alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Dismissed and Opinion Filed October 30, 2014 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-14-01347-CV IN RE KEVIN MENNIEFEE, Relator Original Proceeding from the 86th District Court Kaufman County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 28736A-86 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Wright, Justi ce FitzGerald, and Justice Francis Opinion by Justice FitzGerald Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus seeking to compel rulings on three motions filed in conjunction with his petition for wr it of habeas corpus. Th e trial court signed an order on August 13, 2013 designating issues with regard to the petition for writ of habeas corpus, ordering affidavits from relato r’s trial and appellate counsel regarding relator’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim, and granting the state leave to file an amended answer. Relator attached three file stamped motions, am ong other things, in s upport of his petition for writ of mandamus. His “Motion for Statut ory Presumption of Innocence,” file stamped September 20, 2013, invokes the presumption of innocence, argues that the state failed to produce evidence sufficient to suppor t his guilty plea, and complains of ineffective assistance of counsel. His “Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law,” file stamped March 20, 2014, complains of the failure of his trial and appellat e counsel to prepare sworn affidavits regarding–2– the relator’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim. His “M otion for Evidentiary Hearing,” file stamped April 7, 2014, seeks an evid entiary hearing on the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Because each of the motions touches or concerns the very issues raised by the petition for writ of habeas corpus, this Court lacks jurisdic tion over relator’s petiti on for writ of mandamus. The intermediate courts of appeals have no origin al jurisdiction over petitions for habeas corpus relief in connection with criminal proceedings. See T EX
. G OV ' T C ODE A NN . § 22.221(d) (West 2004) (limiting habeas corpus jurisdiction of inte rmediate courts of appeals to civil matters);
T EX
. C ODE C RIM
. P ROC
. A NN . art. 11.05 (West 2005) (granting original jurisdiction in cases seeking writs of habeas corpus in criminal cases to the court of cr iminal appeals, districts courts, and county courts). Accordingly, the intermedia te courts of appeals also have no mandamus jurisdiction in matters related to pending petitions for writ of habeas corpus. “Article 11.07 contains no role for the courts of appeals; the only courts referred to are the convicting court and the Court of Criminal Appeals. Should an appli cant find it necessary to co mplain about an action or inaction of the convicting co urt, the applicant may seek ma ndamus relief from the Court of Criminal Appeals.” In re McAfee, 53 S.W.3d 715, 718 (Te x. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).
We DISMISS the petition for want of jurisdiction.

141347F.P05 /Kerry P. FitzGerald/ KERRY P. FITZGERALD JUSTICE
No. 32.

#### William D. Shockley, plaintiff in error, *vs.*G. O. Davis and others, defendants in error.

[1.] In attachment, the bond, though, for a sum *greater*than double the amount sworn to be due, is good.

*176Attachment, in Marion Superior Court. Decision *by*Judge Perkins, August Term, 1854.

The only question in this case is — whether an attachment bond, given under the Act of 1833, is good, which is for more than double the amount of the debt sworn to. The Court below held the attachment to be good, and this decision is assigned as error.

Oliver, for plaintiff in error.

Pryor, for defendant in error.

*By the Court.*

Benning, J.

delivering the opinion.

[1.] The Act of 1833, to amend and explain the second section of the Attachment Act, of the 18th of February, 1799, requires, in attachments, the plaintiff to give the defendant bond and security, in a sum *at least*equal to double the amount sworn to be due.

The meaning of this requisition is, that no bond, for a sum less than double the amount sworn to be due, shall be received; but that any bond for a sum *equal*to double that amount, or for a sum *greater*than double that amount, shall be received.

This is clear, both from the words of this Act, and from the words of the part of the Act of 1799, which this Act was passed to amend. Those words are — “shall take bond and security of the party for whom the same may be granted, in double the sum to be attached” — not in *at least*double the sum to be attached.

In this case the bond was for a sum equal to more than double the amount sworn to be due.

The Court was right, therefore, in holding the bond good.
#### BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE TWP. OF BERNARDS, SOMERSET COUNTY v. BERNARDS TWP. EDUCATION ASSOCIATION.

June 27, 1978.

Petition for certification granted.
**Exhibit 10.6**

 

**IRREVOCABLE VOTING PROXY**

 

The undersigned hereby appoints Jesse Dobrinsky attorney and proxy, with            full power of substitution, in the name and stead of the undersigned, to vote as proxy            all of the shares of Series IV preferred stock, par value $1.00 per share, of CARGO            CONNECTION LOGISTICS HOLDING, INC., a Florida corporation (the “Company”),            owned by the undersigned, at any meeting of the stockholders of the Company, including            any adjournments or postponements thereof or in any written consent in lieu thereof, in            such manner as Mr. Dobrinsky may determine in his sole discretion.

 

The foregoing power of attorney is hereby declared to be irrevocable and            to be a power coupled with an interest that shall survive the death, dissolution or            incapacity of the undersigned.

             

This power of attorney and proxy shall expire five years from the date            hereof.

 

 
| Dated: March 26, 2008 |   | TRIPLE CROWN CONSULTING, INC. |
|-----------------------|--------|-------------------------------|
|                       |   | By:                           | /s/ Ben Kaplan |
|                  |   | Name: Ben Kaplan              |
|                  |   | Title:                        |

 

             

 

 
|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       2,426,052
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          41,255
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                               200,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                               453,380
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 20,872,509
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      21,615,744
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        21,279,246
<LOANS>                                     97,759,723
<ALLOWANCE>                                    679,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             146,898,358
<DEPOSITS>                                 126,570,031
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,875,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          2,660,342
<LONG-TERM>                                    762,107
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     4,469,644
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,561,234
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             146,898,358
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,035,053
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              676,412
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                43,348
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             2,754,813
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,575,692
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,612,116
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,142,697
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                   77,747
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              53,170
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,535,261
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                320,000
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     320,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (212,125)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.32)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.32)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.19
<LOANS-NON>                                    221,000
<LOANS-PAST>                                   313,000
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               671,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   70,000
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              679,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           679,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

Teledyne Scientific & Imaging, LLC 

Under Contract No. HROO 11-09-C-OO 16 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 61105 

Nicole J. Owren-Wiest, Esq. 

Crowell & Moring LLP 

Washington, DC 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Srikanti Schaffner, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Carson, CA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 20 April 2018 

dministrative Judge 

Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61105, Appeal of Teledyne Scientific 

& Imaging, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals 
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS 

Appeal of --

Teledyne Scientific & Imaging, LLC 

Under Contract No. HROO 11-09-C-OO 16 

APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT: 

ASBCA No. 61105 

Nicole J. Owren-Wiest, Esq. 

Crowell & Moring LLP 

Washington, DC 

E. Michael Chiaparas, Esq. 

DCMA Chief Trial Attorney 

Srikanti Schaffner, Esq. 

Trial Attorney 

Defense Contract Management Agency 

Carson, CA 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

The dispute has been settled. The appeal is dismissed with prejudice. 

Dated: 20 April 2018 

dministrative Judge 

Chairman 

Armed Services Board 

of Contract Appeals 

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the Order of Dismissal of the Armed 

Services Board of Contract Appeals in ASBCA No. 61105, Appeal of Teledyne Scientific 

& Imaging, LLC, rendered in conformance with the Board's Charter. 

Dated: 

JEFFREY D. GARDIN 

Recorder, Armed Services 

Board of Contract Appeals
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE COMBINED
BALANCE SHEETS, STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,755
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (9,755)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  (3,755)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,755)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (3,755)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (3,755)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
II 

Calendar No. 573 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1763 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 21, 2003 

Mr. SCHUMER (for himself and Mrs. CLINTON) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Governmental Affairs 

JUNE 7, 2004 

Reported by Ms. COLLINS, without amendment 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 14 Chestnut Street, in Liberty, New York, 

as the ‘‘Ben R. Gerow Post Office Building’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. BEN R. GEROW POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

5 Postal Service located at 14 Chestnut Street, in Liberty, 

6 New York, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Ben 

7 R. Gerow Post Office Building’’. 
2 

•S 1763 RS 

1 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg2 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

3 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

4 be deemed to be a reference to the Ben R. Gerow Post 

5 Office Building. 

Calendar No. 573 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 1763 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postfice Building’’. erty, New York, as the ‘‘Ben R. Gerow Post Of- al Service located at 14 Chestnut Street, in LibJUNE 7, 2004 

Reported without amendment
#### Robert FADEM; Mary O. Fadem, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. Robert Fadem; Mary O. Fadem, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee. Robert Fadem; Mary O. Fadem, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. United States of America, Defendant-Appellee.

Nos. 92-56400, 92-56404 and 92-56407.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Jan. 19, 1999.

Before: BRIGHT,* WIGGINS and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 Hon. Myron H. Bright, Senior United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.

ORDER

In *Fadem v. United States,*42 F.3d 533, 534-35 (9th Cir.1994), we granted the appellants’ petition for rehearing, holding that we had jurisdiction to hear the Fadems’ appeals, cases No. 92-56400, 92-56404 and 92-56407. *1243We subsequently resolved cases No. 92-56400 and 92-56407 in an unpublished memorandum disposition, *see Fadem v. United States,*Nos. 92-56400, 92-56407 (9th Cir. Mar. 29, 1995), and case No. 92-56404 in a published opinion. *See Fadem v. United States,*52 F.3d 202 (9th Cir.1995). The Supreme Court granted certiorari on both our decision reported at 42 F.3d 533 and our decision reported at 52 F.3d 202, vacated our judgments and remanded for further consideration in light of *United States v. Brockamp,*519 U.S. 347, 117 S.Ct. 849, 136 L.Ed.2d 818 (1997). *See United States v. Fadem,*— U.S. -, 117 S.Ct. 1103, 137 L.Ed.2d 306 (1997).

On remand, in case No. 92-56404, we determined that *Brockamp*did not affect our analysis on equitable tolling. *See Fadem v. United States,*113 F.3d 167, 167 (9th Cir.1997). We therefore reinstated our judgment and opinion reported at 52 F.3d 202. *See id.*

We hold, similarly, that *Brockamp*does not affect our analysis in our opinion reported at 42 F.3d 533. We therefore REINSTATE the judgment and opinion reported at 42 F.3d 533, as well as the memorandum disposition resolving cases No. 92-56400 and 92-56407, *Fadem v. United States,*Nos. 92-56400, 92-56407 (9th Cir. Mar. 29, 1995).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Exhibit 10.1
 NONQUALIFIED
STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT
 THIS NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION AGREEMENT CRAFT BREWERS ALLIANCE, INC.
 RECITALS
 2002 Stock Option Plan
  NOW THEREFORE,
 1. Grant of the Option.
 2. Term of the Option.
 3. Exercisability.
 4. Exercise of the Option.




---



##### 



5. Tax Withholding and Reimbursement.
 6. Acceptance of Option; Further Assurances.
 7. Entire Agreement; Amendments; Binding Effect.




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 Company
    CRAFT BREWERS ALLIANCE, INC.By[Name][Title] Holder

    __________________________________________




---



##### 



EXHIBIT A
 NOTICE OF STOCK OPTION EXERCISE
 CRAFT BREWERS ALLIANCE, INC.
2002 STOCK OPTION PLAN
 To:
    
    Craft Brewers Alliance, Inc.
929 North Russell Street
Portland, Oregon 97227
Attention: Patrick GreenHolder:
    
    Print NameMailing Address:Telephone Number:Option:
    
    The option evidenced by
an Option Agreement dated , .
 OPTION EXERCISE
  Number of Shares Purchased (a)Per-Share Option Price (b)
    
    $Aggregate Purchase Price (a times b)
    
    $Closing Date of PurchaseForm of Payment [Check One]:o    My check in the full amount of the Aggregate Purchase Price (as well as a
check for any withholding taxes, if this box  ̈ is checked). See
Instructions below.o    Delivery of previously owned shares of CBAI common stock with a fair market
value equal to the Aggregate Purchase Price (as well as any withholding taxes,
if this box  ̈ is checked). See Instructions below. Note that
restricted shares acquired from CBAI under one of its stock plans may be used
for this purpose only if such shares have become vested.
 -1-




---



##### 



o    My irrevocable direction to my securities broker (see below) to sell Shares
subject to the Option and deliver a portion of the sales proceeds to Craft
Brewers Alliance, Inc., in full payment of the Aggregate Purchase Price (as
well as any withholding taxes, if this box  ̈ is checked). See
Instructions below. I hereby confirm that any sale of Shares will be in
compliance with CBAIs policies on insider trading and Rule 144, if applicable.
I HEREBY IRREVOCABLY AUTHORIZE  to transfer funds to
Craft Brewers Alliance,
                         
     (name of broker)
Inc., from my account in payment of the Aggregate Purchase Price (and
withholding taxes, if applicable) and Craft Brewers Alliance, Inc., is
hereby directed to issue the Shares for my account with such broker and to
transmit the Shares to the broker indicated above.
 Instructions:
    ISSUANCE INSTRUCTIONS FOR STOCK CERTIFICATES
  
 
 
 o o o
 -2-




---



##### 



o My brokerage accountAttn:Account No.: ; oro My mailing address set forth above.
 Date
    
    Signature of Participant
 ATTESTATION FORM
     -3-




---



##### 



Common Stock 
Certificate Number
    
    Number of
Shares Covered
 Date:Print Name of Option Holder:Signature of Option Holder:Print Name of Joint Owner:Signature of Joint Owner:
   Name of Brokerage FirmDate:
    By:Telephone No.:Print Name of Signing Broker -4-
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                          5
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                      3-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                       MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                                     1,128,786
<SECURITIES>                                                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                              1,986,678
<ALLOWANCES>                                                       0
<INVENTORY>                                                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                   0
<PP&E>                                                             0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                     0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                           124,071,553
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                              0
<BONDS>                                                            0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                              0
<PREFERRED>                                                        0
<COMMON>                                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                                73,828,976
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                             124,071,553
<SALES>                                                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                           5,959,801
<CGS>                                                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                           4,260,719
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                              59,598
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                           920,880
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                              718,604
<INCOME-TAX>                                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          718,604
<DISCONTINUED>                                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                    0
<CHANGES>                                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                                 718,604
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                      0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                      0
        

</TABLE>
#### WILLIAM C. D'IPPOLITO v. PATRICIA DIANNE CARPENTER.

June 21, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.