alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The State of TexasAppellee



# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 7, 2014

N o. 04

- 14

- 00209

- CR

Shanelle COOKS

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Co urt No. 2014CR0038

Honorable Maria Teresa Herr, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The trial court ’ s certification states that this “ is a plea

- bargain case, and the defendant has

NO right of appeal. ” We therefore ORDER the trial court clerk to file, within ten days of the

date of this order, an electronic clerk ’ s record containing the following documents:

1. All pre

- trial motions and the orders on those motions, if any;

2. All documents relating to the defendant ’ s plea bargain, including the

court ’ s admonishments, the defendant ’ s waiver and consent to stipulati on

of testimony, and any other stipulations;

3. The judgment;

4. All post

- judgment motions and the orders on those motions, if any;

5. The notice(s) of appeal;

6. The trial court ’ s certification of defendant ’ s right of appeal; and

7. The criminal dock et sheet.All other appellate deadlines are suspended pending further order of this court. The clerk

of this court is ORDERED to send a copy of this order to the attorneys of record, the trial court

clerk, and the court reporter responsible for preparing the reporter ’ s record in this appeal.

_________________________________ Marialyn Barnard, Justice

IN WITNESS W HEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 7th day of April, 2014

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67240-67241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26741]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[Docket No. FD 35869]


Delaware Lackawaxen & Stourbridge Railroad Company--Operation 
Exemption--Stourbridge Railroad Company

    Delaware Lackawaxen & Stourbridge Railroad Company (DL&S), a 
noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 
1150.31 to operate a 24.80-mile rail line between milepost 0.0 at 
Lackawaxen, in Pike County, Pa., and milepost 24.80 at Honesdale, in 
Wayne County, Pa. (the Line), pursuant to an operating agreement with 
Class III rail carrier Stourbridge Railroad Company (SBRR), the owner 
of the Line.
    DL&S states that the agreement provides that DL&S will be the 
exclusive common carrier freight and passenger operator on the Line. 
DL&S also states that there will be no restrictions or limitations with 
regard to the interchange of freight traffic. DL&S notes that it will 
interchange with the Central New York Railroad Company at milepost 0.0 
at Lackawaxen.
    The transaction may be consummated on November 26, 2014, the 
effective date of the exemption (30 days after the exemption was 
filed).
    DL&S certifies that its projected annual revenues as a result of 
this transaction will not exceed those that would qualify it as a Class 
III carrier and will not exceed $5 million. DL&S also certifies that 
this transaction will not result in the creation of a Class I or Class 
II rail carrier.
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption 
under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a 
petition to revoke will not automatically stay the effectiveness of the 
exemption. Stay petitions must be filed by November 19, 2014 (at least 
seven days before the exemption becomes effective).

[[Page 67241]]

    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to Docket No. 
FD 35869, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 395 E 
Street SW., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each 
pleading must be served on Richard R. Wilson, 518 N. Center Street, 
Ste. 1, Ebensburg, PA 15931.
    Board decisions and notices are available on our Web site at 
``WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.''

    Decided: November 6, 2014.

    By the Board, Rachel D. Campbell, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Raina S. White,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2014-26741 Filed 11-10-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
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 Quarterly Report of Kid Castle
      Educational Corporation, a Florida Corporation (the “Registrant”), on Form 10-Q
      for the fiscal period ending June 30, 2008 filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission , each of the undersigned hereby certify that:





1.
      To the
      best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
      To the
      best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of
      the Registrant.




DATE:
                August 12, 2008
            BY:
            /s/Min-Tan
                YangMIN
                TAN YANG
              CHIEF
                  EXECUTIVE OFFICER




DATE:
                August 12, 2008
            BY:
            /s/Suang-Yi
                PaiSUANG-YI
                PAI
              CHIEF
                  FINANCIAL OFFICER
Order entered October 22, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00589-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.M.T., A CHILD

On Appeal from the 254th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-18-19417

ORDER

Before the Court is appellant’s October 18, 2019 motion for extension of time to file his 

brief. Appellant explains the extension is necessary because the clerk’s record does not include 

plaintiff’s original petition. We rule as follows. 

We GRANT the motion. We ORDER Dallas County District Clerk Felicia Pitre to file, 

no later than November 1, 2019, a supplemental clerk’s record containing a copy of plaintiff’s 

original petition. We further ORDER appellant to file his brief within thirty days of the filing of 

the supplemental clerk’s record.

We note appellant’s motion does not include the certificate of conference required by 

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 10.1(a). See TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1(a)(5). Any further motions 

shall include a certificate of conference. 

We DIRECT the Clerk of the Court to send a copy of this order to Ms. Pitre and the 

parties.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE
Exhibit
10.124


 


LETTER OF AGREEMENT


SERVING AS ADDENDUM TO THE 1997 MEDICAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT


BETWEEN BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA AND


PROSPECT MEDICAL GROUP


FOR


CALIFORNIACARE, BLUE CROSS PLUS AND PERSONAL
CALIFORNIACARE


 


This
will serve as confirmation that BLUE CROSS OF CALIFORNIA (“BLUE CROSS”) has
agreed to the following terms of the CaliforniaCare Medical Services Agreement
between BLUE CROSS and PROSPECT MEDICAL GROUP (“PARTICIPATING MEDICAL GROUP”)
effective January 1, 1997.


 


Effective
January 1 1997, BLUE CROSS shall increase professional capitation rates
(excluding Durational Benefit plans, AIM, CalKids, and non-commercial products
such as Workers’ Compensation, Medi-Cal and Medicare Risk) for PARTICIPATING
MEDICAL GROUP by 1%  (one
percent), which rates shall remain in effect through December 31, 1997.


 


Effective
January 1, 1998 BLUE CROSS shall increase the above mentioned rates by
another 1% (one percent) to remain in effect through December 31, 1999.


 


Upon
acceptance of the parties, this Addendum shall become part of the
CaliforniaCare Medical Services Agreement between PARTICIPATING MEDICAL GROUP
and BLUE CROSS effective January 1, 1997.


 


	
  BLUE
  CROSS

  	
  PARTICIPATING
  MEDICAL

  GROUP

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Name:

  	
  Ferial
  Bahremand

  	
  Name:

  	
   

  	
  GREGG
  DE NICOLA M.D.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Signature:

  	
  /s/
  Ferial Bahremand

  	
   

  	
  Signature:

  	
  /s/
  Gregg De Nicola

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Title:

  	
  Vice
  President

  	
  Title:

  	
   

  	
  PRESIDENT

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  Date:

  	
   

  	
  2/13/97

  	
   

  	
  Date:

  	
   

  	
  11-26-96
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

EASTERN DIVISION 

TERESA RUIZ, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COOK COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, 

Defendant. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

No. 20-cv-03267 

Judge John J. Tharp, Jr.

ORDER 

For the reasons set forth in the Statement below, the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant 

Cook County Sheriff’s Office [15] is granted. This case is dismissed without prejudice. Civil case 

terminated. 

STATEMENT 

Defendant has moved to dismiss the complaint because the plaintiff has been pursuing the 

same claim of sexual harassment in a case pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Ruiz v. 

Scofield and Cook County Sheriff’s Office, No. 18 CH 5538 (Ill. Cir. Ct. filed May 22, 2018). 

Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion at all, much less contest the defendant’s 

characterization of her state court claim. Because the plaintiff’s state court action has been pending 

for two years, and for the reasons set forth in the defendant’s motion, the doctrine of claim splitting 

warrants dismissal of the complaint in this case. See Carr v. Tillery, 591 F.3d 909, 913-14 (7th 

Cir. 2010) (“You cannot maintain a suit, arising from the same transaction or events underlying a 

previous suit, simply by a change of legal theory. That is called claim splitting, and it is barred by 

the doctrine of res judicata.”); Trading Tech. Intern., Inc. v. BCG Partners, Inc., No. 10 C 715, 

2011 WL 3157304, at *3 (N.D. Ill. July 26, 2011) (“Courts will dismiss a second suit pending 

between the same parties for claim splitting if the second suit would be barred by claim preclusion 

if it is assumed the first reached final judgment.”) Assuming the state court suit reached final 

judgment here, claim preclusion would bar the present suit because both suits arise from the same 

set of operative facts and name the same defendant, Cook County Sheriff’s Office. See Johnson v. 

Cypress Hill, 641 F.3d 867, 874 (7th Cir. 2011) (res judicata requires the same parties, the same 

core of operative facts, and a final judgment on the merits). Accordingly, dismissal based on claim 

splitting is appropriate. 

The dismissal is without prejudice to the claim asserted in the state court case or to the 

further assertion of the claim in this Court should the state court case terminate without a final 

judgment. Nor does this order bar the assertion of any preclusion defense by the defendant in the 

event that the plaintiff reasserts the claim in this Court. 

Case: 1:20-cv-03267 Document #: 17 Filed: 12/23/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:92
2 

Date: December 23, 2020 John J. Tharp, Jr.

United States District Judge 

Case: 1:20-cv-03267 Document #: 17 Filed: 12/23/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:93
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 215 (Thursday, November 6, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 66030]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26519]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


Sunshine Act Meetings; Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of 
Directors

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board of Directors 
Meeting.

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

TIME AND DATE: The meeting will be held on December 4, 2014, from 12:00 
Noon to 3:00 p.m., Eastern Standard Time.

PLACE: This meeting will be open to the public via conference call. Any 
interested person may call 1-877-422-1931, passcode 2855443940, to 
listen and participate in this meeting.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board 
of Directors (the Board) will continue its work in developing and 
implementing the Unified Carrier Registration Plan and Agreement and to 
that end, may consider matters properly before the Board.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Avelino Gutierrez, Chair, Unified 
Carrier Registration Board of Directors at (505) 827-4565.

    Dated: October 31, 2014.
Larry W. Minor,
 Associate Administrator, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2014-26519 Filed 11-4-14; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P
Exhibit 99.5

CERTIFICATION OF QUARTERLY REPORT ON FORM 10-Q  OF  PAWNMART, INC.    FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDED NOVEMBER 3, 2001

The
undersigned are the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of PawnMart, Inc. (the "Registrant"). This Certification is made pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This Certification accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-K of the Registrant for the Three Month period ended November 3, 2001.

We
certify that such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

This
Certification is executed as of August 8, 2002.

/s/
John R. Boudreau
John R. Boudreau
Chief Executive Officer

/s/
Robert W. Schleizer
Robert W. Schleizer
Chief Financial Officer

This
certification accompanies this Report pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

---

QuickLinks
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 512

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION III

No. CV-16-262

WARREN J. GREEN

APPELLANT

V.

NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL 

DISTRICT AND ARKANSAS SCHOOL 

BOARDS ASSOCIATION

APPELLEES 

OPINION DELIVERED NOVEMBER 2, 2016

APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS 

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION 

COMMISSION 

[NO. G409309] 

AFFIRMED

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Chief Judge

Warren J. Green appeals the January 25, 2016 opinion of the Arkansas Workers’ 

Compensation Commission (“Commission”) that affirmed and adopted the June 16, 2015 

opinion of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and denied Green’s request for benefits 

by finding that he had failed to prove that he had sustained a compensable injury. Green 

argues that the decision of the Commission is not supported by substantial evidence. We 

affirm.

We review a decision of the Commission to determine whether there is substantial 

evidence to support it. Queen v. Nortel Networks, 2013 Ark. App. 523. We review the 

evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to 

the Commission’s findings. Id. It is the Commission’s province to weigh the evidence and 

determine what is most credible. Id. The issue on appeal is not whether we would have 
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 512

2 

reached a different result or whether the evidence would have supported a contrary 

conclusion; we will affirm if reasonable minds could reach the Commission’s conclusion. 

Id. Typically, we review only the Commission’s decision, not the ALJ’s; however, when 

the Commission affirms and adopts the ALJ’s opinion as its own, which is true here, we 

consider both the ALJ’s decision and the Commission’s opinion. J.B. Hunt Transp. Servs. 

Inc. v. Hollingsworth, 2016 Ark. App. 279, ___ S.W.3d ___. 

It is the Commission’s duty, not ours, to make credibility determinations, to weigh 

the evidence, and to resolve conflicts in the evidence and testimony. Adams v. Bemis Co., 

Inc., 2010 Ark. App. 859. Where the Commission has denied a claim because of the 

claimant’s failure to meet his burden of proof, the substantial-evidence standard of review 

requires that we affirm if the Commission’s opinion displays a substantial basis for the denial 

of relief. Bolus v. Jack Cecil Hardware, 2013 Ark. App. 288. Because this is the sole issue 

now before us, and because the Commission’s opinion adequately explains its decision, we 

affirm by memorandum opinion. In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App. 301, 700 

S.W.2d 63 (1985) (per curiam). 

 Affirmed. 

 ABRAMSON and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree. 

Robert T. James, P.A., by: Robert T. James, for appellant. 

Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, by: Guy Alton Wade and Phillip M. Brick, Jr., for 

appellees.
Stay GRANTED and Order filed April 2, 2019. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00274-CV

____________

IN RE PREVENTATIVE PEST CONTROL HOUSTON, LLC AND 

NICHOLAS ANTHONY CHARLES, Relators

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

295th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2016-01076

ORDER

On April 1, 2019, relators Preventative Pest Control Houston, LLC and 

Nicholas Anthony Charles filed a petition for writ of mandamus in this court. 

Relators ask this court to order the Honorable Donna Roth, Judge of the 295th 

District Court, in Harris County, Texas, to set aside her February 25, 2019 and March 
25, 2019 orders entered in trial court number 2016-01076, styled Karen Ackermann 

v. Preventative Pest Control, LLC. and Nicholas Charles Anthony, compelling 

relators to produce non-existent lists of information as part of pretrial discovery.

Relators also have filed a motion asking this court for temporary stay of 

proceedings in the trial court below. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(b), 52.10. Relators 

seek a stay of proceedings in the trial court pending a decision on the petition for 

writ of mandamus.

It appears from the facts stated in the petition and motion that relators’ request 

for relief requires further consideration and that relators will be prejudiced unless 

immediate temporary relief is granted. We therefore GRANT relators’ request for 

a stay and issue the following order:

We ORDER all proceedings in trial court cause number 2016-01076, Karen 

Ackermann v. Preventative Pest Control, LLC. and Nicholas Charles Anthony,

STAYED until a final decision by this court on relators’ petition for writ of 

mandamus, or until further order of this court.

In addition, the court requests real party in interest Karen Ackermann to file a 

response to the petition for writ of mandamus on or before April 17, 2019. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 52.4.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Bourliot.
AO 399 (01/09) Waiver of the Service of Summons 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

for the 

Northern District of Illinois 

Lisa Calvente 

Plaintiff 

v. Civil Action No. 20-cv-3366

Salma Ghanem and DePaul University 

Defendant 

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS 

To: Fitzgerald T. Bramwell 

(Name of the plaintiff's attorney or unrepresented plaintiff) 

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint, two 

copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court's jurisdiction, 

and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within 

60 days from 06/09/2020 , the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the 

United States). If I fail to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent. 

Date: 06/30/2020 

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party 

DePaul University

Printed name of party waiving service of summons Printed name 

Address 

E-mail address 

Telephone number 

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons 

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a 

summons and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff 

located in the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure.

"Good cause" does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court 

has no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant's property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence 

of a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the plaintiff 

and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been served. 

Anneliese Wermuth

Cozen O'Connor, 123 N. Wacker Dr., Ste. 1800, Chicago, IL 60606

awermuth@cozen.com

312/474-7876

Case: 1:20-cv-03366 Document #: 5 Filed: 06/30/20 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:199
No. 87-6419.

#### Marshall *v.*Marshall.

Ct. App. Ga. Certiorari denied.
**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 amended annual report of American Cordillera Mining Corp., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-K/A for the year ended November 30, 2104, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”), I, Frank H. Blair, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods indicated.

This Certification has not been, and shall not be deemed, “filed” with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Date: October 27, 2015

 

By:

/s/ Frank H. Blair

 

 

Frank H. Blair

 

 

President, CEO, Director
#### W. C. Wilkerson et al. *v.*Wm. C. Keas, Admr.

Wills — Devise of Choses in Action — No Title Passes Until Will is Probated.

Although, the testator may have written a codicil to his will devising the note in question to the wife of appellant, it passes no title to it until the will is properly probated.

*714APPEAL PROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

June 28, 1872.

*Holt, for appellants.*

*Apperson, Reid, for appellees.*

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

The answer offered by appellant, W. H. Wilkerson, presented ■no available defense to the note sued on, and the court below properly refused to set aside the judgment and permit it to be filed.

Although the testator may have written a codicil to his will devising the note in question to the wife of appellant and making other provisions for her, such codicil can pass to her no title to the note until it is properly probated. The answer does not allege that any steps are being taken to establish in the proper court the execution of such codicil, nor is it even alleged that any such proceedings are contemplated.

For similar reasons the petition of Mrs. Wilkerson was properly rejected.

Judgment affirmed.