alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-551

In Re: JULIUS S. BAKER, SR., Reverend,

Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

(CA-98-741-3-17BC)

Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 8, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julius S. Baker, Sr., Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking

to have this court direct the district court to act on his

complaint. We find no unreasonable delay in this case. Therefore,

while we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we deny the

petition and the amended petition. We further deny Petitioner’s

motions for bail pending appeal and his “Motion for Extraordinary

Emergency Immediate Relief and Release from the Unlawful Restraint

on Petitioner[’s] Liberty.” We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

PETITION DENIED
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, David L. Tousley, hereby certifies, pursuant
to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that

|1. | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PediatRx Inc. for
      the period ended November 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of
      Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
      amended; and
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
|2. | the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of PediatRx Inc.                                                              

January 13, 2011

| | /s/
      David L. Tousley                                      
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------
| | David L. Tousley                                                
| | Secretary, Treasurer, Chief Financial Officer
      and Director
| | (Principal Financial Officer and Principal
      Accounting     
| | Officer)                                                        

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 21-0372

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

BRYCE CALEB HAMERNICK,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and 

good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including April 20, 2022, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 14 2022

03/14/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0372
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-20347 Summary Calendar

COPELAND COLE, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (H-99-CV-2185) September 27, 2000 Before POLITZ, JOLLY, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Copeland Cole appeals an adverse summary judgment in his ERISA dispute

w ith Continental Casualty Company. Our review of the record, briefs of the parties, and cont rolling jurisprudence reveals no reversible error herein. And on the facts as found, authorities cited, and analyses made by the district court in its2

careful and comprehensive Memorandum and Order dated March 9, 2000 and entered March 13, 2000, the judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Richard Banks, Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 359]

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s request for an agency charge since there was no reasonable view of the evidence, viewed most favorably to defendant, that he acted solely on behalf of the buyer *(see People v Herring,*83 NY2d 780 [1994]; *People v Lam Lek Chong,*45 NY2d 64, 74-75 [1978], *cert denied*439 US 935 [1978]; *People v Vaughan,*300 AD2d 104 [2002], *lv denied*99 NY2d 633 [2003]). Defendant negotiated the price for a large-scale drug purchase with the buyer (a confidential informant with whom he was slightly acquainted) and accepted the money. There is nothing to suggest that defendant was “buying” on behalf of the informant from a separate “seller.” On the contrary, all the evidence, with particular reference to defendant’s own recorded conversations with the informant, indicated that defendant was part of an ongoing narcotics operation, and that he wanted to do future business with this customer.

*402Although the court’s general interference with defendant’s cross-examination of witnesses was unnecessarily intrusive *(see People v Canto,*31 AD3d 312 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 900 [2006]), defendant was able to impeach the prosecution witnesses meaningfully, and there was no violation of defendant’s right to confront witnesses and present a defense *(see Delaware v Van Arsdall,*475 US 673, 678-679 [1986]). While the court precluded defendant from eliciting a prior inconsistent statement by the informant about an aspect of his criminal history, defendant received ample scope in which to impeach the informant by way of his background and character, and the benefits he received in return for his cooperation. The other limitations on cross-examination of the informant did not prevent defendant from asserting his theory that the informant falsely implicated defendant and obtained the drugs from someone else. With respect to a detective, the lines of inquiry that the court precluded called for hearsay without offering any foundation or theory of admissibility, or were repetitive.

The court’s general charge to the jury concerning interested witnesses was sufficient, given the overall context of the trial *(see People v Inniss,*83 NY2d 653, 659 [1994]). Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Williams, Buckley and Acosta, JJ.
ACCEPTED

01-15-00561-CV

FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, TEXAS

7/24/2015 11:22:03 PM

CHRISTOPHER PRINE

CLERK

 FILED IN 1st COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 7/24/2015 11:22:03 PM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
Case 2:10-cr-00853-SRC Document 3 Filed 04/26/11 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 45
Case 2:10-cr-00853-SRC Document 3 Filed 04/26/11 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 46
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER

Appellate case name: In re Pico Mexico Servicios Petroleros de RL. De CV and 

London Offshore Consultants, Inc.

Appellate case number: 01-13-00260-CV

Trial court case number: 71631

Trial court: 412th District Court of Brazoria County

On March 28, 2013, Pico Mexico Servicios Petroleros de RL. De CV and London 

Offshore Consultants, Inc. filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus and a Motion for 

Temporary Relief. The Court requests that real party in interest Mammoet Salvage 

Americas, Inc. and file a response to the Motion for Temporary Relief. Mammoet 

Salvage is requested specifically to address any harm caused by a delay of 60 days in the 

depositions of Andrew Minster and Kevin Highfield, noticed for April 2-3, 2013.

The response to the Motion must be filed with the Court no later than 12:00 noon 

on Monday, April 1, 2013. With respect to the filing of the response, Rule 9.2(b) of the 

Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, the “mailbox rule,” is suspended. The response must 

be received in the clerk’s office or filed in accordance with this Court’s rules on efiling 

no later than 12:00 noon on April 1, 2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 2, 9.2(b).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: s/Harvey Brown

 X Acting individually ☐ Acting for the Court

Date: March 28, 2013
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.                  

###### Judicial Conference of the United States

# AGENCY:

Judicial Conference of the United States Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure.

# ACTION:

Notice of Open Meeting.

# SUMMARY:

The Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure will hold a two-day meeting. The meeting will be open to public observation but not participation.

# DATES:

October 8-9, 2009.

*Time:*                         8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Georgetown University Law Center, 600 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20001.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John K. Rabiej, Chief, Rules Committee Support Office, Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Washington, DC 20544, telephone (202) 502-1820.

      ( print page 32954)    
Dated: July 1, 2009.

John K. Rabiej,

Chief, Rules Committee Support Office.

[FR Doc. E9-16018 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 2210-55-M
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 annual report of Driver Passport Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending June 30, 2006, as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Randy Brown,
      Chief
      Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the
      best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.




A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906, another
      document authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature
      that
      appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written
      statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Company. and
      will be retained by the Company. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
      Commission or its staff upon request.





**DRIVER
              PASSPORT, INC.**Date: August
              11, 2006
            By:
            /s/ Randy
              BrownRandy
              BrownChief
              Executive Officer, Chief Financial
              Officer
Opinion issued June 2, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-15-00024-CV

———————————

COREY L. ROBERTS, Appellant

V.

CELIA CLANTON ROBERTS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law

Orange County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. C-140473-D

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Corey L. Roberts appeals from a default divorce judgment

rendered in favor of appellee Celia Clanton Roberts. In two issues, Corey contends 

that (1) the trial court erred by granting default judgment because the record does 

not affirmatively show that he was served with citation in strict compliance with 
2

the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by 

naming Celia sole managing conservator of the couple’s two children because 

Celia did not request such relief in her pleadings. We reverse and remand.1

A default judgment can only be sustained on direct attack if the record 

affirmatively demonstrates that the defendant was served with citation in strict

compliance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. See Primate Constr., Inc. v. 

Silver, 884 S.W.2d 151, 152 (Tex. 1994); Paramount Credit, Inc. v. Montgomery,

420 S.W.3d 226, 231 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2013, no pet.) (“We cannot 

affirm a default judgment unless it is clear from the face of the record upon whom 

the attempted service of process was made, where, when, how, and in what 

capacity.”). Pursuant to Rule of Civil Procedure 107(h), a default judgment may 

only be obtained if the return of service has been on file with the court’s clerk for 

ten days. TEX. R. CIV. P. 107(h). The lack of strict compliance with Rule 107(h)

precludes the granting of default judgment. See Midstate Envtl. Servs., LP v. 

Peterson, 435 S.W.3d 287, 290–91 (Tex. App.—Waco 2014, no pet.).

In this case, the return of service filed on August 19, 2014. indicates that 

Corey was served with citation on July 31, 2014. The trial court granted default 

judgment in Celia’s favor on August 26, 2014—seven days after the return of 

 1 This appeal, originally filed in the Ninth Court of Appeals, Beaumont, Texas, was 

transferred to the First Court of Appeals, Houston, Texas. See TEX. GOV’T CODE 

ANN. § 73.001 (West 2013) (authorizing transfer of cases).
3

service was filed with the clerk. Thus, the record affirmatively demonstrates that 

the default judgment is invalid because it was granted less than ten days after the 

return of service was filed with the clerk’s office. See id.

Because the record affirmatively shows a lack of strict compliance with the 

Rules of Civil Procedure, we sustain Corey’s first issue. Having sustained Corey’s 

first issue, we need not consider his second issue.

Conclusion

We reverse the default judgment and remand this case for further 

proceedings.

Russell Lloyd

Justice

Panel consists of Justices Keyes, Huddle, and Lloyd.
#### STRAHLE-JOHNSON SUPPLY CO. v. JOHN DOUGLAS CO.

No. 78.

District Court, E. D. Tennessee, S. D.

May 2, 1940.

Strong, Fletcher & Carriger, of Chat-.-tanooga, Tenn., for plaintiff.

Charles A. Noone, of Chattanooga, Tenn., for defendant.

DARR, District Judge.

This cause is before the court on a motion to strike a motion filed by the plaintiff seeking to strike a portion of defendant’s answer, on the ground that this latter motion was filed too late under the Rules.

I find that the latter motion was filed too late and sustain defendant’s motion to strike.

But the plaintiff’s attorneys called my attention to that portion of Rule 12, Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, which provides that the court on its own initiative may order any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter stricken from any pleading, and requested the court to take action under this provision.

On examination of the complaint and answer, I find that the complaint contains twelve sections on four pages and the answer contains twenty-four sections on twelve pages.

It is my judgment that the first eleven sections of the answer fully meet all the allegations by way of admissions or denials contained in the complaint and fully make out the issues in the case. I think that the remaining thirteen sections of the defendant’s answer do not present any affirmative defenses but are simply argumentative of the issues raised under the first eleven sections. Any and all matters in these latter thirteen sections that appears to be material in the lawsuit may appear in the proof under the issues made in the first eleven sections.

The letter and spirit of the Rules of Civil Procedure requires simple, concise, and direct denials, admissions, and averments in pleadings.

I am inclined to be of the opinion that the last thirteen sections of the answer are immaterial, but as the plaintiff seemed to be concerned only relative to the last three sections, and they appearing to be most immaterial of the last thirteen sections, I, upon my own initiative, order that the last three sections of the defendant’s answer be stricken.
M A N D A T E

TO THE 329TH DISTRICT COURT of WHARTON COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 30th day of

October, 2014, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Blanca Emid Petty, Appellant,

v.

John Kent Petty, Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-14-00051-CV (Tr.Ct.No. 46.003)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against

appellant although she is exempt from payment due to her affidavit of inability to pay

costs.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 15th day of July, 2015.

Cecile Foy Gsanger, CLERK

FILE COPY
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-30-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                     101,581,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                              181,138,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 2,816,000
<INVENTORY>                                 60,853,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           354,220,000
<PP&E>                                     222,918,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             124,753,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             503,923,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      139,471,000
<BONDS>                                      9,106,000
<COMMON>                                       332,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                 352,856,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               503,923,000
<SALES>                                    395,941,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           540,345,000
<CGS>                                      188,232,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              295,953,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           195,873,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,127,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,418,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                12,254,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                35,073,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.04
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 23.2

 

 

Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

 

The Board of Directors

RehabCare Group, Inc.:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement No. 33-43236 on Form S-8, registration statement No. 33-67944 on Form S-8, registration statement No. 33-82106 on Form S-8, registration statement No. 33-82048 on Form S-8, registration statement No. 333-11311 on Form S-8, and registration statement No. 333-120005 on Form S-8 of RehabCare Group, Inc. of our report dated January 30, 2006 (except for Note 6 and Note 12, as to which the date is March 3, 2006), with respect to the consolidated balance sheet of InteliStaf Holdings, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity, and cash flows for the year ended December 31, 2005, which report appears in the December 31, 2005 annual report on Form 10-K of RehabCare Group, Inc.

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Chicago, Illinois

March 8, 2006

 

 

1
Dismissal and Opinion Filed July 21, 2015 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-01091-CV 

MELISSA HYATT, Appellant 

V. 

MICHAEL REIGHLEY, Appellee 

On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-03-10926-T 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Wright, Justice Brown, and Justice Stoddart 

Opinion by Chief Justice Wright 

The clerk’s record in this case is past due. By letter dated January 5, 2015, we informed 

appellant the clerk’s record had not been filed because appellant had not paid for or made 

arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record. We directed appellant to provide verification of 

payment or arrangements to pay for the clerk’s record or written documentation that appellant 

had been found to be entitled to proceed without payment of costs. We cautioned appellant that 

failure to do so would result in the dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, 

appellant has not provided written verification that appellant has paid or made arrangements to 

pay for the clerk’s record or written documentation that she has been found entitled to proceed 

without payment of costs in the trial court. 
 –2– 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5; 37.3(b); 42.3(b), (c). 

141091F.P05 

 

/Carolyn Wright/ 

CAROLYN WRIGHT 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

MELISSA HYATT, Appellant 

No. 05-14-01091-CV V. 

MICHAEL REIGHLEY, Appellee 

 On Appeal from the 256th Judicial District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DF-03-10926-T. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Wright. 

Justices Brown and Stoddart participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered July 21, 2015.