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

NO. 03-12-00618-CV

In re Ardell Nelson, Jr.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM TRAVIS COUNTY

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

Relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus largely complaining that the district

clerk and the district court had not properly prepared the record in an appeal filed from the district

court’s denial of relator’s motion for DNA testing. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8. The documents relator

seeks to have added to the file are not necessary to the appeal, however, and relator has not shown

that the district clerk or the district court have violated their ministerial duties or orders issued by

this Court. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Rose and Goodwin

Filed: August 9, 2013
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 31, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO FORM S-1.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0001054579
<NAME> HASTINGS ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                           3,840
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    126,835
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,889
<PP&E>                                         160,817
<DEPRECIATION>                                  80,114
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 215,298
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           83,371
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            87
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,631
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   215,298
<SALES>                                        357,765
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               357,765
<CGS>                                          220,905
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  220,905
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (139)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,228
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,868
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,270
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,598
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,598
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.01
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .98
        

</TABLE>
Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 33-7 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:411
Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 33-7 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:412
Case: 1:20-cv-05191 Document #: 33-7 Filed: 12/10/20 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:413
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK>     0000065312
<NAME>    METRO-TEL-CORP


       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       YEAR     
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                   JUL-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                     JUN-30-1998            
<CASH>                               275,508                      
<SECURITIES>                         200,000
<RECEIVABLES>                        496,144
<ALLOWANCES>                          10,000 
<INVENTORY>                        1,434,147
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   2,607,565
<PP&E>                               652,424
<DEPRECIATION>                       501,078
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     3,532,215
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                713,260
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                              52,007
<OTHER-SE>                         2,766,948
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       3,532,215
<SALES>                            3,839,077
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   3,839,077
<CGS>                              2,570,561
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      1,768,186
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      10,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (499,670)
<INCOME-TAX>                        (150,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (349,670) 
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                        (349,670)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           (.17)
        

</TABLE>
#### [ Jane ] [ DOE ], Plaintiff-Appellant, v. R. ROSENBERG, M.D., personally, Anne Skomorossky, M.D., personally, Lorraine Innes, M.D., personally, Stan Acrow, M.D., personally, Elizabeth Mirabello, M.D., personally, Jane Doe, personally, *508Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, Herbert Pardes, in his official capacity as head of the Department of Psychiatry of Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1065, Docket 98-7803.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Argued Jan. 13, 1999.

Decided Jan. 29, 1999.

William M. Brooks, Huntington, N.Y. (Mental Disability Law Clinic, Touro College, Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center, on the brief), for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Barry I. Levy, New York, N.Y. (Lewis Rosenberg, Angela Thompson-Tinsley, Shapiro, Beilly, Rosenberg, Albert & Fox, LLP, on the brief), for Appellee Richard Rosenberg, M.D.

Patricia D’Alvia, New York, N.Y. (Gregory J. Radomisli, Peter T. Crean, Martin, Clear-water & Bell, on the brief), for Remaining Appellees.

Before: JACOBS and SOTOMAYOR, Circuit Judges, and SAND, District Judge.*

*

The Honorable Leonard B. Sand of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM:

On May 5,1996, [ Jane ] [ Doe ] was involuntarily committed to the psychiatric ward at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center. After successfully challenging her confinement pursuant to § 9.31 of New York’s Mental Hygiene Law, she was released on May 16, 1996. She then brought suit alleging, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, that her physician, as well as Columbia Presbyterian and several of Columbia Presbyterian’s employees — all private individuals or entities — had violated rights secured to her by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. [ Doe ]s complaint also contained several state law causes of action.

The district court, granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissed [ Doe ]s § 1983 claim on the ground that the defendants are not state actors and that they therefore did not act under color of state law. *See [ Doe ] v. Rosenberg,*996 F.Supp. 343, 348-58 (S.D.N.Y.1998). The court dismissed [ Doe ]s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (1994). *See id.*at 358. On appeal, [ Doe ] challenges the district court’s conclusion that the defendants are not state actors. She also challenges certain of the district court’s discovery rulings.

On the question of whether the defendants acted under color of state law, we affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s comprehensive and scholarly opinion. We further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying [ Doe ] the discovery she sought.

The judgment is therefore affirmed.
#### Jno. W. Arnold, etc., *v.*Horace B. Smith.

Trusts — Fraudulent Claim — Property Not Subject to Trustee’s Debts.

The evidence was- held not to -show that the claim to property was fraudulent, but that the land was- held in trust for claimant -and was not subject to the trustee’s debts.

APPEAL FROM LOUISVILLE -CHANCERY COURT.

January 19, 1873.

*359Opinion by

Judge Hardin :

The orders made on the 25th of June, 1869, for filing the answers of the appellants, Emma Arnold and Graff, to interrogations, as well as some subsequent orders, admit of.no other construction as to the attitude of said parties than an appearance in the action.

The objection, therefore, that they were only constructively before the court can not be sustained. But a careful examination cf the record satisfies us that the judgment should, be reversed on the merits' of the case. The appellee took the deposition of John W. Arnold and propounded interrogatories to Emma Arnold and Graff which were answered, and thus rendered all three of them competent witnesses. From' their testimony it is reasonably certain that the firm of John W. and William Arnold received and resold in this business, either as trustees-or debtors of Miss Arnold, several sums remitted to her from England prior to 1859. However these sums were held, the partners after quitting business, and some time before the death of William’ Arnold, which occurred in 1860, appear to have admitted themselves indebted to her on that account in the sum of $2,000, which afterwards remained in J. W. Arnold’s hands, in trust for Mrs. Arnold, as did also the remittance of $2,901.18, received in 1867. And if this testimony is to be believed, we must conclude that the property and debts in contest claimed as the estate of Emma Arnold were the product and result of the funds so in the hands of J. W. Arnold in trust for her, and therefore exempt from- the plaintiff’s claim. It is true the plaintiff, after placing Mrs. Arnold and Jno. W. Arnold in the position of witnesses for him, has attempted to discredit them. But so far as Mrs. Arnold’s tes^ timony is concerned, her previous deposition, as well as her answer in this case, rather shows her to be an artless woman, unskilled in business,, than an untruthful witness. The testimony of Bly and Dodge conduces strongly to1 establish a fraudulent purpose on the part of J. W. Arnold, to avoid the payment of the judgment of the appellee, but whatever they may prove as against him, the matter so proved is not competent evidence against Emma Arnold for any purpose. Nor is there, in our opinion, any sufficient evidence in the cause to repel the proof of the alleged trust, or sustain the conclusion that it was unusual,- fictitious and fraudulent.

We are further of the opinion that the evidence does not sustain *360the decision that the title and claim of Graff to the property in Taylorsville, Ky., is fraudulent; and it seems to us the court erred in subjecting the property to the plaintiff’s claim.

*Rodnum, Kilpatrick, Armstrong, for appellant.*

*Mundy, Faerleigh, for appellee.*

Wherefore the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded with directions to dismiss the petition.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #14138 and #14139]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 1.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Administrative disaster declaration for the State of CALIFORNIA dated 10/01/2014.

*Incident:*                         Boles Fire,                    

*Incident Period:*                         09/15/2014 and continuing through 10/09/2014,                    

*Effective Date:*                         11/13/2014,                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         12/01/2014,                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         07/01/2015,                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the Administrative disaster declaration for the State of California, dated 10/01/2014 is hereby amended to establish the incident period for this disaster as beginning 09/15/2014 and continuing through 10/09/2014.

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

Dated: November 13, 2014.

Maria Contreras-Sweet,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 2014-28332 Filed 12-1-14; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                          OF CORPORATE GENERAL PARTNER

            PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, James M. Seneff, Jr., the Chief Executive Officer of CNL Realty
Corporation,  the  corporate  general  partner of CNL Income  Fund V, Ltd.  (the
"Partnership"),  has executed this  certification  in connection with the filing
with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  of the  Partnership's  Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2004 (the "Report"). The
undersigned hereby certifies 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 Partnership.

Date:   November 10, 2004              /s/ James M. Seneff, Jr.
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                       Name:   James M. Seneff, Jr.
                                       Title:  Chief Executive Officer

                                      A   signed   original   of  this   written
                                      statement required by Section 906 has been
                                      provided  to CNL Income  Fund V, Ltd.  and
                                      will be  retained  by CNL  Income  Fund V,
                                      Ltd. and furnished to the  Securities  and
                                      Exchange  Commission  or  its  staff  upon
                                      request.
EX-10.1






Exhibit 10.1




RESTRICTED STOCK AWARD AGREEMENT




THIS AGREEMENT, is made as of November 18, 2005, and is between JO-ANN STORES, INC., an Ohio
corporation (the “Company”), and (the “Employee”).



1. Award of Restricted Stock. Pursuant to the terms of the Company’s 1998 Incentive
Compensation Plan (the “Plan”), the Employee is hereby granted a Restricted Stock Award with
respect to Common Shares, without par value, of the Company (the “Shares”).



2. Restrictions. The Employee hereby accepts the Restricted Stock Award and agrees
that the Shares shall be subject to the following restrictions:




	 	a.	 	The Employee shall not sell, assign, transfer, pledge,
hypothecate, or otherwise dispose of the Shares until the restrictions lapse;
and






	 	b.	 	The Employee shall forfeit all of his or her right to the
Shares and shall deliver to the Company the certificate(s) representing the
Shares unless the Employee remains in the continuous employment of the Company
or any of its subsidiaries (as defined in the Plan) until the restrictions
lapse; provided, however, that the foregoing restrictions may lapse or be
removed before such date in accordance with the provisions of Sections III (6)
and III (7) of the Committee Rules for the Plan. The Employee acknowledges
and agrees that the certificates representing the shares shall bear a legend
referring to the foregoing restrictions. Upon the lapse of the restrictions
in accordance with the Plan, the Company will cause new certificates without
such legend to be issued to the employee in exchange for the certificates that
bear the legend.





Page Two of Two




	 	c.	 	Your restricted stock has the following vesting schedule:





One-half will vest – March 1, 2007



One-half will vest – March 1, 2008



3. Other Terms and Conditions of the Award. The Employee acknowledges receipt of a
copy of the Plan Prospectus and the Committee Rules and agrees that the Restricted Stock Award made
hereby shall be subject to all of the provisions of the Plan.



4. Parties Bound. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of
the parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, and successors.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Agreement to be executed by its duly
authorized officer and the Employee has hereunto set his or her hand as of the date first above
written.



JO-ANN STORES, INC.



BY:
10814.

#### CAISON, guardian, *v.*GROOVER.

Trover not being maintainable by one without title to the property, or the right of possession, and it not appearing in this case that either title or the right of possession was in the plaintiff, who, as guardian of her minor son, sought to recover an automobile sold by him to another, which she testified she had bought for him and for which he gave his notes indorsed by her, a verdict for the defendant was- proper.

Decided January 29, 1920.

'Trover; from city court of Hinesville—Judge W. C. Hodges. July 8, 1919.

*O. L. Cowart,*for plaintiff. *Ben A. Way,*for defendant.

Bloodworth, J.

Mrs. Caison qualified as natural guardian of her son Ivy Caison, a minor. Ivy purchased an automobile, and gave his notes therefor, which were indorsed by his mother. He sold the car, and his mother, as his guardian, brought trover to recover it. On the trial the mother swore: I bought the automobile for Ivy and let him have it, and he generally drove it, but he did not have any right to sell it or dispose of it in any way. When we bought the ear Ivy gave his_ notes for it, and I indorsed them and have had them to pay. Of course it was Ivy’s ear. . . *716As to whether it is my car or Ivy’s, I will say that Ivy gave his notes for it and I have had them to pay, but I have always considered it Ivy’s car.” So far as the evidence shows, the plaintiff had never had title, possession, or right of possession of the automobile. “To maintain an action of trover, the plaintiff must show title in himself, or the right of possession wrongfully withheld from him by the defendant.” *Dudley*v. *Isler,*21 *Ga. App.*615 (3) (94 S. E. 827), and cit. The jury properly found a verdict for the defendant, and the court did not err in refusing to set the verdict aside on a motion for a new trial, based on the general grounds only.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Broyles, C. J., and Luke, J., concur.*
U.S. District Court for the Northern District Of Illinois

Attorney Appearance Form

Case Title: Case Number: 

An appearance is hereby filed by the undersigned as attorney for:

Attorney name (type or print): 

Firm: 

Street address: 

City/State/Zip: 

Bar ID Number: Telephone Number: 

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

 Yes No

(See item 3 in instructions)

Email Address:

Are you acting as lead counsel in this case?

Are you acting as local counsel in this case?

Are you a member of the court’s trial bar?

If this case reaches trial, will you act as the trial attorney? 

If this is a criminal case, check your status. Retained Counsel

Appointed Counsel 

If appointed counsel are you 

a Federal Defender

 CJA Panel Attorney

______________________________________________________________________

In order to appear before this &ourt an attorney must either be a member in good standing of this &ourt’s

general bar or be granted leave to appear pro hac vice as provided for by local rules 83.12 through 83.14.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Under 28 8.6.&§1746, this

statement under perjury has the same force and effect as a sworn statement made under oath.

Executed on

Attorney signature: S/

(Use electronic signature if the appearance form is filed electronically.)

Revised 8/1/2015

WZ Franchise Corporation v.

Tyson Foods, Inc. et al.,

1:20-cv-05204

WZ Franchise Corporation

Lori P. Lustrin, Esq.

Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod LLP

1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2300

Miami, Florida 33131-3456

59228 305-374-7580

llustrin@bilzin.com

3/2/2021

✔

✔

✔

✔

Lori P. Lustrin

Case: 1:20-cv-05204 Document #: 14 Filed: 03/02/21 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:180
<PAGE>   1





                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the use in this Amendment No. 7 to Registration Statement No.
333-45543 of AMRESCO Capital Trust on Form S-11 of our report dated February 2,
1998, appearing in the Prospectus, which is part of such Registration
Statement.

We also consent to the reference to us under the heading "Experts" in such
Registration Statement.

/s/  Deloitte & Touche LLP

Dallas, Texas

May 5, 1998
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                  CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
            PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of  2002,  the  undersigned,  A.  F.  Petrocelli,  Chairman,
President and Chief Executive  Officer of United Capital Corp., (the "Company"),
does hereby  certify,  with respect to the Annual  Report of the Company on Form
10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2005 (the "Report") 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.

Dated: April 28, 2006

                                     By: /s/ A. F. Petrocelli
                                         ---------------------------------------
                                         A. F. Petrocelli
                                         Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer
```