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

NO. 03
- 22
- 00582
- CR

Ex parte Robert Joseph Yezak

FROM THE 299TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D
- 1
- DC
- 20
- 200222 , HONORABLE KAREN SAGE , JUDGE PRESIDING

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

Ro b ert Joseph Yezak has filed a pro se noti ce of appeal seeking review of the
trial court ’ s failure to rule on his application for writ of habeas corpus filed in the trial court. The
trial court has not yet addressed the merits of his application or conduct e d an evidentiary hearing regarding the application. “No appeal lies from the refusal to issue a writ of habeas corpus unless the trial court rules on the merits of the application.” Ex parte Young , 257 S.W.3d 276, 277 (Tex. App.

— Beaumont 2008, no pet.); see Ex parte Ratliff , No. 03

- 04

- 00040

- CR, 2004
WL 1686636, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Austin July 29, 2004, no pet.) (mem. op., not designated for publication). Accordingly, we have no jurisdiction over this appeal. See Ex parte Young , 257 S.W.3d at 277.

To the e x tent that Yezak is seeking ma ndamus relief from this Court regarding an alleged fai lure to rule , we would be unable to grant relief. In his filings, Yezak notes that he is represented by appointed counsel in the proceedings below. A defendant has no rig h t to “hybrid representation.” See Ex parte Taylor , 36 S.W.3d 883, 88 7 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001). To the
extent that Yezak ’ s filings can be construed as a pro se mandamus petition, the absence of a right2

to hybrid representation means that this Court cannot act on his petition. See Gray v. Shipley , 877 S.W.2d 806, 806 (Tex. Ap p.

— Houston [1st Dist.] 1994, orig. proceeding).

For these reasons, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.

____________ ______________________________ Thomas J. Baker , Justice
Before Justices Goodwin, Baker, and Kelly
Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction
Fil ed: October 28, 2022
Do Not Publish
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 210 (Monday, November 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 67143]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27464]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permits Issued Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 
1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation of 
1978, Public Law 95-541.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permits issued under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 
This is the required notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, 
Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 20, 2010, the National Science 
Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of permit 
application received. A permit was issued on October 12, 2010 to:
    Paul Ponganis, Permit No. 2011-016.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-27464 Filed 10-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

LEO MARTINEZ

,

Appellant

,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

,

State

. §

§

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 7

- 00 01 06

- C R

Appeal from the

409 th District Court

of El Paso C ounty, Texas

(TC# 2012 0 D0 1991 )

O R D E R

The Court GRANTS the Appellant ’ s third motion for extension of time within which to

file the b rief until January 21

, 201 8

. NO FURTHER MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME

TO F ILE THE APPELLANT ’ S B R IEF WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT.

It is further ORDERED that the Hon. Ruben P. Morales

, the Appellant ’ s attorney,

prepare the Appellant ’ s b rief and forward the same to this Court on or before January 2 1 , 201 8

.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 1 9 th d ay of December , 20 1 7

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
#### Louis JIMERSON, Appellant, v. Raymond M. MEYER, Assistant United States Attorney, Appellee.

No. 03-2675.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 26, 2003.

Decided Aug. 29, 2003.

Louis Jimerson, El Reno, OK, pro se.

*682Before WOLLMAN, FAGG, and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Federal prisoner Louis Jimerson appeals from the district court’s1 preservice dismissal without prejudice of his civil complaint. Upon careful review of the record, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the complaint for the reasons explained by the court. Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

1

. The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.
EXHIBIT 10.16

EDIETS.COM
           MORE MEMBERS EVERY MINUTE

       3467 Hillsboro Blvd,
   Deerfield Beach FL 33442
             www.ediets.com

               954.360.9022
               Fax 360.9095

OVERNIGHT DELIVERY

November 1, 19999

Mr. Rob Hamilton
7420 Bristol Lane

Parkland, Florida 33067

Dear Rob:

I am pleased to extend an offer to you for the executive management position of
Chief Financial Officer for eDiets.com, Inc. As we have previously discussed,
this offer is contingent upon the successful completion of our private placement
offering. I anticipate a closing in the near future, possibly as soon as
November 5, 1999 and, in light of this, I would like for you to begin employment
two weeks from the date of the closing.

Your annual salary will be $100,000 to be paid to you on a weekly basis. You
have also been granted an option to purchase 100,000 shares as well as an option
to purchase another 15,000 shares at the end of the first year provided you have
successfully achieved mutually agreed to MB0s. These options will vest over a
two-year period (from the date of grant) and are being offered to you at an
exercise price of two dollars ($2.00) per share. All employee stock options are
subject to the terms and conditions of the company's Stock Option Plan.

eDiets is excited to be able to offer a full benefits package including:

         /checkmark/ MEDICAL INSURANCE
         /checkmark/ DENTAL INSURANCE
         /checkmark/ VISION INSURANCE
         /checkmark/ 401K PLAN
         /checkmark/ STOCK OPTION PLANS
         /checkmark/ 2 WEEKS VACATION
         /checkmark/ 8 SICK/PERSONAL DAYS
         /checkmark/ PAID HOLIDAYS

We are all excited to have you join the eDiets team and are looking forward to a
great working relationship. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to
contact Christine Brown or me at (954) 560-9022.

Sincerely,


/s/                                              ACCEPTED:
David R. Humble
Chief Executive Officer                          /s/
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Rob Hamilton

<PAGE>


EDIETS.COM  EVERYONE IS DIFFERENT ... EVERY EDIET IS DIFFERENT


              David R. Humble
                 Chairman/CEO
          drhumble@ediets.com

November 9, 1999


Mr. Rob Hamilton
7420 Bristol Lane
Parkland, Florida 33067


Dear Rob:

It is agreed that in the event eDiets.com, Inc. chooses to terminate your
employment without cause, eDiets shall compensate you for four (4) months or
sixteen (16) weeks of salary at your then current salary.

Sincerely,

/s/
David R. Humble
Chief Executive Officer

ACCEPTED:

/s/
-----------------------
Rob Hamilton

         3467 Hillsboro Blvd.
     Deerfield Beach Fl 33442
                 954.360.9022
             Fax 954.360.9095
               www.ediets.com
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 (the
Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) and 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 Company.
  /s/ Howard W. RobinHoward W. RobinPresident and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer) /s/ Gregory L. WeaverGregory L. WeaverSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)  34
#### CARL OEDER & SONS SAND & GRAVEL COMPANY, a Division of Oeder & Sons Garage, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. UNION TOWNSHIP et al., Defendants-Appellants,

No. 02-3156.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Sept. 4, 2003.

Jack J. Brady, Brian P. Barger, Brady, Coyle & Schmidt, Toledo, OH, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Patrick K Dunphy, Falke *&*Dunphy, Dayton, OH, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAUGHTREY and MOORE, Circuit Judges, and CALDWELL,* District Judge.

*

 The Hon. Karen Caldwell, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Union Township appeals from the district court’s issuance of a preliminary injunction prohibiting the enforcement of a resolution passed by the township’s Board of Trustees that banned vehicles weighing over 20,000 lbs. from using certain roads within the township. The resolution was obviously aimed at a sand and gravel operation run by plaintiff Carl Oeder & Sons, which required the *573transportation of raw material from the company’s gravel mine to its processing plant some miles away. Oeder’s trucks exceeded the weight limit when empty and, fully loaded, they regularly traveled the three roads in question prior to passage of the resolution at issue here. As a result of the resolution, Oeder had to use alternate routes and travel approximately twice the original distance to transfer raw material to the processing plant.

Oeder challenged the resolution, arguing that the township did not have legal authority to enact it. The district court, finding that Oeder had demonstrated a very strong likelihood of success on the merits, granted Oeder’s request for a preliminary injunction. The court reasoned that the resolution’s reliance on Ohio Revised Code § 4511.07(Z) was legally insufficient to establish the express delegation of authority required by the Ohio Constitution’s “home rule amendment,” given that the Ohio Supreme Court has held that the statute is not an affirmative grant of power. *See Geauga County Bd. of Comm’rs v. Munn Road Sand & Gravel,*67 Ohio St.3d 579, 621 N.E.2d 696 (1993). We agree with this analysis.

Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied the record on appeal and the briefs of the parties, we are not persuaded that the district court erred in granting the preliminary injunction in this case. Because the reasons why the injunction should issue have been fully articulated by the district court, a detailed opinion by this court would be duplicative and would serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court upon the reasoning set out by that court in its order filed January 3, 2002.
#### The State *v.*Taylor.—In error.

AN indictment cannot be objected to because one of the grand jurors who found it was an alien. See R. S. 1843, p. 951.
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T h e p artie s c o n s e n te dto th e ju r is d ic tio n o f th e m a g is tr a te ju d g e . See ** 28 U . S . C . § 6 36 (c ).

T he pane l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** * w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T ED W A RD TH O M A S, P la in tif

f - A p p e llan t, v. J . L A W R E N C E W R I G H T ; e t a l., D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 09- 17212 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 9 - c v - 0 0 8 5 5 - C MK ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia C r a i g M . K e l l i s on, M a gi s tr a t e Judge , P r e s i di ng ** S ubm i tt e d F e bruary15, 2011 *** B efo re: C A N B Y , F E RN A N D E Z , an dM . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. E dw ar d T ho m as , a C al i forni a s t at e pri soner, appeal s pro se fr om the di stri ct co u rt ’ s j u d g m en td i sm i ssi n g h i s 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 act i o n fo r fai l u re t o ex h au st 

# FI LED FEB 25 2 011 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 17212 2 a d mi n i s tr a t i v e r e me d i e s u n d e rth e Pr i s o n Li t i g a t i o n Re f o rm A c t , 4 2 U . S. C. § 1997e ( a ) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . § 1291. W e r e vi e w de novo the di stri ctcourt ’ s app l i cat i on of subst ant i ve l aw , and for cl ear e rr or i t s f ac tual d et erm i n at i o n s, W

y at t v . T e rhune , 3 1 5 F . 3 d1 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 7 ( 9 th C i r . 2 0 0 3 ) , a n dwe a f f i rm. T h e d is tr ic t c o u rt d idn o t c le ar lye rrb yd e c id in g d is p u te dis s u e s o f f a c t in f a vorof de f e ndant s a nd f

i ndi ng tha tT hom a s w a s notpr e ve nt e d f r om f i l i ng g r ie v a n c e s . Se e i d. a t 1 1 1 9 - 2 0 ( “I n d e c id in g am o tio n to d is m is s f o rf a ilu r e to e xhaus tnonj udi c i a l r e m e di e s , the c ourtm ayl ook be y ond the pl e a di ngs a nd de c i de di s put e d i s s ue s of

f a c t . ” ) . A c c or di ngl y , the di s tr i c tc ourtpr ope r l ydi s m i s s e d the a c t i on be c aus e T hom a s f a i l e d t o e xhaus ta dm i ni s tr a t i ve r e m e di e s pr i ort o f i l i ng s u it. Se e W

oodf ord v . N go , 54 8 U . S . 81 , 93 -95 (20 06 ) ( ho l di ng that“ prop er e x h au s tio n ” u n d e r§ 1 9 9 7 e ( a ) is m an d a to rya n dr e q u ir e s a d h e r e n c e to a d m in is tr a tiv e p r o c e du r a l ru le s ) . AF F I RME D.
# 8 x 6 Supersonic Wind Tunnel

The 8 × 6 Supersonic Wind Tunnel is a world-class facility that provides researchers with the opportunity to explore higher speed regions of flight. It is NASA’s only transonic wind tunnel. Actively involved in research testing for over 70 years, this facility has been used to enhance the nation’s aeronautics program serving industry, academia and NASA research.  The test section is 8-feet high by 6-feet wide and 23.5-feet long. The tunnel can operate at speeds from 0 to Mach 0.1 and from Mach 0.26 to 2.0. 

**CLICK Anywhere To Start Tour**

    8x6: Supersonic Wind Tunnel

    8x6: Model Assembly Area

    8x6: Control Room

# 

Touch and drag to view the 360-degree image
****

## Don McMillan

----

I have been a huge space fan for as long as I can remember. My first  recollections were of the first Mercury flights as well as John Glenn's  mission. My fascination carried on through Gemini and then to Apollo.

I am thankful to have parents who recognized my interest in the space  program. In July of 1971 our family traveled from Ottawa Canada, where I still live, to Florida and I visited the Kennedy Space Center for the first time. Over the course of five summers we made the trip to Cocoa Beach and visited the Kennedy Space Center several times.

One of my biggest thrills was seeing Apollo 15 on pad 39A and then to witness the launch. In August of 1975 I was again lucky to witness the  launch of Viking 1 to Mars. I  also had the good fortune to meet Jim  Lovell, who autographed a scrapbook that I still have today.

My interest in Apollo has not let up over the years. I continue to read books and re-read my own collection, learning more each time. A few  years ago, when my day job in graphic design moved into the 3D field, I began modeling in  my spare time the Apollo 16 landing site from a contour map included  in the publication "On the Moon with Apollo 16". This of course led to modeling the LM...and then an Apollo astronaut...and then the Lunar Rover.

The ProjectApollo Yahoo group has been very helpful in my research. It was there that I met Karl Dodenhoff, who has shared his many diagrams and images of the Rover. This group also put me in touch with Eric Jones and Ron  Creel. Ron was one of the original Rover Design Team members. When I visited the Moon Buggy Races in Huntsville in April 2005, I met Ron, along with some other Rover Team members. Ron continues to be a great supporter of my  work and I am very happy to be working with him on a Lunar Rover educational simulation.

(The people in the accompanying photo, left to right, are Ron Creel, LRV Thermal Design Team member, me in the middle, and LRV Project Manager Saverio (Sonny) Morea at the 12th Annual  Moonbuggy Races in Huntsville, Alabama at the US Space and Rocket Center.)

Over this past year (2005) I have been contributing animations and images to  the ALSJ. It is my hope to continue to find answers to some of the many  questions I have about Apollo, and to be able to share this knowledge with  Journal readers.

November 2005Editor's Note:  Check out Don's ALSJ Virtual LRV contributions and his website.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. MICHAEL GAJEWSKI, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 183 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 26th day of August, 2014, the Petition for All owance of Appeal is DENIED
.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-11189

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JOHN WAYNE WASHINGTON

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:06-CR-21-ALL

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The attorney appointed to represent John Wayne Washington has moved

for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Washington has filed a response. Our

independent review of the record, counsel’s brief, and Washington’s response

discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for

leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities

herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Washington’s

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

June 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 06-11189

2

motions for the appointment of new counsel or to proceed pro se on appeal are

DENIED.
Exhibit 10.3


 


 








CIDM, LLC


2200 Fletcher Avenue, Suite 501


Fort Lee, NJ 07024







 


 





February 26, 2020


 


Wayne Barr, Jr.


Chief Executive Officer


CCUR HOLDINGS, INC.


6740 East Johns Crossing – Suite 490


Duluth, Georgia 30097


 


Dear Wayne:


 


Reference is made to that certain Management Agreement, dated
as of February 14, 2019, by and between CIDM LLC (“CIDM”), and CCUR Holdings, Inc. (“CCUR”) (the “Management
Agreement”), as amended.


 


Pursuant to, and in conformity the terms of the Management Agreement,
CIDM hereby provides notice to CCUR of its intention to assign all of its interest in the Management Agreement along with any rights
arising thereunder, to CIDM II, LLC, which is an affiliate of, and under the control of, Julian Singer, the principal of CIDM;
the services under the Management Agreement shall continue to be provided principally by Julian Singer.


 


The Management Agreement creates some ambiguity as to whether
this assignment requires only notice under Paragraph 16, or consent under Paragraph 24. For the avoidance of doubt, CIDM hereby
requests that CCUR consent to such assignment by executing a copy of this letter in the space provided.


 


Very truly yours,


 





CIDM LLC





 


/s/ Julian Singer              





By:
Julian Singer





 


APPROVED
AND CONSENT GRANTED


 


/s/
Wayne Barr, Jr.          


By:
Wayne Barr, Jr.


Its:
CEO & President


 


 





cc via email:


Wayne Barr, Jr.


Heather Asher, Esq.
# C o u rt o f

A p p ea ls

o f t h e S t a te o f

G eo rg ia

ATLANTA,_

_ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _

Th e Co u rt

o f Ap p ea l s h er eb y p a s s es t h e f

o ll owi n g o r der :

A 2 4 E0 0 6 3

. W ASEEM A NAS DAKER v
. SCOTT HALPERI N , AS C I RC U I T DEFENDER OF COBB COUNTY.

On Marc h 1 1 , 2024, the S u p e r i o r Co u rt o f Co bb Co u nty entered a n o rd er,

p u rsu a nt to OCGA § 9

- 1 5

- 2 (d ), denyin g p ro se p riso ner W aseem A nas D ak er’ s

p etitio n to f

ile a c iv il ac tio n. On A p ril 1 7 , 2024, Dak er filed by mail i n t h i s C o u rt an

emergenc y mo t io n u nd er Co u r t o f A p p eals Ru le 40 ( b) s eek ing a 30- d ay extensio n to
f ile an a p p lic atio n f

o r d isc retio nary ap p eal. We may no t grant su c h relief
, ho w ev er, as

“ [ n]o extensio ns o f time w ill be granted to f ile a d i s c r e t io nary ap p lic atio n u nless a

mo tio n f o r extensio n is f

iled o n o r bef

o re t he ap p lic atio n d u e d ate. ” Co u rt o f A p p eals

Ru le 31 (i). The o rd er D a k er w ishes to ap p eal w as filed o n M a r c h 1 1 , 2024, and the

d u e d a te f o r an ap p lic atio n f

o r disc retio nary ap p eal w as A p ril 1 0, 2024. See OCGA §

5- 6 -35 (d ). A c c o rd ingly, D ak er’ s emergenc y mo t io n is hereby D EN I ED

.

C o u r t o f A p p e a ls o f t h e S t a t e o f G e o r g ia
C le r k ’ s O ffic e , A t la n t a ,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I c e r t ify t h a t t h e a b o v e is a tr u e e

x t r a c t fr o m

t h e m in u t e s o f t h e C o u r t o f A pp e a ls o f G e o r g ia

. W it n e s s m y s ig n a t u r e a n d t h e s e a l o f s a id c o u r t h e r e t o a ffix e d t h e d a y a n d y e a r la s t a b o v e w r

it t e n

.

, C le r

k

. April 23, 2024

04/23/2024