alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
DENIED and Opinion Filed May 24, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-23-00478-CV

IN RE HEB HOMES, LLC, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 44th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-22-01643

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Pedersen, III, Nowell, and Miskel

Opinion by Justice Pedersen, III

Before the Court are relator’s May 18, 2023 petition for writ of mandamus 

and motion for temporary stay. Relator challenges the trial court’s May 9, 2023 

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Conduct Net Worth Discovery.1

Entitlement to mandamus relief requires relator to show that the trial court 

clearly abused its discretion and that relator lacks an adequate appellate remedy. In

re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig.

 

1 We question whether relator’s petition includes an adequate certification. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 52.3(j). We assume without deciding that relator’s certification is adequate.
–2–

proceeding). After reviewing relator’s petition and the record before us, we conclude 

that relator has failed to demonstrate entitlement to mandamus relief. 

Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See TEX. R. APP. P. 

52.8(a).

We also deny relator’s motion for temporary stay as moot.

230478f.p05 /Bill Pedersen, III//

BILL PEDERSEN, III

JUSTICE
Federal Human Capital Survey

Human Capital Assessment and

Accountability Framework Index Graphs

Comparisons of 2006 and 2008  

Response Percentages
EXHIBIT 32.1

DIGIMARC CORPORATION

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the periodic report of Digimarc Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Bruce Davis, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18,
Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



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

Date:
May 2, 2008

|By: | /s/BRUCE DAVISBruce Davis Chief Executive Officer | 
|--- | ------------------------------------------------- | 

---



QuickLinks
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3542 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3542

To direct the Architect of the Capitol to fly the flag of a State over 
  the Capitol each year on the anniversary of the date of the State's 
                        admission to the Union.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 9, 2009

  Mr. Daniel E. Lungren of California introduced the following bill; 
      which was referred to the Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To direct the Architect of the Capitol to fly the flag of a State over 
  the Capitol each year on the anniversary of the date of the State's 
                        admission to the Union.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``State Admission Day Recognition Act 
of 2009''.

SEC. 2. FLYING STATE FLAG OVER CAPITOL ON ANNIVERSARY OF STATE'S 
              ADMISSION TO UNION.

    (a) In General.--To honor the anniversary of each State's admission 
to the Union, the Architect of the Capitol shall fly the flag of the 
State over the Capitol each year on the anniversary of the date of the 
State's admission to the Union.
    (b) Effective Date.--The Architect of the Capitol shall fly the 
first flag of a State over the Capitol under this section on the first 
December 7 which occurs after the date of the enactment of this Act, in 
honor of the anniversary of the admission of Delaware, the first State 
admitted to the Union.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF

CURTIS W. MEWBOURNE
/ CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

OF MEWBOURNE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

I, Curtis W. Mewbourne, Chief Executive Officer of Mewbourne Development Corporation, Managing General Partner of Mewbourne Energy Partners 06-A, L.P. (the Registrant), hereby certify that the
accompanying report on Form 10-K, for the annual period ended December 31, 2010 and filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
Report) by the Registrant fully complies with the requirements of that section.

I further certify that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.



/s/ Curtis W. MewbourneName:

Curtis W. MewbourneDate:

March 31, 2011
Exhibit 13.2CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.  SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES‐OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with the Annual Report of TAM S.A. (the "Company") on Form 20‐F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2010, as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Líbano Miranda Barroso, Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes‐Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge: (i)          the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (ii)         the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Date: May 13, 2011 By:/s/ Líbano Miranda BarrosoLíbano Miranda BarrosoChief Financial Officer


---
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.                  

###### Federal Reserve System

The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the notices are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).

The notices are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank indicated. The notices also will be available for inspection at the offices of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views in writing to the Reserve Bank indicated for that notice or to the offices of the Board of Governors. Comments must be received not later than November 15, 2017.

*A. Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago*                     (Colette A. Fried, Assistant Vice President) 230 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60690-1414:                

                    1.                     *The Martin Grandchildren's Trust dated 5.24.17, with William C. Martin and Sally A. Martin as co-trustees; the William C. Martin 2016 Grantor Retained Annuity Trust dated 1.27.16, with William C. Martin as trustee; the William C. Martin 2017 Grantor Retained Annuity Trust dated 5.31.17, with William C. Martin as trustee; the William C. Martin GRAT Remainder Trust fbo William S. Martin dated 1.27.16, with William C. Martin as trustee; the William C. Martin GRAT Remainder Trust fbo Michael C. Martin dated 1.27.16, with William C. Martin as trustee; Keweenaw, L.L.C., with William C. Martin as manager; Sally A. Martin, individually; William S. Martin, individually; and Michael C. Martin, individually, all of Ann Arbor, Michigan;*                     to join William C. Martin as members of the Martin Family Control Group and retain voting shares of Arbor Bancorp, Inc., and thereby indirectly retain voting shares of Bank of Ann Arbor, both of Ann Arbor, Michigan.                

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, October 24, 2017.

Ann Misback,

Secretary of the Board.

[FR Doc. 2017-23429 Filed 10-26-17; 8:45 am]

 BILLING CODE P
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2746 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2746

  To amend title 28, United States Code, to redefine the eastern and 
              middle judicial districts of North Carolina.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 2021

 Ms. Ross (for herself, Mr. Butterfield, Mr. Murphy of North Carolina, 
  Mr. Price of North Carolina, Ms. Foxx, Ms. Manning, Mr. Rouzer, Mr. 
 Hudson, Mr. Bishop of North Carolina, Mr. McHenry, Mr. Cawthorn, Ms. 
Adams, and Mr. Budd) introduced the following bill; which was referred 
                   to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend title 28, United States Code, to redefine the eastern and 
              middle judicial districts of North Carolina.

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

SECTION 1. JUDICIAL DISTRICTS OF NORTH CAROLINA.

    (a) In General.--Section 113 of title 28, United States Code, is 
amended--
            (1) in subsection (a), by striking ``and Wilson and'' and 
        inserting ``Wilson, those portions of Hoke, Moore, Scotland, 
        and Richmond counties encompassing the Fort Bragg Military 
        Reservation and Camp Mackall, and''; and
            (2) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
    ``(b) Middle District.--The Middle District comprises the counties 
of Alamance, Cabarrus, Caswell, Chatham, Davidson, Davie, Durham 
(excluding that portion of Durham County encompassing the Federal 
Correctional Institution, Butner, North Carolina), Forsyth, Guilford, 
Hoke (excluding that portion of Hoke County encompassing the Fort Bragg 
Military Reservation and Camp Mackall), Lee, Montgomery, Moore 
(excluding that portion of Moore County encompassing the Fort Bragg 
Military Reservation and Camp Mackall), Orange, Person, Randolph, 
Richmond (excluding that portion of Richmond County encompassing the 
Fort Bragg Military Reservation and Camp Mackall), Rockingham, Rowan, 
Scotland (excluding that portion of Scotland County encompassing the 
Fort Bragg Military Reservation and Camp Mackall), Stanly, Stokes, 
Surry, and Yadkin.''.
    (b) Application.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall not 
apply to any action commenced or pending in any judicial district of 
North Carolina before the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
31.2





CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION





I, James
F. Carroll, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Freestone Resources,
Inc.





2. Based
on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;





3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;





4. The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:





a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;





b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and





c)
disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5. The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a) all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and





b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.








Date: May
21, 2009







/s/ James F. Carroll





James F.
Carroll


Chief
Financial Officer
EXHIBIT
32.1





STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY 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 on Form 10-K of Environment Ecology Holding
Co. of China for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Liu, Sheng Li, Chief
Executive Officer of the registrant, certify that:




* the
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




* the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.




/s/ Liu, Sheng
Li


Liu,
Sheng Li


President
and Chief Executive Officer,








Date:
October 8, 2008





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


    

      


      PROMISSORY
        NOTE

      TO

      MRS.
        PHYLLIS L. BELL

      


      


      
        	
                $40,000.00

              	
                January
                  6, 2005

              


      

      


      


      For
        value
        received, STAF
        TEK SERVICES, INC., of
        Tulsa,
        Oklahoma, (herein referred to as ‘maker’) promises to pay to the order of
PHYLLIS
        L. BELL,
        (herein
        referred to as ‘payee’) on or before January 31, 2005, the principal sum of
        Forty Thousand and No/100 Dollars ($40,000.00), plus twelve and one-half
        percent
        (12 1⁄2%) interest annually from this date to the maturity date of January 31,
        2005.

      


      Payment
        of this note shall be as follows: One lump sum payment of $40,000 plus $342.50
        interest, totaling $40,342.50.

      


      Maker
        may
        prepay this note in whole or in part without penalty or surcharge at any
        time
        prior to the maturity date.

      


      The
        maker
        hereby severally waives presentment for payment, notice of nonpayment, protest
        and notice to protest, and aggress that extensions of the time for payment
        may
        be granted without notice. In case of legal proceedings to collect this note,
        maker agrees to pay all court costs including reasonable attorneys’ fees to
        payee as prevailing parties in the suit.

      


      IN
        WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is signed this 6th
        day of
        January, 2005.

      


      


      
        	 	 	
                /s/
                  John H. Simmons

              
	 	 	
                John
                  H. Simmons, President, C.E.O.

              
	 	 	
                StafTek
                  Services, Inc.

              
	 	 	
                4870
                  S. Lewis St., Ste. 250

              
	 	 	
                Tulsa,
                  Oklahoma 74105
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>     5
<LEGEND>
                          PREMIER AUTO TRUST 1999-3
      FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 1, 1999 (INCEPTION) THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1999
                           FINANCIAL DATA SCHEDULE
                   PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 5 OF REGULATION S-X
                                  $ Millions
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>  1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                          $         4
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                         1,402
<ALLOWANCES>                              0
<INVENTORY>                               0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          0
<PP&E>                                    0
<DEPRECIATION>                            0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                        1,406
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                    37
<BONDS>                               1,369
<COMMON>                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<OTHER-SE>                                0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>          1,406
<SALES>                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          0
<CGS>                                     0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           0
<INCOME-TAX>                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       0
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                              0
<EPS-BASIC>                          0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                          0.00


</TABLE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Andre English, Appellant.

[988 NYS2d 163]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J., at suppression hearing; Jill Konviser, J., at jury trial and sentencing), rendered May 9, 2011, as amended June 3, 2011, convicting defendant of robbery in the second degree (two counts) and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of five years, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence *(see People v Danielson,*9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]). There is no basis for disturbing the jury’s determinations concerning identification and credibility. The victim and an eyewitness made reliable identifications within minutes of the robbery. In addition, one of the items taken in the robbery was a $100 bill, and before any questioning, and under circumstances from which the jury could infer consciousness of guilt, defendant volunteered to the police that he did not have $100.

The evidence also established physical injury and use of a dangerous instrument, which were elements of certain counts *(see*Penal Law §§ 120.05 [2]; 160.10 [2] [a]). The jury could have reasonably inferred that the victim sustained an injury to his ear, as well as other injuries, each of which caused substantial pain *(see*Penal Law § 10.00 [9]; *People v Chiddick,*8 NY3d 445, 447 [2007]; *People v Guidice, 83*NY2d 630, 636 [1994]; *People v Rojas,*61 NY2d 726 [1984]), and that some of these injuries were caused by means of a dangerous instrument, namely, the boots worn by defendant and two of his codefendants when they kicked the fallen victim.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress his statement about not having $100. At about 4:00 a.m., roughly one minute after receiving a broadcast of a robbery in progress, officers arrived on the scene and found a man who could not communicate in English frantically pointing to a building. When defendant and a codefendant came out of the building a moment later, the police had, at least, a founded suspicion of criminality justifying a common-law inquiry to determine whether these men were involved in the crime. A nonverbal communication may be “a significant factor justifying police action” *(People v Rosa,*67 AD3d 440, 440 [1st Dept 2009], *lv denied*14 NY3d 773 [2010]), and here, under the totality of the circumstances, there was at least enough for a level-two inquiry. At the *559time defendant made the statement at issue, he had not been subjected to any police intrusion beyond a direction to stop, which did not constitute a seizure *(see People v Bora,*83 NY2d 531, 532-535 [1994]; *People v Francois,*61 AD3d 524, 525 [1st Dept 2009], *affd*14 NY3d 732 [2010]).

Concur—Sweeny, J.E, Renwick, Andrias, Richter and Kapnick, JJ.
First Amendment 2001 Supplemental Equity



 Exhibit 10.1 
 FIRST AMENDMENT 
 OF THE 
 NAVIGANT CONSULTING, INC. 
 2001 SUPPLEMENTAL EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

 WHEREAS, Navigant Consulting, Inc. (the “Company”) maintains the Navigant Consulting, Inc. 2001 Supplemental Equity
Incentive Plan (the “Plan”), and 
 WHEREAS, the Company considers it desirable to amend the Plan. 
 NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to the power reserved to the Company by Article XV of the Plan the Board of Directors of the Company hereby amends the
Plan effective April 16, 2007, in the following particulars: 
  

	 	1.	By amending and restating Section A. Option Price of Article VII. Terms and Conditions of Nonstatutory Options in its entirety to read as follows: 


“A. Option Price 
 The purchase
price of the Shares covered by each Option granted under the Plan shall be at Fair Market Value. The Option price per share of the Shares covered by each Nonstatutory Option shall be at Fair Market Value.” 
  

	 	2.	By amending and restating Section C. of Article VII. Terms and Conditions of Nonstatutory Options in its entirety to read as follows: 

 “C. Term of Option 
 The Committee
shall determine the time, which in no event shall exceed ten (10) years, at which each Option shall terminate.”