alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 10, 2021

No. 04

- 19

- 00403

- CV

THE TEXAS BRANDON CORPORATION, INC. and Ronald R. Wilson, Appellants

v.

EOG RESOURCES, INC. and Fred Levine,

Appellees

From the 218th Judicial District Court

, Karnes County, Texas

Trial Court No. 16

- 03

- 00066

- CVK

Honorable Russell Wilson , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice

Ir ene Rios, Justice Beth Watkins, Justice

On December 9, 2020, we issued an opinion and judgment in Cause Number 04

- 19

- 00403

- CV which affirmed the trial court’s judgment in its entirety. Because no party timely filed a motion for rehearing or motion for reconsideration en banc, our plenary power to vacate or modify o ur December 9, 2020 judgment expired on March 1, 2021. Tex. R. App. P. 19.1, 19.3. On May 4, 2021, we issued our mandate in this case. Tex. R. App. P. 18.1.

On December 2, 2021, appellants filed a “Brief on the Merits” asking us “to reverse the judgment of the trial court and grant to the Plaintiff’s [ sic ] Final Judgment.” Because our plenary power in Cause Number 04

- 19

- 00403

- CV has expired, we no longer have jurisdiction to review the trial court’s judgment in that appeal. Id. R. 19.3; Real Prop. Located at 404 Fuller Str., Kerrville, Kerr Cty. v. State , No. 04

- 21

- 00016

- CV, 2021 WL 1110530, at *1 (Tex. App.

— San Antonio Mar. 24, 2021, no pet.) (mem. op.). Accordingly, the brief appellant filed on December 2, 2021 in Cause Number 04

- 19

- 00403

- CV is STRICKEN

.

It is so ORDERED on Dece mber 10, 2021.PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_____________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, CLERK OF COURT
ELIZXBE H LANG-MIERS JUSTICE,/ Order issued September 

### 2C , 2012

In The 

### Truth 

## of Apptats ITiftIjBistrirt uf IJixas at Dallas

No. 05-12-00453-CV PRISCILLA BOUIE, Appellant

V. KIRKLAND'S STORES, INC., Appellee



### ORDER Before the Court is appellee's August 28, 2012 motion to dismiss appeal for want of prosecution and appellant's September 6, 2012 response. We DENY appellee's motion. Our records reflect appellant has paid the appellate filing fee. Our records further reflect the reporter's record has been filed, but the clerk's record has not due to non-payment. Accordingly,
we ORDERappellant to pay, or make arrangements to pay, for the clerk's record within twenty (20) days of the date of this order. We caution appellant that failure to pay for the clerk's record will result in dismissal of this appeal without further warning. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), 42.3 (b),(c).
Exhibit
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





Board of
Directors


Mace
Security International, Inc. and Subsidiaries





We have
issued our report dated March 24, 2010, with respect to the consolidated
financial statements included in the  Annual Report of Mace Security
International, Inc. and Subsidiaries on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2009.  We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said
report in the Registration Statements of Mace Security International, Inc. on
Form S-3 (File No. 333-87981, effective September 28, 1999, amended December 27,
1999, File No. 333-34096, effective April 5, 2000, File No. 333-34536, effective
April 11, 2000, File No. 333-116527, effective June 16, 2004, amended September
24, 2004, and File No. 333-122074, effective January 14, 2005, amended February
3, 2005) and Forms S-8 (File No. 333-31757, effective on July 22, 1997 and File
No. 333-93311, effective on December 21, 1999).





/s/ Grant Thornton LLPPhiladelphia,
      PennsylvaniaMarch
      24, 2010
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                      11,477,120
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               51,754,337
<ALLOWANCES>                                 1,633,627
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            66,421,251
<PP&E>                                     103,308,498
<DEPRECIATION>                               6,630,347
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             857,003,080
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       65,089,832
<BONDS>                                    462,842,130
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       95,070,957
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,796,322
<OTHER-SE>                                 157,994,921
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               857,003,080
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           116,406,412
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               77,965,479
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            38,021,610
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               795,546
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          32,500,695
<INCOME-PRETAX>                           (32,876,918)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (32,876,918)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (2,924,154)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (35,801,072)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
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 Quarterly Report of Tilden Associates, Inc. (the
"Company") On Form 10-QSB for the period ending June 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("Report"), I Robert
Baskind, Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to 906 of the Sarbanes-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 Securities and 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.



/s/ ROBERT BASKIND
--------------------------------
Robert Baskind
Chief Executive Officer and
Acting Chief Financial Officer

August 19, 2005

                                       18
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.                  

###### Office of Personnel Management

# AGENCY:

Office of Personnel Management. 

# ACTION:

Notice. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) intends to submit to the Office of Management and Budget a request for review of an expiring information collection. RI 30-10, Disabled Dependent Questionnaire, is used to collect sufficient information about the medical condition and earning capacity for the Office of Personnel Management to be able to determine whether a disabled adult child is eligible for health benefits coverage and/or survivor annuity payments under the Civil Service Retirement System or the Federal Employees Retirement System. 

Comments are particularly invited on: whether this information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of OPM, and whether it will have practical utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology. 

Approximately 2,500 RI 30-10 Forms are completed annually. The form takes approximately 60 minutes to complete. The annual estimated burden is 2,500 hours. 

For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606-8358, or E-mail to mbtoomey@opm.gov

# DATES:

Comments on this proposal should be received May 1, 2001. 

# ADDRESSES:

Send or deliver comments to—Ronald W. Melton, Chief, Operations Support Division, Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW, Room 3349A, Washington, DC 20415. 

# FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION CONTACT: 

Donna G. Lease, Team Leader, Forms Analysis and Design, Budget and Administrative Services Division, (202) 606-0623. 

Office of Personnel Management. 

Steven R. Cohen,

Acting Director.

[FR Doc. 01-5055 Filed 3-1-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6325-50-P
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2785 

To designate foreign persons who improperly interfere in United States 

elections as inadmissible aliens, and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

APRIL 26, 2018 

Mr. DURBIN (for himself and Mr. GRAHAM) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To designate foreign persons who improperly interfere in 

United States elections as inadmissible aliens, and for 

other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Defending Elections 

5 against Trolls from Enemy Regimes Act’’ or ‘‘DETER 

6 Act’’. 

7 SEC. 2. DEFINED TERM. 

8 Section 101(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 

9 Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)) is amended by adding at the end 

10 the following: 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2785 IS

1 ‘‘(53) The term ‘improper interference in a 

2 United States election’ means conduct by an alien 

3 that— 

4 ‘‘(A)(i) violates Federal criminal, voting 

5 rights, or campaign finance law; or 

6 ‘‘(ii) is under the direction of a foreign 

7 government; and 

8 ‘‘(B) interferes with a general or primary 

9 Federal, State, or local election or caucus, in10 cluding— 

11 ‘‘(i) the campaign of a candidate; and 

12 ‘‘(ii) a ballot measure, including— 

13 ‘‘(I) an amendment; 

14 ‘‘(II) a bond issue; 

15 ‘‘(III) an initiative; 

16 ‘‘(IV) a recall; 

17 ‘‘(V) a referral; and 

18 ‘‘(VI) a referendum.’’. 

19 SEC. 3. IMPROPER INTERFERENCE IN UNITED STATES 

20 ELECTIONS. 

21 Section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality 

22 Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) is amended by adding at the 

23 end the following: 

24 ‘‘(H) IMPROPER INTERFERENCE IN A

25 UNITED STATES ELECTION.—Any alien who is 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2785 IS

1 seeking admission to the United States to en2 gage in improper interference in a United 

3 States election, or who has engaged in improper 

4 interference in a United States election, is inad5 missible.’’. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
COMPANY'S CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS, CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          14,170
<SECURITIES>                                     1,316
<RECEIVABLES>                                  205,960
<ALLOWANCES>                                    41,025
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               227,011
<PP&E>                                         370,716
<DEPRECIATION>                                  60,982
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 741,884
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          387,756
<BONDS>                                         61,410
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            58
<OTHER-SE>                                     270,010
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   741,884
<SALES>                                        255,105
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               255,105
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  272,219
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (10,696)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,708
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,924
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (9,153)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,629)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,524)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.11)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.11)


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 34.1





ATTESTATION REPORT ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH


SERVICING CRITERIA FOR ASSET-BACKED SECURITIES








REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





To the Board of Directors and Shareholders


Entergy Texas, Inc.


The Woodlands, Texas





We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance with Servicing Criteria For Asset-Backed Securities, that Entergy Texas, Inc. (the "Company") complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission's Regulation AB applicable for Entergy Gulf States Reconstruction Funding I, LLC’s Senior Secured Transition Bonds, Series A (the “Securities”) as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, excluding criteria 1122(d)(1)(ii), (1)(iii), (1)(iv), (2)(iii), (2)(vi), (4)(iii), (4)(v), (4)(ix), (4)(x), (4)(xi), (4)(xii), (4)(xiii), and (4)(xv), which management has determined are not applicable to the activities performed by the Company with respect to the Securities.  Management is responsible for the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.  Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management's assertion about the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria based on our examination.





Our examination was conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company's compliance with the applicable servicing criteria, including tests on a sample basis of the servicing activities related to the Securities, determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria during the specified period, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our procedures were limited to selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Further, an examination is not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to the period specified above that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report.  We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.  Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.





In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015 for Entergy Gulf States Reconstruction Funding I, LLC’s Senior Secured Transition Bonds, Series A is fairly stated, in all material respects.





/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP





New Orleans, Louisiana


March 29, 2016
Exhibit
13.1





CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with this Annual Report of OceanFreight Inc. (the "Company") on Form
20-F for the year ended December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on or about the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Antonis Kandylidis, 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 results of operations of the
      Company.





A signed
original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its staff upon
request.





Date:
March 9, 2010











/s/  Antonis
      Kandylidis
 Antonis
Kandylidis


Chief
Executive Officer














SK 25754
0001 1077219
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 2140

To amend the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Service Programs Act of

1992 to remove the requirement that funds be expressly provided.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 18, 1993

Mr. EVANS (for himself, Mr. KENNEDY, Ms. WATERS, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr.

FILNER, and Mr. VENTO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

A BILL

To amend the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive Service

Programs Act of 1992 to remove the requirement that

funds be expressly provided.

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

3 That section 12 of the Homeless Veterans Comprehensive

4 Service Programs Act of 1992 (38 U.S.C. 7721 note) is

5 amended by striking out the second sentence.

Æ
#### Joseph HOUGH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Tina O’NEAL, Atlanta Probation Department, Terry Jones, William Harrison, Grady Hospital, Doctor John Doe, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 06-11969

Non-Argument Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.

March 22, 2007.

See also 273 F.3d 1110.

Joseph Hough, Morristown, TN, pro se.

James C. West, III, James C. West, III, P.C., Decatur, GA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before TJOFLAT, BLACK and MARCUS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This case began on September 8, 1998, when appellant, proceeding *pro se,*filed a complaint for damages against three individuals and a hospital. Although appellant’s complaint invoked the district court’s subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity of citizenship), it contained a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; hence, the complaint invoked the court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (civil rights), as well.

On March 28, 2005, in an order addressing several motions, the district court dismissed appellant’s § 1983 claim because appellant had failed to perfect service of process on the only defendant against whom the claim had been lodged, appellee Tina O’Neal. The court also dismissed the *914claims against appellees Jones and Harrison on the same ground, failure to perfect service of process. Hence, what remained in the case thereafter were appellant’s § 1332 diversity claims — malpractice claims against Grady Hospital and Dr. John Doe.

On November 28, 2005, Grady Hospital moved the court for summary judgment on behalf of itself and Dr. Doe (who had yet to be served with process). The court granted the motion in a comprehensive order (which addressed several pending motions) on March 2, 2006 on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, specifically diversity jurisdiction under § 1332. The court found diversity jurisdiction lacking because (1) appellant conceded that he was a Georgia citizen, and (2) since the remaining defendants, Grady Hospital and Dr. Doe, were also Georgia citizens, § 1332 diversity requirement could not be satisfied. The court acknowledged that, in theory, it could have maintained jurisdiction under the supplemental jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, but concluded that because the malpractice claims did not “stem from the same common nucleus of operative fact” as the § 1983 claim against O’Neal, retention of those claims under § 1367 was inappropriate.

The district court’s March 2 order is the focus of this appeal. Appellant challenges the court’s resolution of the jurisdictional issues and complains of other rulings the court made — in the March 2 and earlier orders. We are satisfied that the court lacked diversity jurisdiction and that it did not abuse its discretion in declining to entertain the claims against Grady Hospital and Dr. Doe under its supplemental § 1367 jurisdiction. The court’s judgment is therefore

AFFIRMED.1

1

. Our decision — that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction — renders moot the remaining issues appellant raises in his brief.