alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DENY and Opinion Filed March 21, 2023 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-01370-CV 

IN RE TARA MCDANIEL, Relator 

Original Proceeding from the 160th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-21-07909 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Reichek, Carlyle, and Kennedy 

Opinion by Justice Reichek 

In her December 28, 2022 petition for writ of mandamus, relator complains 

that the trial court abused its discretion by (1) denying her plea in abatement and 

(2) disqualifying her attorney Aaron Cartwright. We strike the petition in part and 

deny the remainder of the petition. 

At the threshold, we strike the portion of the petition seeking mandamus relief 

from the denial of relator’s plea in abatement. Because we questioned whether 

Cartwright may represent relator in this original proceeding in light of the trial 

court’s disqualification order, we requested letter briefing regarding this issue. After 

reviewing the parties’ submissions, we conclude that Cartwright is prohibited from 

representing relator in this mandamus proceeding with respect to the abatement issue 
 –2– 

because it is part of the underlying matter and the trial court’s disqualification order, 

which has not been stayed, remains in effect. 

In any event, relator has failed to show her entitlement to mandamus relief for 

both issues. Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial 

court clearly abused its discretion and that she lacks an adequate remedy by appeal. 

See In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. 

proceeding). After reviewing the petition and the record before us, we conclude that 

relator has not made this showing for both issues. 

Accordingly, we strike the petition in part and deny the remainder of the 

petition. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). 

221370F.P05 

/Amanda L. Reichek/

AMANDA L. REICHEK 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT 31.1  302 CERTIFICATION  I, Iryna Clark, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this yearly report on Form 10-K of Lockbox Link, 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. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)), 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. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  d. Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5. 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 controls over financial reporting.  Date: March 18, 2016  /s/Iryna Clark Iryna Clark Chief Executive Officer Chief Financial Officer
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Alton Thomas Davis, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

October 26, 2010 

p1018 

Order 

 

October 26, 2010 

141117 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 141117 

 COA: 294725 

Wayne CC: 00-003536 

DAWAIN POPE, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 31, 2010 order 

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

 DAVIS, J., not participating. I recuse myself and am not participating because I 

was on the Court of Appeals panel in this case. See MCR 2.003(B).
584 A.2d 242

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. FELIX WILLIAM OSORIO.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
## NO. 12

- 14

- 00141

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JAMES JASON WHITE,

APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 7TH

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Following a guilty plea,

Appellant was convicted of murder and sentenced to imprisonment for thirty years.

In a criminal case, the notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days a fter sentence is

imposed or within ninety days after that date if a motion for new trial is filed. T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

26.2(a). Appellant’s sentence was imposed on January 13, 2014 , and he did not file a motion for

new trial. Therefore, his notice of appeal was due to have been filed no later than February 1 2,

201 4 . However, Appellant did not file his notice of appeal until May 30, 2014 . Because

Appellant’s notice of appeal was not filed on or before February 1 2, 201 4 , it was untimely, and

this court has n o jurisdiction of the appeal.

On June 2 , 201 4 , this court notified Appellant, pursuant to Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure 37.1 and 42.3, that his notice of appeal was untimely and there was no timely motion

for an extension of time to file the notice o f appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2(a)(1), 26.3.

Appellant was further informed that the appeal would be dismissed unless , on or before June 12,

2014, the information in this appeal was amended to show the jurisdiction of this court. That

deadline has pa ssed, and Appellant has not shown the jurisdiction of this court.2

Because this court is not authorized to extend the time for perfecting an appeal except as

provided by Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and 26.3, the appeal is dismissed for want

of jurisdiction

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 42.3(a).

Opinion delivered June 25, 2014.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWEL FTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 25, 2014

NO. 12

- 14

- 00141

- CR

JAMES JASON WHITE,

Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

Appellee

Appeal from the 7th District Court

of Smith County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. 007

- 1131

- 13)

THIS CAUSE came to be h eard on the appellate record; and the same

being considered, it is the opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the

appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that

th is appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdiction ; and that this decision

be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1 Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alan
B. Levan, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:  1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2)   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. By
    
    /s/Alan B. LevanName: Alan B. LevanTitle: Chief Executive OfficerDate: August 9, 2004
Since October 2020, four massive pillar collapses have occurred in limestone 

mines. Each was accompanied by a powerful airblast and the formation of a 

large surface sinkhole. Fortunately they did not result in any injuries. In 2015, 

three miners were seriously injured by an airblast from a fifth pillar collapse. 

All of these collapses involved tall, slender pillars in benched areas. Four were in 

“legacy” areas that had been mined many years ago.

At this seminar, MSHA Technical Support’s Roof Control Division will be 

providing information to raise awareness of these collapse events. They will also 

present ways to assess and mitigate the risks associated with a massive 

collapses in both active workings and legacy areas.

Presentation topics:

1) Overview of recent limestone pillar collapse events

2) Limestone pillar design using the NIOSH S-Pillar program

3) Risk Analysis for limestone pillar collapse

4) Investigation and analysis of airblast risk from pillar collapse

The Seminar will be presented remotely via Microsoft TEAMS.

A certificate for four (4) Professional Development Hours (PDHs) will be 

provided to participants. Please register at least 3 business days prior to 

the seminar to receive the meeting invitation. 

To Register or Questions, email: PillarInitiative@dol.gov

When registering, please provide your full name, 

company or organization, phone number, and the date of 

the seminar you would like to attend. 

For more information, visit www.msha.gov/PillarInitiative 

MSHA DULUTH DISTRICT 

STONE MINE PILLAR COLLAPSE SEMINAR 

December 16, 2021 8:00am - 12:00pm (CT)
585 A.2d 403

#### MEETING HOUSE PLAZA ASSOCIATES v. THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWNSHIP OF WALL.

October 16, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 8.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF PROQR THERAPEUTICS N.V.

The following is a list of subsidiaries of the Company as of December 31, 2015.



|                                |  |                          
|------------------------------- |  | -------------------------
|Legal Name                      |  | Jurisdiction of Formation
|                                | 
|ProQR Therapeutics Holding B.V. |  | Netherlands              
|                                | 
|ProQR Therapeutics I B.V.       |  | Netherlands              
|                                | 
|ProQR Therapeutics II B.V.      |  | Netherlands              
|                                | 
|ProQR Therapeutics III B.V.     |  | Netherlands              
|                                | 
|ProQR Therapeutics IV B.V.      |  | Netherlands              
|                                | 
|ProQR Therapeutics I Inc.       |  | Delaware
585 A.2d 404

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JEROME DUMAS.

October 30, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

 ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DANIEL SHAWN NEWSOM,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

D. L. RUNNELS; ATTORNEY

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA,

 Respondents - Appellees.

No. 09-15125

D.C. No. 2:04-cv-02134-GEBDAD

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Garland E. Burrell, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 13, 2010** 

San Francisco, California

Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, NOONAN and CALLAHAN, Circuit 

Judges.

FILED

MAY 03 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
page 2

Because the trial judge’s provision of a binder to the jury did not violate the

Constitution, much less entitle petitioner to relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), we

need not address respondent’s argument that petitioner’s claims are procedurally

barred. The judge did not pressure the jury to decide the case a particular way; he

merely provided procedural advice to help the jury deliberate. The Constitution

does not prohibit use of bold font in jury instructions to aid the jury’s

comprehension. Nor did the judge violate the Constitution when he instructed the

jury to deliberate and follow the law. “It is the duty of the court to instruct the jury

as to the law and it is the duty of the jury to follow the law as it is laid down by the

court.” Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51, 74 (1895) (Harlan, J.) (quoting United

States v. Battiste, 24 F. Cas. 1042, 1043 (Story, Circuit Justice, C.C.D. Mass.

1835)). 

AFFIRMED.
584 A.2d 248

#### EDWARD W. JOHNSON v. THE MOUNTAINSIDE HOSPITAL.

June 11, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 239 *N.J.Super.*312, 571 A.2d 318)
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 Certification pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report of BankAtlantic Bancorp, Inc. (the
Company) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James
A. White, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:  1)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. By /s/ James A. White  Name: James A. White
Title: Chief Financial Officer
Date: June 24, 2004
584 A.2d 211

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. FRANK PAVAO.

May 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 239 *N.J.Super.*206, 570 A.2d 1285.)
Exhibit 32.2

RF MONOLITHICS, INC.

CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF SARBANES  OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Harley E Barnes III, Chief Financial Officer of RF Monolithics, Inc. (the Company), DOES HEREBY CERTIFY that:



| | 1. | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2008 (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.
| | -- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this instrument to be executed this 14th day of January, 2009.



/s/ Harley E Barnes IIIName: Harley E Barnes IIITitle: Chief Financial Officer




|* | A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
|- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 10.3


 


CONSENT TO HAVE AGREEMENTS FILED AS EXHIBITS TO FORM 8-K


 





	To:	SolarWindow Technologies, Inc.
	 	Attention: Board of Directors















 


Reference is hereby made to that certain Agreement
date as of December 8, 2021 (the “SPA”) by and among Kalen Capital Corporation (“KCC”), a company
formed and existing under the laws of British Columbia, Canada (“KCC”), and its relevant subsidiaries, wholly-owned
by Harmel S. Rayat (“Mr. Rayat”) and Light Quantum Energy Holdings Ltd. a company incorporated and registered in the
Cayman Islands (“LQE”), the outstanding voting securities of which are wholly-owned by John Rhee (“Mr. Rhee”)
and his common-law spouse Seongae Ko, and the corrective amendment thereto dated the same date thereof (the “Corrective Amendment”),
pursuant to which LQE purchased from KCC and KCC sold to LQE (i) 32,984,331 shares of the common stock (the “Shares”)
of SolarWindow Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”), (ii) 16,780,167 cash only warrants to purchase up to 16,780,167
Shares and (iii) 1,781,750 cashless warrants to purchase up to 1,781,750 Shares.


 


Completion of the SPA, as amended, has resulted in
a “change of control” of the Company. The undersigned acknowledge that the Company is required to file a current Form
8-K with the US Securities and Exchange Commission with respect to such change of control. In connection therewith each of the undersigned
agree and hereby consent to the Company’s filing of each of the SPA and the Corrective Amendment as exhibits to such Form 8-K and
to such other regulatory filings which, in the reasonable judgment of the Company, require it to file the SPA and the Corrective Amendment
as exhibits.


 


This Consent may be executed in two (2) or more counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Counterparts may be
delivered via electronic mail (including pdf or any electronic signature complying with the U.S. Federal ESIGN Act of 2000, e.g.,
www.docusign.com) or other transmission method and any counterpart so delivered shall be deemed to have been duly and validly delivered
and be valid and effective for all purposes.


 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed and delivered this Consent of the date first above stated.


 


	
    Kalen Capital Corporation

     

     
	 	LIGHT QUANTUM ENERGY HOLDINGS LTD.
	 	 	 
	
    By: _________________________________

    Name: Harmel S. Rayat

    Title: President and Sole Shareholder

     

     

    Date: December 8th, 2021

    

    

     
	 	
    By: _________________________________

    Name: John Rhee

    Title: Duly Authorized Signatory

     

     

    Date: December 8th, 2021
April 23, 2015



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

GUGGENHEIM CORPORATE FUNDING, LLC, ORPHEU S HOLDINGS LLC,
STELLAR FUNDING LTD. , AND ORPHEUS FUNDIN G LLC , Appellant s

NO. 14

- 13

- 00809

- CV V.

VALERUS COMPRESSION SERVICES, L.P. , Appellee

________________________________ This cause, an appeal from the judgment in favor of appellee, Valerus Compression Services, L.P., signed June 19, 2013, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below AFFIRMED

. We order appellant s , Guggenheim Corporate Funding, LLC, Orpheus Holdings LLC, Stellar Funding Ltd., a nd Orpheus Funding LLC, jointly and severally, to pay all costs incurred in this appeal.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
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.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA.

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Nevada and Placer Counties Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will meet in Auburn, California. The committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110-343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss projects submitted for funding and the expenditure of Title II funds benefiting National Forest System lands in Nevada and Placer Counties.

# ADDRESSES:

The meeting will be held at the Placer County Water Agency office, 144 Ferguson, Rd., Auburn, CA.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Ann Westling, Committee Coordinator, USDA, Tahoe National Forest, 631 Coyote St., Nevada City, CA 95959, (530) 478-6205, e-mail:                         *awestling@fs.fed.us.*

Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through Friday.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Agenda items to be covered include: (1) Welcome and Introductions; (2) Review of RAC Operating Guidelines; (3) Discussion of Proposed Projects; (4) Vote on Proposed Projects; and (5) Comments from the Public. The meeting is open to the public and the public will have an opportunity to comment at the meeting.

Dated: October 5, 2010.

Tom Quinn,

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. 2010-25995 Filed 10-14-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M