alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DISMISS IN PART AND DENY IN PART and Opinion Filed May 3, 2024

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-24-00524-CV

IN RE BARRY WERNICK, Relator

Original Proceeding from Dallas County, Texas

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Reichek, Goldstein, and Kennedy

Opinion by Justice Goldstein

Before the Court is relator’s May 3, 2024 Emergency Petition for Writ of 

Mandamus and Injunction. Relator seeks mandamus and injunctive relief against 

Matt Rinaldi, in his official capacity as Chair, Texas Republican Party and Recount 

Coordinator, HD 108; Jennifer Stoddard-Hajdu, in her official capacity as Chair, 

Dallas County Republican Party, Recount Supervisor and Presiding Officer; and 

Heider Garcia, in his official capacity as Elections Administrator, Dallas County. 

We do not have jurisdiction to grant any sort of writ other than a writ of 

mandamus in an original proceeding under the election code. See TEX. GOV’T CODE 

ANN. § 22.221(a); In re Meyer, No. 05-16-00063-CV, 2016 WL 375033, at *5–*6 

(Tex. App.—Dallas Feb. 1, 2016, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.) (“A suit for 

injunctive relief in an appropriate trial court is the proper avenue for relief if a person 
–2–

is in danger of being harmed by a threatened violation of the election code.”). Thus, 

to the extent relator seeks a writ of injunction, we dismiss the petition for want of 

jurisdiction. 

The Texas elections code grants this Court limited jurisdiction to consider a 

petition for writ of mandamus to “compel the performance of any duty imposed by 

law in connection with the holding of an election . . . regardless of whether the person 

responsible for performing the duty is a public officer.” TEX. ELEC. CODE ANN. 

§ 273.061(a); see also In re Claire, No. 05-22-00018-CV, 2022 WL 71868, at *1 

(Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 7, 2022, orig. proceeding) (mem. op.). To the extent relator 

requests mandamus relief, we conclude that relator failed to show his entitlement to 

the relief requested and thus deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

240524f.p05 /Bonnie Lee Goldstein//

BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN

JUSTICE
Exhibit 99.1



OLD DOMINION ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE



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 Quarterly Report of Old Dominion Electric Cooperative (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jackson E. Reasor, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, 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.
| | --- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date:  May 15, 2003

|/s/  JACKSON E. REASOR                                
|------------------------------------------------------
|Jackson E. Reasor President andChief Executive Officer





20
#### HEFTER v. NATIONAL AIRLINES, Inc. et al.

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

Dec. 18, 1952.

*79Duer & Taylor, New York City, for plaintiff. ■

Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, New York City, for defendant National Airlines, Inc.

SUGARMAN, District Judge.

In their respective actions against defendants National Airlines, Incorporated and Douglas Aircraft Company, Incorporated, plaintiffs Smith (motion 86) and Hefter (motion 87) move for an order (1) that the defendant, National Airlines, Incorporated, produce for the plaintiff’s inspection, copying and/or photographing certain enumerated books, documents, reports, records and ■ plane parts and (2) that said defendant produce certain of its officers and employees and through said witnesses submit to an examination before trial upon the issues in this action. The actions result from an airplane crash alleged to have been caused through malfunction of a propeller.

The motion, insofar as it seeks a discovery and inspection, is disposed of as follows :

Items A, D, G to K inclusive, M to Y inclusive, and JJ are denied. Movant admit that they have copies of these documents but insist on discovery and inspection because defendant National Airlines, Incorporated refuses to verify that they are copies of records kept in the regular course of that defendant’s business. See F.R.Civ.Proc. rule 36, 28 U.S.C.A.

Item B is granted, there being no opposition.

Item C is granted, limited however, to data on the type of propeller used on the airplane in suit, namely, the Hamilton Standard Propeller Hub Type 43D60.

Items E and F are granted, limited, of course, to the extent that the records are in the possession, custody or control of the defendant.1

Item L is granted, limited to reports made in the period from October, 1951 to the date of the crash.

Item Z is denied. It calls Tor so broad a group of documents that it violates the requirement that they be designated with some degree of particularity.2

Item AA is granted on consent.

Items BB to II are granted on consent. These cumbersome and heavy items are located in Westchester, Pennsylvania and the plaintiff will either examine them in Westchester or pay the expense of transporting them to the place of examination and return.3

The second branch of the motion seeking an order directing the defendant to submit to oral examination by certain officers and employees is denied. Assuming, but not deciding, the persons named to be those through whom defendant may be examined, the rule provides that the proper method of seeking such relief is by service of a notice.4

Settle order.

1

. Moore’s Fed.Prae., 2d Ed., Vol. 4, § 34.17, p. 2470.

2

. Moore’s Fed.Prae., 2d Ed., Vol. 4, § 34.07, p. 2442, et seq.

3

. Moore’s Fed.Prae., 2d Ed., Vol. 4, § 34.19, p. 2477.

4

. F.R. Civ.Proc. rule 26, 28 U.S.C.A.
#### In the Matter of Darryl B.W., Respondent, v Sharon M.W., Appellant.

[854 NYS2d 260]

*1247Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order granting petitioner father physical custody of the parties’ two children. We affirm. We note at the outset that, contrary to the mother’s contention, the record establishes that the parties stipulated that the matter would be heard by a judicial hearing officer (JHO). Although the mother is correct that the JHO did not adequately advise her of her right to assigned counsel at the first court appearance, the record establishes that the JHO “eventually assigned counsel to represent [her and, a]t the court proceedings when [she] was present without counsel . . . , the [JHO] resolved only temporary issues of visitation” *(Matter of Fralix v Thornock,*9 AD3d 890 [2004]). The mother also is correct that the JHO erred in awarding temporary custody of the children to the father without first conducting a hearing *(see Matter of Smith v Patrowski,*226 AD2d 1073 [1996]). “Although temporary custody may be properly fixed without a hearing where sufficient facts are shown by uncontroverted affidavits” *(Robert C.R. v Victoria R.,*143 AD2d 262, 264 [1988]), that was not the case here. Nevertheless, the error does not require reversal inasmuch as the JHO “subsequently conducted the requisite evidentiary hearing, and the record of that hearing fully supports the [JHO’s] determination following the hearing” *(Matter of Humberstone v Wheaton,*21 AD3d 1416, 1418 [2005]; *see generally Matter of Westfall v Westfall,*28 AD3d 1229, 1230 [2006], *lv denied*7 NY3d 706 [2006]; *Matter of Booth v Booth,*8 AD3d 1104, 1104-1105 [2004], *lv denied*3 NY3d 607 [2004]). Present—Smith, J.P., Centra, Fahey, Peradotto and Green, JJ.
No. 1273.

#### La Ravearl *v.*Ragen, Warden.

June 10, 1946.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Criminal Court of Cook County, Illinois, denied.
No. 1167.

#### Lebedis *v.*Ragen, Warden, et al.

May 13, 1946.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Circuit

Court of Will County, Illinois, denied.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-1519

STEVEN EUGENE SHARPE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST COMPANY, a Trustee for Structured 

Asset Investment Loan Trust Mortgage Pass Through Certificate series 2004-1; 

WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE; AMERICA’S SERVING COMPANY,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Columbia. Terry L. Wooten, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-03334-TLW)

Submitted: December 13, 2021 Decided: December 28, 2021

Before THACKER and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Orin G. Briggs, Lexington, South Carolina, for Appellant. M. Todd Carroll, WOMBLE 

BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Columbia, South Carolina; John C. Hawk, IV, WOMBLE 

BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-1519 Doc: 38 Filed: 12/28/2021 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Steven Eugene Sharpe appeals the district court’s order dismissing his complaint 

without prejudice. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and 

advised Sharpe that failure to file timely, specific objections to this recommendation could 

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation.

The timely filing of specific objections to a magistrate judge’s recommendation is 

necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the 

parties have been warned of the consequences of noncompliance. Martin v. Duffy, 858 

F.3d 239, 245 (4th Cir. 2017); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 846-47 (4th Cir. 1985); see 

also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 154-55 (1985). Sharpe stated that he had received the 

magistrate judge’s recommendation, which included proper notice, and he filed a document 

that the district court construed as objections to the magistrate judge’s recommendation. 

Because the objections were not specific to the particularized legal recommendations made 

by the magistrate judge, however, Sharpe has waived appellate review of the district court’s 

order. See Martin, 858 F.3d at 245 (holding that, “to preserve for appeal an issue in a 

magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that 

issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground 

for the objection” (internal quotation marks omitted)). 

USCA4 Appeal: 20-1519 Doc: 38 Filed: 12/28/2021 Pg: 2 of 3
3

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

USCA4 Appeal: 20-1519 Doc: 38 Filed: 12/28/2021 Pg: 3 of 3
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

 Respondent

 v.

KENNETH KINDREW,

 Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 176 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 25th day of August, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED.
This opinion is subject to administrative correction before final disposition.

Before KISOR , MIZER , and THORNHILL Appellate Military Judges

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES Appellee

v. Tony E. D EDOLPH Chief Petty Officer (E

- 7 ), U.S. Navy Appellant
No. 202100150 (f rev)

_________________________ Decided: 27 June 2024 Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary Military Judge s : H ayes C. Larsen (motions, trial) Derek D. Butler (rehearing on sentence) Sentence adjudged 6 October 2023 by a general court

- martial convened at Washington Navy Yard, Washington, DC , consisting of a military judge sitting alone

. Sentence in the Entry of Judgment : reduction to E

- 4 , confinement for 18 months , and a bad

- conduct discharge

. 1 For Appellant: Major Joshua P. Keefe , USMC

1 Appellant was credited with hav ing served 701 days of pretrial confinement.United States v. Dedolph , NMCCA No. 20 2100150 (f rev) Opinion of the Court

2 _________________________ This opinion does not serve as binding precedent under NMCCA Rule of Appellate Procedure 30.2 (a)

.

_________________________
PER CURIAM : A military judge sitting as a general court

- martial convicted Appellant, pursuant to his pleas of conspiracy to commit assault and obstruct justice, violation of a lawful general order, involuntary manslaughter, and obstruction of justice, in violation of Article s 81, 92, 119, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice ( UCMJ )

. 2 The military judge sentenced Appellant to reduction to E

- 1, confinement for 10 years, and a dishonorable discharge We affirmed the findings on initial appeal, but set aside the sentence and returned to record to the Judge Advocate General of the Nav y for remand to an appropriate convening authority with authority to order a sentencing rehearing

. 3 At the rehearing, a military judge sentenced Appellant to reduction to E

- 4, confinement for 18 months, and a bad

- conduct discharge

. After careful consideration of the post

- appellate record, submitted without assignment of error, and having already affirmed the findings, we have determined that the sentence is correct in law and fact and that no error materially prejudicial to A ppellant ’s substantial rights occurred. 4 T he sentence is AFFIRMED

.

FOR THE COURT:

MARK K. JAMISON Clerk of Court

2 10 U.S.C. §§ 881, 892, 919, and 934 (2016).

3 United States v. Dedolph , No. 202100150, 2022 CCA LEXIS 658 (N

- M. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2022) (unpublished)

.
4 Articles 59 & 66, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 859, 866.
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.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

# AGENCY:

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.

# ACTION:

Notice; amendment.

# SUMMARY:

                        A notice was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on Monday, July 17, 2017 (Vol. 82, No. 135, pages 32711-32712), to solicit nominations of individuals who are interested in being considered for appointment to the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group (Working Group). The nomination period is scheduled to end close of business on August 16, 2017. The notice is being amended to extend the solicitation period for one week to allow more time for interested individuals to submit nominations.                    

# DATES:

The solicitation period has been extended. All nominations are due to be submitted on or before August 23, 2017.

# ADDRESSES:

                        All nominations should be sent to: CAPT Richard Henry; Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health; Department of Health and Human Services; 330 C Street SW., Suite L100, Washington, DC 20024. Nomination materials, including attachments, also may be submitted electronically to                         *tickbornedisease@hhs.gov.*

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        CAPT Richard Henry, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health; Department of Health and Human Services; Telephone: (202) 795-7615; Email address:                         *richard.henry@hhs.gov.*

Dated: August 10, 2017.

Donald Wright,

Acting Assistant Secretary for Health.

[FR Doc. 2017-17323 Filed 8-15-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE 4150-28-P
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerome E. WILLIAMS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-16081

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

Jan. 10, 2013.

Peggy Morris Ronca, Daniel W. Eck-hart, Tanya Davis Wilson, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Orlando, FL, Robert E. O’Neill, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Rosemary Cakmis, Benjamin Daniel Singerman, Donna Lee Elm, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Jerome E. Williams, c/o Donald Williams, Orlando, FL, Adeel Bashir, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Tampa, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before MARCUS, PRYOR and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Rosemary Cakmis, appointed counsel for Jerome E. Williams in this appeal from the partial grant of Williams’s motion for a sentence reduction, 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and the district court’s partial grant of Williams’s § 3582(c)(2) motion is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 160 (Monday, August 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 39609]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17542]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Library of Medicine; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the meetings.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable materials, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Biomedical Library and Informatics Review 
Committee.
    Date: November 2-3, 2017.
    Time: November 2, 2017, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda Marriott Suites, 6711 Democracy Boulevard, 
Bethesda, MD 20817.
    Time: November 3, 2017, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Contact Person: Joseph Rudolph, Ph.D., Acting Scientific Review 
Officer, NLM, Chief and Scientific Review Officer, CSR, Center for 
Scientific Review, NIH, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5216, Bethesda, 
MD 20817, 301-408-9098, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#254f4a5640554d57506548444c490b4b4c4d0b424a53"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f892978b9d88908a8db895999194d6969190d69f978e">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.879, 
Medical Library Assistance, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: August 15, 2017.
Michelle Trout,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-17542 Filed 8-18-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 158 (Thursday, August 17, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 39133]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17370]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-388, 389, and 391 and 731-TA-817, 818, and 
821 (Third Review)]


Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate From India, Indonesia, 
and Korea; Scheduling of Full Five-Year Reviews; Correction

AGENCY: U.S. International Trade Commission.

ACTION: Correction of notice.

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

SUMMARY: Correction is made to the December 20, 2017 hearing day in the 
Hearing section of the notice which was published on August 10, 2017 
(82 FR 37465). The day of the hearing should be Wednesday, December 20, 
2017.

Correction

    In the Federal Register of August 10, 2017, in FR Doc. 17-16893, on 
page 37466, in the second column, in the fourth paragraph, under the 
heading Hearing, in the fourth line, correct ``Thursday, December 20, 
2017'' to read ``Wednesday, December 20, 2017''.

    Issued: August 11, 2017.
Lisa R. Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2017-17370 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P7020-02-P
Sommer Barnard PC

 March 27, 2008

Saturna Investment Trust  c/o Saturna Capital  1300 North State Street  Bellingham, Washington 98225-4730

Re: Amendment to Form N-1A

Gentlemen:

In accordance with the registration of an indefinite number of units ("Units") registered by Saturna Investment Trust (the "Trust") for its Funds, we have been asked to provide the opinion of our counsel required to be filed as an exhibit to the Trust's registration statement on Form N-1A (the "Registration Statement"). In rendering this opinion, we have examined such documents, records and questions of law as we deemed it necessary to examine for the purpose of this opinion. Based on that examination and investigation, it is our opinion that the Units will be, upon issuance, validly issued, fully paid and not liable to further assessments.

We consent to the filing of this letter as an exhibit to Post Effective Amendment No. 31 to the Registration Statement.

Sincerely,

SOMMER BARNARD PC  /s/Sommer Barnard PC