alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
NO.  07-10-0222-CV

	IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

	FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	AT AMARILLO

	PANEL B

	JUNE 24, 2010

	______________________________

	In re: JOHNNY HINOJOS LUNA,

				Relator

	_________________________________

***On Original Proceeding for Writ of Mandamus***

	_______________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ

	Pending before the court is the application of Johnny Hinojos Luna, for a writ of mandamus.  The petition is a request for us to order the Honorable Ana Estevez, 251st District Court, to act on his motion for “Nunc Pro Tunc,” wherein he claimed that he did not receive jail time credit while awaiting trial.   We dismiss the petition as moot.

	On June 14, 2010, we directed Judge Estevez to respond to relator’s petition for mandamus.  On June 18, 2010, Judge Estevez filed her response which included an “Order Granting Jail Time Credit Nunc Pro Tunc,” wherein she granted relator’s motion and allotted him the requested jail time credit.[footnoteRef:1]    [1: A copy of the trial court’s order is attached to this opinion.] 

	Accordingly, we do not reach the merits of the issues raised, and the petition for writ of mandamus is dismissed as moot.  *See In re Duncan,*62 S.W.3d 333, 334 (Tex. App.*–*Houston [1st Dist.] 2001, orig. proceeding).

							Brian Quinn

							Chief Justice

3

# image1.emf
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000886912
<NAME> TECH ELECTRO INDUSTRIES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         883,972
<SECURITIES>                                 1,145,250
<RECEIVABLES>                                  631,530
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,438,196
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,407,754
<PP&E>                                         504,163
<DEPRECIATION>                                 301,238
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,717,683
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          318,968
<BONDS>                                          2,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,408,275
<OTHER-SE>                                     365,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,717,683
<SALES>                                      1,086,654
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,102,790
<CGS>                                          799,476
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  522,798
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (15,970)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (220,986)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)
        

</TABLE>
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

KIMBERLY COX,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

NEWREZ LLC; et al.,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 20

- 17264

D.C. No. 3:20

- cv

- 04418

- VC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California Vince Chhabria, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted November 8, 2021 * *

Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Kimberly Cox appeals from the district cou rt’s judgment dismissing her

action alleging claims regarding a home loan and denying her motion to remand to

state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

issues of subject matter jurisdiction and denials of motions to rema nd

.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

NOV 17 2021

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS2 20

- 17264

Ritchey v. Upjohn Drug Co. , 139 F.3d 1313, 1315 (9th Cir. 1998). We affirm.

The district court properly denied Cox’s motion to remand because the

district court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the action

was properly removed under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. See Rivet v. Regions Bank of La.

,

522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (to establish jurisdiction under § 1331, a federal question

must be “presented on the face of the plaintiff ’ s properly pleaded complaint”

(citation and internal quotation marks omitted)); Lippitt v. Raymond James Fin.

Servs., Inc. , 340 F.3d 1033, 1042 (9th Cir. 2003) (“ [T] he artful pleading doctrine

allows f ederal courts to retain jurisdiction over state law claims

. . . when

. . . the

right to relief depends on the resolution of a substantial, disputed federal question.”

(citations omitted) ) ; see also Destfino v. Reiswig

, 630 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir.

2011) ( explaining that consent to removal is not required from defendants who

were not properly served).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Cox’ s motion to

alter or amend the judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) because

Cox failed to demonstrate any basis for relief. See Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah

County, Or. v. ACandS, Inc. , 5 F.3d 1255, 1262

- 63 (9th Cir. 1993) (setting forth

standard of review and grounds for relief under Rule 59(e))

.

We reject as meritless Cox’s contention that the district court lacked

jurisdiction to rule on the motion to dismiss because it did not first explicitly deny3 20

- 17264

the motion to remand.

Cox’s motion to strike (Docket Entry No. 32) and motion for judicial noti ce

(Docket Entry No. 33) are denied.

Cox’s request to file supplemental briefs, set forth in the opening brief, is

denied.

AFFIRMED.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

______________________ 

THE WARREN TRUST AND THE MARIETTA 

TRUST,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES,

Defendant-Appellee.

______________________ 

2013-5034

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States Court of Federal 

Claims in No. 10-CV-0006, Judge Margaret M. Sweeney.

______________________ 

O R D E R

The parties jointly move to dismiss the appeal. 

Upon consideration thereof,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

Case: 13-5034 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 09/06/2013
2 THE WARREN TRUST v. US

(1) The motion is granted. The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Each side shall bear its own costs.

(3) All other pending motions are denied as moot.

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole 

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk 

s25

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: September 6, 2013

Case: 13-5034 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 09/06/2013
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 21-1783

___________

IN RE: LAVOND HILL, Petitioner

____________________________________

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court

for the Western District of Pennsylvania

(Related to D.C. No. 3:21-cv-00008)

District Judge: Honorable Stephanie L. Haines

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21 

on June 24, 2021

Before: McKEE, GREENAWAY, JR., and BIBAS, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: September 7, 2021)

____________________________________
2

___________

OPINION*

___________

PER CURIAM

Lavond Hill is a Pennsylvania inmate currently confined at SCI Houtzdale. Hill filed a 

civil rights action in the District Court claiming that he has suffered retaliation for filing 

Hill v. Wetzel, D.C. No. 2:19-cv-960 (W.D. Pa.), and that he has otherwise been mistreated 

by corrections officers. 

Between January and April 2021, Hill filed two motions for injunctive relief, along with 

several supporting documents. None of the defendants named in Hill’s complaint has appeared in the case, and the District Court has not yet ruled on Hill’s motions or set a schedule for their disposition.

Around one month after Hill filed the second of his two motions for injunctive relief, 

he filed in this Court a petition for a writ of mandamus. Hill seeks an order compelling the 

District Court to act on his pending motions. See Doc. 1-1 at 4.

Issuance of a writ of mandamus may be warranted where delay by the District Court in 

adjudicating an application for relief is so protracted as to amount to a failure to exercise 

jurisdiction. See Madden v. Myers, 102 F.3d 74, 79 (3d Cir. 1996). No such delay exists at 

this time. 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
3

That said, our observation in a prior mandamus proceeding initiated by Hill bears repeating: Applications for “immediate injunctive relief ... generally require prompt attention.” In re Hill, 795 F. App’x 146, 149 (3d Cir. 2020) (per curiam) (citing Rolo v. Gen.

Dev. Corp., 949 F.2d 695, 703 (3d Cir. 1991)). Accordingly, Hill’s mandamus petition is 

denied, but without prejudice to his filing another such petition if the District Court does 

not take any meaningful steps in furtherance of adjudicating Hill’s motions (DC ECF Nos. 

6 and 8) within thirty days of issuance of this opinion (and accompanying order).
II 

114TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 75 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the social security 

number of the student and the employer identification number of the 

educational institution for purposes of education tax credits. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 7, 2015 

Mr. VITTER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require 

the social security number of the student and the employer identification number of the educational institution for purposes of education tax credits. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Education Tax Fraud 

5 Prevention Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 75 IS

1 SEC. 2. SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER AND EMPLOYER IDEN2 TIFICATION NUMBER REQUIRED FOR EDU3 CATION TAX CREDITS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (1) of section 25A(g) 

5 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended— 

6 (1) by striking ‘‘taxpayer identification num7 ber’’ and inserting ‘‘social security number’’, and 

8 (2) by inserting ‘‘, and the employer identifica9 tion number of any institution to which qualified tui10 tion and related expenses were paid with respect to 

11 such individual,’’ after ‘‘such individual’’. 

12 (b) OMISSION TREATED AS MATHEMATICAL OR

13 CLERICAL ERROR.—Subparagraph (J) of section 

14 6213(g)(2) of such Code is amended by striking ‘‘TIN’’ 

15 and inserting ‘‘social security number and employer identi16 fication number’’. 

17 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

18 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

19 December 31, 2015. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 27, 2009 

d0120 

Order 

 

January 27, 2009 

136683(48) 

JON ICHESCO and CITY OF YPSILANTI, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v SC: 136683 

 COA: 272905 

Washtenaw CC: 2001-000889-CH 

DAVID KIRCHER, 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

JOHN C. RANKIN and VIDA L. RANKIN 

Defendants. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the motion for reconsideration of this Court’s September 9, 

2008 order is considered, and it is DENIED, because it does not appear that the order was 

entered erroneously.
**Exhibit 32.1**SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONIn connection with the Quarterly Report of Croghan Bancshares, Inc. (the “Corporation”) on Form10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven C. Futrell, President and CEO of theCorporation, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.     Date: October 25, 2005   /s/ Steven C. Futrell         Steven C. Futrell, President & CEO* This certification is being furnished as required by Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities ExchangeAct of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, andshall not be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act or otherwise subject to theliability of that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Exchange Act, except as otherwise stated in suchfiling.
23
Unassociated Document


 


Exhibit 4.9


 


AMENDMENT TO THE


BENIHANA INC.


2000 EMPLOYEES CLASS A COMMON STOCK OPTION PLAN












This Amendment to the Benihana Inc. 2000 Employees Class A Common Stock Option Plan (the “Plan”) is adopted by Benihana Inc. (the “Company”) on December 1, 2011 effective as of November 29, 2011.  Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings given such terms in the Plan.







WHEREAS, the Plan provides for the grant of stock options which entitle the holders thereof to purchase shares of the Company’s Class A Common Stock (the “Stock”); and







WHEREAS, pursuant to an amendment of the Company’s certificate of incorporation, each share of the Company’s Class A Common Stock was reclassified as and changed into one share of the Company’s Common Stock effective November 29, 2011; and







WHEREAS, Section 14 of the Plan provides that in the event of specified changes in the capitalization of the Company a corresponding adjustment shall be made in the number and class of shares available for issuance under the Plan;







NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is hereby amended so that all references to the Company’s Class A Common Stock other than in the name of the Plan, including in the definition of “Stock,” shall instead refer to the Company’s Common Stock.







All other provisions of the Plan shall remain the same and in full force and effect.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED OCTOBER 26, 2018

NO. 03-18-00568-CR

Damon Keith Taylor, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF COMAL COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, GOODWIN, AND BOURLAND

DISMISSED ON APPELLANT’S MOTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE BOURLAND

This is an appeal from the judgment of conviction entered by the trial court. 

Damon Keith Taylor has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal. Therefore, the Court grants the 

motion, allows Damon Keith Taylor to withdraw his notice of appeal, and dismisses the appeal. 

The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and in the court below.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 31 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. CON. RES. 31

Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and an 
              adjournment of the House of Representatives.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           February 12, 2016

Mr. McConnell submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 
                        considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
Providing for a conditional adjournment or recess of the Senate and an 
              adjournment of the House of Representatives.

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), 
That when the Senate recesses or adjourns on any day from Thursday, 
February 11, 2016, through Saturday, February 20, 2016, on a motion 
offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader 
or his designee, it stand recessed or adjourned until 12:00 noon on 
Monday, February 22, 2016, or such other time on that day as may be 
specified by its Majority Leader or his designee in the motion to 
recess or adjourn, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to 
section 2 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first; and 
that when the House adjourns on any legislative day from Friday, 
February 12, 2016, through Tuesday, February 16, 2016, on a motion 
offered pursuant to this concurrent resolution by its Majority Leader 
or his designee, it stand adjourned until 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday, 
February 23, 2016, or until the time of any reassembly pursuant to 
section 3 of this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs first.
    Sec. 2. (a) The Majority Leader of the Senate or his designee, 
after concurrence with the Minority Leader of the Senate, shall notify 
the Members of the Senate to reassemble at such place and time as he 
may designate if, in his opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
    (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), when the Senate 
adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to this subsection by its 
Majority Leader or his designee, the Senate shall again stand adjourned 
pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution.
    Sec. 3. (a) The Speaker or his designee, after consultation with 
the Minority Leader of the House, shall notify the Members of the House 
to reassemble at such place and time as he may designate if, in his 
opinion, the public interest shall warrant it.
    (b) After reassembling pursuant to subsection (a), when the House 
adjourns on a motion offered pursuant to this subsection by its 
Majority Leader or his designee, the House shall again stand adjourned 
pursuant to the first section of this concurrent resolution.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7180

MARK E. RICHARDS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

WENDY K. BROWN, Manager, Court and Legal Services Section, 

Virginia Department of Corrections, sued individual and 

official capacity; GARY L. BASS, Chief of Operations, 

Virginia Department of Corrections, sued individual and 

official capacity; LESLIE RITENOUR, Legal Researcher, Court 

and Legal Services Section, Virginia Department of 

Corrections, sued individual and official capacity,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:11-cv-00426-REP)

Submitted: October 22, 2013 Decided: October 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark E. Richards, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark E. Richards appeals the district court’s orders 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing as frivolous his complaint and denying his motion 

submitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. We have reviewed the record 

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Richards v. Brown, No. 

3:11-cv-00426-REP (E.D. Va. Sept. 18, 2012; June 26, 2013). 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
Americomm Resources Corporation
                        15 E. 5th Street, Suite 4000
                         Tulsa, Oklahoma 74103-4346


                              PROMISSORY NOTE


Maker:            Americomm Resources Corporation
                  15 E. 5th Street, Suite 4000
                  Tulsa, OK  74103-4346

Date of Note:     March 15, 1999

Maturity Date:    March 15, 2000

Amount of Note:   $105,000 + 10% interest at Maturity
                  Date + additional amounts of accrued
                  Corporate operating expenses paid by
                  A. E. Whitehead

This note, drawn in favor of Albert E. Whitehead Living Trust, Albert E.
Whitehead, Trustee, in the amount of $105,000 plus 10% interest, is due
and payable March 15, 2000.  At his option, A. E. Whitehead may elect
to extend the maturity date or otherwise modify the payment terms.  A. E.
Whitehead further agrees to pay certain corporate operating expenses to be
added to the original amount of this note under the same terms.

The proceeds of this loan were used by Americomm Resources Corporation to
pay rentals on Federal leases due April 1, 1999, for its Cheyenne River
Prospect in Wyoming and ongoing operating expenses added to the original
amount of the note.

AMERICOMM RESOURCES CORPORATION

Thomas R. Bradley, President & CEO

Albert E. Whitehead, Trustee
Albert E. Whitehead Living Trust
cc: Hon. Robert W. Lane, District Judge Xinhua He Fidelity National Law Group Nye County Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA
(IR I947A 

### e 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<MULTIPLIER>                       1
<CURRENCY>                         U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                       JUN-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                    1
<CASH>                             4,573,011
<SECURITIES>                       7,738,464
<RECEIVABLES>                      0
<ALLOWANCES>                       0
<INVENTORY>                        0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   12,806,171
<PP&E>                             1,122,876
<DEPRECIATION>                     684,365
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                     23,536,181
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              1,785,720
<BONDS>                            270,563
<COMMON>                           132,479
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        0
<OTHER-SE>                         21,347,419
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       23,536,181
<SALES>                            0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   2,447,086
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   3,303,492
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 36,119
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (1,037,235)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                0
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       (1,037,235)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (.08)
        

</TABLE>