alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Grant ed and Memorandum Opinion filed

January 24 , 2013

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 01105

- CV

IN RE DAVID HOSSIEN MERRIKH , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On December 11, 2012, relator filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in
this Court. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. §22.221 (Vernon 2004); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator asks this Court to compel the Honorable Roy L.
Moore , presiding judge of the 245th District Court of Harris County to vacate his Order of Enforcement by Contempt and Commitment, signed October 5, 2012.
We ordered relator released upon the posting of a b ond pending a decision in this case. A response was requested from the real party in interest, Jamileh2

Merrikh, to be filed on or before January 11 , 2012. As of this date, no response has
been filed.
An original habeas corpus proceeding is a collateral att ack on a contempt judgment. Ex parte Rohleder, 424 S.W.2d 891, 892 (Tex.1967). The purpose of a writ of habeas corpus is not to determine the guilt of the contemnor, but only to determine whether he was afforded due process of law or if the order of contem pt is void. Ex parte Gordon, 584 S.W.2d 686, 688 (Tex.1979). A court will issue a writ of habeas corpus if the order underlying the contempt is void, Ex parte Shaffer, 649 S.W.2d 300, 302 (Tex.1983), or if the contempt order itself is void. Gordon, 584 S.W .2d at 688. An order is void if it is beyond the power of the court to enter it, or if it deprives the relator of liberty without due process of law. Ex parte Barlow, 899 S.W.2d 791, 794 (Tex.App.

- Houston [14th Dist.] 1995, orig. proceeding).
In his petiti on, relator complains of that portion of the order imposing incarceration for criminal contempt. If contempt is requested within a motion for enforcement, the motion must also include the portion of the order allegedly violated, each date of alleged conte mpt, the amount due, and any amount paid. Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 157.002(b)(2) (Vernon Supp.1998). “ The purpose of this section is to provide a respondent with proper notice of the allegations of contempt for which he must prepare a defense at the hearing on the motion. ” See In re Ezukanma , 336 S.W.3d 389, 395 (Tex. App.

-- Fort Worth 2011, orig. proceeding) (citing Ex parte Conoly, 732 S.W.2d 695, 698 (Tex.App.

- Dallas 1987, orig. proceeding)). If the order fails to provide such notice, the punitive portion of the
order is void. See Ezukanma, 336 S.W.3d at 395

. The record contains eviden ce3

that some payments were made but n either the motion to enforce nor the order reflects payments made.
Accordingly, we grant relator's petition and v acate the trial court's order holding him in contempt and ordering that he be incarcerated. We further order relator released from the bond set by this court on December 2 3 , 201 2 , and order relator discharged from custody.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Ju stices Frost, Christopher, and Jamison.
#### HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP BOARD OF EDUCATION v. HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP EDUCATION ASSOCIATION.

October 6, 1987.

Petition for certification denied.
GreenPower Motor Company Inc.: Exhibit 10.23 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com


    

    PROMISSORY NOTE

    BORROWER: GreenPower Motor Company Inc., of Suite 240 - 209 Carrall Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, V6B 2J2

     (the "Borrower")

    LENDER: Koko Financial Services Ltd. of o                                                                                  


     (the "Lender")

    AMOUNT: $1,150,000.00                                           

    DATE: December 30, 2019                                 

    FOR VALUE RECEIVED, on the Payment Date (as hereinafter defined) the Borrower promises to pay to the Lender, at                                                                                                or at such other address as the Lender may direct the Borrower in writing, the principal sum of ONE MILLION ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND Dollars ($1,150,000.00) in lawful money of Canada (hereinafter the "Principal Sum"), together with interest on the unpaid balance of the principal sum at the Interest Rate (as hereinafter defined).

    For the purpose hereof, "Payment Date" means the earlier of (i) the date that the Borrower completes an equity financing of more than Five Million US Dollars (US$5,000,000) (ii) from receipt of proceeds on the sale of buses in excess of Ten Million US Dollars (US$10,000,000) or (iii) April 15th, 2021.

    For the purpose hereof, the "Interest Rate" means Twelve per cent (12%) per annum.  Interest at the Interest Rate will be calculated and paid on the last day of each month and after each of maturity, default and judgment.  If the Borrower fails to make any payment of interest when due, the Borrower will pay compound interest thereon computed on the last banking day of each month until such interest is paid.

    The Borrower shall have the right, without the consent of the Lender, to prepay in whole or in part, at any time and from time to time, all or any of the amounts due hereunder without bonus or penalty.

    The Borrower agrees to grant the Lender a general security assignment on the assets of the Borrower, which will be subordinated to the BMO Bank of Montreal.

    The Borrower hereby waives demand, notice of dishonor and presentment for payment, protest and notice of protest of this promissory note.

    SIGNED, SEALED AND DELIVERED as of December 30th, 2019.

    GreenPower Motor Company Inc.

    By: /s/ Michael Sieffert                                      

    Authorized Signatory
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

ESTATE OF EDMUND D. SIMON, ESTATE 

OF MARJORIE P. SIMON ESTATE OF 

ETHEL SIMON, PATRICIA SIMON, 

EXECUTRIX AND AISHA BRADLEY

v.

CITY OF PHILADELPHIA AND 

FAIRMOUNT PARK SUMMIT PARK EAST 

GENERAL PARTNERSHIP UNIVERSITY 

CITY HOUSING COMPANY

PETITION OF: PATRICIA SIMON AND 

AISHA BRADLEY

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 51 EM 2022

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 4

th day of November, 2022, the Application to Exceed the Word 

Count is DENIED. Petitioners are allotted 15 days in which to file a perfected Petition for 

Allowance of Appeal. No extensions will be granted absent exceptional circumstances.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
<CIK>     0000891098
<NAME>     Sterling Bancshares Inc
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          71,120
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          25,927
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                51,032
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     70,823
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         189,355
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           178,733
<LOANS>                                        694,086
<ALLOWANCE>                                    (8,413)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,150,371
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,045,219
<SHORT-TERM>                                     8,825
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              8,944
<LONG-TERM>                                      5,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         88
<COMMON>                                        25,060
<OTHER-SE>                                      56,335
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,150,371
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 16,490
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                3,979
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   531
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                21,000
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               6,424
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,634
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           14,366
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      740
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 11,474
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,040
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       5,040
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,375
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.14
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.13
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.92
<LOANS-NON>                                      2,531
<LOANS-PAST>                                       679
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                    95
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 14,049
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 7,850
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    (262)
<RECOVERIES>                                        86
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                8,413
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,363
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          5,050


</TABLE>
#### Pope and Others *v.*Anthony.—In error.

Friday, *November*22.

DEBT against *Pope*.and others on a promissory note. On the second day of the term to which the writ was returnable, the defendants, without appearing to the suit, moved to quash the writ, on the ground that, at the time of the service and return, the writ was not sealed, and did not contain the name of the county in which it issued. To support the motion, the defendants offered to prove the facts on which it was founded to the Court. Held, that the evidence was admissible. *Siggers*v. Sansom, 3 M. & Scott, 194.—3 Chitt. G. P. 233.
J

- A04001

- 20

NON - PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I.O.P. 65.37
MICHELE M. STIPA ,

Appellee

v. ANTHONY D. GIAMPAOLO ,

Appellant : : : : : : : : : IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF

PENNSYLVANIA

No. 1 32 8 EDA 2019
Appeal from the Order Ente red April 2 9 , 201 9 i n the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County Domestic Relations at No(s): 17

- 0 1688 BE FORE: PANELLA , P. J., STRASSBURGER, J. * and COLINS , J. * CONCURRING AND DISSENTING MEMORANDUM BY STR ASSBURGER, J.: Filed: March 23, 2020
I join the learned Majority’ s analysis and holding that there was no obligation on the part of the trial court to require the showing of need on behalf of Mother for entry of a child support order. Specifically, I dissent as to Father’s is sue that involves the trial court’s handling of Mother’s oth er household income and the age of C hild. The majority concludes that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined other household income and the age of Child did not warrant d eviation from the support guidelines. Majority at 7

- 9.

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______

* Retired Senior Judge assigned to t he Superior Court.J

- A04001

- 20

- 2

-

Regarding other household income, M other resides with her parents.
A ccording to Mother, her father collects a pension and possibly social security, and her mother coll ects social security benefits as well as income from Mother for providing childcare

. T he definition of income is set forth in 23 Pa.C.S. § 4302, and specifically states that “ pensions ,” “ social security benefits , ” and “compensation for services” are to be included. It is clear there is other household income present in this case . In add ition to the income that Mother ’ s parents receive, t he trial court failed to discover and consider the amount , if any, Mother’s parents may be contributing towards her food and lodging such as the rent o r mortgage. See Mooney v. Doutt , 766 A.2d 1271, 1275 (Pa. Super. 2001) ( utilizing the subsidization of a Father ’ s living expenses of rent and food because Father was living with his parents as a consideration in determining the amount of child support obl igation). Regarding the age of Child, the age of Child warranted a downward deviation from the support guidelines because it is undoubtedly clear that a
two

- year - old would require less financial supp ort than a seventeen

- year old. 1

_________________ __________ ______ ____ _______ 1 “Child expenditure increases as a child matures.” See American Law Institute, Principles of the Law of Family Dissolution: Analysis and Recommendations § 3.05A, cmt. l. (2002).J

- A04001

- 20

- 3

-

Accordingly, I would hold that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to account fully for the other household income and age of the Child

. I would remand to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this memorandum.
CERTIFICATIONS

I, Alfred Coscina, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Pacific Land and Coffee Corporation;



2.

Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



3.

Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly 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 quarterly report;



4.

The registrants other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:





a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;





b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and



c) presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The registrants other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; 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; and



6.

The registrants other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Date: July 11, 2006



/s/ Alfred Coscina

Al Coscina

Chief Financial Officer
# KSC00pp0263

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, FLA. -- In the waning light after sundown, Space Shuttle Endeavour touches down on KSC's Shuttle Landing Facility Runway 33 to complete the 11-day, 5-hour, 38-minute-long STS-99 mission. At the controls are Commander Kevin Kregel and Pilot Dominic Gorie. Also onboard the orbiter are Mission Specialists Janet Kavandi, Janice Voss, Mamoru Mohri of Japan and Gerhard Thiele of Germany. Mohri is with the National Space Development Agency (NASDA) and Thiele is with the European Space Agency. The crew are returning from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission after mapping more than 47 million square miles of the Earth's surface. Main gear touchdown was at 6:22:23 p.m. EST Feb. 22 , landing on orbit 181 of the mission. Nose gear touchdown was at 6:22:35 p.m.. EST, and wheel stop at 6:23:25 p.m. EST. This was the 97th flight in the Space Shuttle program and the 14th for Endeavour, also marking the 50th landing at KSC, the 21st consecutive landing at KSC, and the 28th in the last 29 Shuttle flight

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-ksc00pp0263/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenFebruary 22, 2000ProducerKSCSize1920x1536pxPIA NumberKSC00pp0263The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Apr 06, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
Exhibit 99.1

                            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 Reconditioned Systems, Inc.(the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dirk D.
Anderson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
Section 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.

         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
been provided to Reconditioned Systems, Inc. and will be retained by
Reconditioned Systems, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

/s/ Dirk D. Anderson

Dirk D. Anderson
Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer
August 15, 2003
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-6190

LARRY GORDON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge.

(CA-99-36-2)

Submitted: May 25, 2000 Decided: June 5, 2000

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Gordon, Appellant Pro Se. John H. McLees, Jr., OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

January 12, 2000, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on January 13, 2000. Pursuant to Rules

58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the

date the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the

effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Larry Gordon seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West

1994 & Supp. 1999). We have reviewed the record and the district

court’s opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning

of the district court. See Gordon v. Angelone, No. CA-99-36-2

(E.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2000).* We also deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis. 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.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 32



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 Annual Report of Pacific Land and Coffee Corporation (the "Company") on Form  10-KSB for the  period  ending March 31, 2007,  as filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the   "Report"),  I, Al Coscina, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 and 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.



/s/ Al Coscina

By:Al Coscina

Chief Financial Officer

June 29, 2007
EXHIBIT 99.5





                                                      Our ref  Exhibit 99.5.doc4

The Directors
Crusade Management Limited
Level 4
4-16 Montgomery Street
Kogarah NSW 2217


24 March



Dear Sirs

CRUSADE GLOBAL TRUSTS

This consent is given by KPMG concerning the submission of the 20F report to the
SEC for the year ended 30 September 2003 in respect of Crusade Global Trust No.1
of 1999,  Crusade  Global Trust No.1 of 2001,  Crusade Global Trust No.2 of 2001
and Crusade Global Trust No.1 of 2002.

KPMG consents to its custodial  agreed upon  procedures  reports,  dated 8 April
2003, in respect of the Crusade Global Trust No.1 of 1999,  Crusade Global Trust
No.1 of 2001, Crusade Global Trust No.2 of 2001 and Crusade Global Trust No.1 of
2002, being included in the submission of the 20F report.


Yours faithfully

/s/ Andrew Yates


Andrew Yates
Partner
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. MATTHEW KENT.

December 16, 1986.

Petition for certification denied. (See 212 *N.J.Super.*635)