victim’s testimony as to the unadjudicated offense is reversed.

REVERSED.
EXHIBIT32.1

                                                            

**Written Statement of Chief ExecutiveOfficer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 906**

**of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

** (18 U.S.C. Section 1350)**

** **

The undersigned, the Chief ExecutiveOfficer and the Chief Financial Officer of Tripos, Inc. (the"Company"), each hereby certifies that, to his knowledge on the datehereof:

(a)        theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the Quarter Ended June 30,2005 filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the"Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and 

(b)        informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.  

                                                            /s/John P. McAlister

                                                            JohnP. McAlister

                                                            ChiefExecutive Officer

                                                            March29, 2006

                                                            /s/B. James Rubin

                                                            B.James Rubin

                                                            ChiefFinancial Officer

                                                            March29, 2006

----
EXHIBIT  23




            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
Nos. 333-24065 and 333-62019 on Form S-3 of our report dated March 2, 2005
related to the financial statements (which report expresses an unqualified
opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the restatement of the
2003 balance sheet) and the financial statement schedules of South Jersey Gas
Company appearing in this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K of South
Jersey Gas Company for the year ended December 31, 2004.


/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
March 31, 2005
855 A.2d 757

#### COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, Appellant, v. Pelegrin Fernandez SERRANO, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Submitted Jan. 13, 2004.

Decided Aug. 18, 2004.

Donald R. Totaro, Janna Rae Steinruck, for Com. of Pa.

Robert H. Reese, Jr., Lancaster, for Pelegrin Fernandez Serrano.

Before CAPPY, C.J., and CASTILLE, NIGRO, NEWMAN, SAYLOR, BAER, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2004, the order of the Lancaster County Court of Common Pleas is reversed insofar as it declared the Registration of Sexual Offenders Act unconstitutional, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. *See Commonwealth v. Williams,*574 Pa. 487, 832 A.2d 962 (2003); *Commonwealth v. Maldonado,*576 Pa. 101, 838 A.2d 710 (2003).

Justice EAKIN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.
#### Garren J. WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 3D11-1669.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Aug. 3, 2011.

Garren J. Washington, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SUAREZ, LAGOA, and SALTER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Garren J. Washington seeks post-conviction relief by way of filing an original Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, following the trial court’s denial of his motion for jail credit for time served. We dismiss this petition for habeas corpus, treat the petition as a motion properly filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(a), and affirm denial of relief without prejudice for Washington to first seek and *920exhaust his administrative remedies with the Department of Corrections. *See Hidalgo v. State,*729 So.2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (holding that, when seeking credit for time served after sentencing, the defendant must exhaust administrative remedies with the Department of Corrections before requesting judicial relief). After exhausting such remedies, Washington may file a petition for writ of mandamus against the Department.

Habeas Petition dismissed; 3.800(a) denial of relief affirmed.
First Amendment to Separation Agreement and General Release



 Exhibit 10.4 
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO SEPARATION AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE 
 This First Amendment to Separation
Agreement and General Agreement (“Agreement”), dated as of December 31, 2008, is entered into by and among Eddie Bauer Holdings, Inc. (“Holdings”), a Delaware corporation, and its operating subsidiary Eddie Bauer, Inc.
(“Eddie Bauer”), a Delaware corporation (collectively, the “Company”), on the one hand, and Fabian Månsson (“Månsson” or the “Executive”), on the other (each a “Party” and, collectively,
the “Parties”). 
 WHEREAS, the Company and Månsson entered into a Separation Agreement dated February 9, 2007 (the
“Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Agreement must be amended to become compliant with Treasury Regulations 1.409(A) promulgated
under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, to avoid financial implications to Mansson. 
 AMENDMENT 
 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the representations set forth above and in consideration of other good and valuable considerations the adequacy and
receipt of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereto agree as follows: 
 1. Addendum A, Section (b)(iii) – “Medical Benefits”:
The section shall be amended by adding the following to the end of the paragraph: 
 “The benefits provided per this subsection
(iii) are subject to the following: (1) the amount eligible for reimbursement or payment in one calendar year may not affect the amount eligible for reimbursement or payment in any other calendar year, (2) any reimbursement or
payment of an expense shall be made on or before the last day of the calendar year following the calendar year in which the expense was incurred, and (3) the right to reimbursement or in-kind benefit shall not be subject to liquidation or
exchange for any other benefit.” 
 2. Addendum A, Section (b)(v)(a) -”Bonus Payments”. This section shall be amended by
striking the words “but not before August 10, 2007 (the New Payment Date)”. 
 Executed effective as of December 31, 2008.

  

									
	EDDIE BAUER HOLDINGS, INC.	 		 	FABIAN MÅNSSON
				
	By:	 	/s/ Freya R. Brier	 		 	/s/ Fabian Månsson
		 	Freya R. Brier, Senior Vice President
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF GEVITY HR, INC. as of DECEMBER 31, 2007

Subsidiary

Jurisdiction of Formation1.  Gevity HR, L.P.*

Delaware2.  Gevity HR II, L.P.*

Delaware3.  Gevity HR III, L.P.*

Delaware4.  Gevity HR IV, L.P.*

Delaware5.  Gevity HR V, L.P.*

Delaware6.  Gevity HR VI, L.P.*

Delaware7.  Gevity HR VII, L.P.*

Delaware8.  Gevity HR VIII, L.P.*

Delaware9.  Gevity HR IX, L.P.*

Delaware10. Gevity HR X, L.P.*

Delaware11. Gevity HR XI, LLC*

New Mexico12. Gevity HR XII Corp.*

Florida13. Gevity XIV, LLC*

Delaware14. Staff Leasing, LLC*

Delaware15. Concorda Insurance Company Limited

Bermuda16. Gevity Insurance Agency, Inc.

Delaware


---

---



QuickLinks
|   | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, except as disclosed in “Item 15. Controls and Procedures  ̶  A. Disclosure Controls and Procedures” of the Report; and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

|              | Cresud S.A.C.I.F y A. |                           |
|-------------------|-----------------------|--------------------------------|
|              |                  |                           |   |
| November 17, 2015 | By:                   | /s/ Alejandro G. Elsztain |   |
|              |                  | Alejandro G. Elsztain          |   |
|              |                  | Chief Executive Officer        |   |
|              |                  |                           |   |

----
#### C. J. Moore v. C. H. Fay.

(No. 2987.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

*(Transferred from Austin.)*

W. F. Short, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 199. *Jurisdiction of comity court; amount in controversy; .case stated.*Suit upon a promissory note for $910.64, which note contains a stipulation that if it was not paid at maturity, ten per cent, for attorney’s fees for collection should be added to the principal should the *299note be placed in the hands of an attorney for collection. The petition claimed and prayed for a judgment for the principal of the note, interest and the stipulated attorney’s fees. The ten per cent, attorney’s fees added to the principal makes $1,001.70, an amount in excess of the jurisdiction of the county court, said jurisdiction being limited to not exceed $1,000 exclusive of interest. [Const., art. 5, § 16; 1 App. C. C., § 598.] The attorney’s fee was „a part of the debt to be paid, and constituted a part of the amount in controversy in the suit. [2 App. C. C., § 556.]

January 14, 1891.

Reversed and the suit ordered to be dismissed.
#### George S. Robinson v. The Board of Assessors of the City of Detroit.

[See *ante,*509.]

*Taxes*— Real-estate *mortgages.*

This case is ruled *by Latham v. Board of Assessors, ante,*509.

*Mandamus.*

Argued May *3,*1892.

Granted May *6,*

and opinion filed May 11, 1892.

Relator applied for *mandamus*to compel the assessment to the Detroit River Savings Bank, as real estate, of the value of the real-estate mortgages held by it, and the deduction of the same from the value of its capital stock, as determined for assessment purposes. The facts are stated in the opinion, and in *Latham v. Board of Assessors, ante,*509.

*Wells, Angell, Boynton & McMillan,*for relator.

*John J. Speed,*for respondents.

Per Curiam.

The relator is the owner of 10 shares of the capital stock of the Detroit River Savings Bank, and asks a *mandamus*to compel the board of assessors to assess to said bank the value of the real-estate mortgages owned by it, and to deduct the value of such mortgages from the assessed value of its capital stock.

The facts in the case are similar to those in *Latham v. Board of Assessors, ante.*

The writ will issue as prayed.

McGrath, J., did not sit.
#### Christopher NEWTON, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 1D11-0061.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Oct. 20, 2011.

David M. Robbins and Susan Z. Cohen of Epstein & Robbins, Jacksonville, for Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Trisha Meggs Pate, Assistant Attorney General, Joshua R. Heller, Assistant Attorney General, Dixie Daimwood, Assistant Attorney General, and Donna Gerace, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. *See Edenfield v. State,*45 So.3d 26 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010).

BENTON, C.J., VAN NORTWICK, and SWANSON, JJ., concur. .
#### In re Appeal of Decision of DISCIPLINARY BOARD NO. 10-PDB-026.

No. 2010-OB-2225.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Horton, Denise M.; —Plaintiff; Applying For Appeal of Decision of the Disciplinary Board Office of Disciplinary Board, No 10-PDB-026.

Leave to appeal denied.

VICTORY, J., would remand to Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) for further investigation.

GUIDRY, J., would remand to Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC) for further investigation.
#### Percy T. STIERS, Appellant, v. James I. MARTIN, Appellee.

No. 8060.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued April 21, 1960.

Decided April 25, 1960.

Charles W. Laughlin, Richmond, Va., for appellant.

J. Kenneth Lee, Greensboro, N. C. (Major S. High, Greensboro, N. C., on the brief) for appellee.

Before SOPER, HAYNSWORTH and BOREMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

After this Court affirmed a judgment awarding damages to the plaintiff,1 the defendant filed a motion in the District Court under Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., by which he sought a new trial upon the ground of newly discovered evidence and fraud. Attached to the motion were the affidavits of three persons stating that the plaintiff rented and planted only three acres of the defendant’s land, rather than ten acres as the plaintiff’s evidence showed and the District Court found.

Who his tenants were and what acreage they planted, the defendant knew, though he did not testify at the trial. He knew, also, of the three witnesses whose affidavits he now tenders, but he did not produce them at the trial. He offers no explanation of his failure to produce one of them. The other two, he says, were out of the state at the time of the trial, but the record does not show what, if any, effort he made to locate them and obtain their testimony.

We think the District Judge properly denied the motion upon the ground that the defendant had not shown due diligence to discover this evidence within the time allowed for a motion for a new trial under Rule 59(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Affirmed.

1

. Stiers v. Martin, 4 Cir., 264 F.2d 795.