alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### §3331. Management of intelligence community personnel

#### (a) Multi-sector workforce initiative

#### (1) Requirement

Beginning on October 1, 2018, the Director of National Intelligence shall improve management of the workforce of the intelligence community by enabling elements of the intelligence community to build and maintain an appropriate mix between employees of the United States Government and core contractors.

#### (2) Briefing to Congress

Not later than July 1, 2017, and each 120 days thereafter until July 1, 2018, the Director of National Intelligence shall brief the congressional intelligence committees on the initiative required by paragraph (1).

#### (b) Management based on workload requirements and authorized funding

#### (1) In general

Beginning on October 1, 2018, the personnel levels of the intelligence community shall be managed each fiscal year on the basis of—

(A) the workload required to carry out the functions and activities of the intelligence community; and

(B) the funds made available to the intelligence community in accordance with section 3094 of this title.

#### (2) Prohibition on constraints or limitations

Beginning on October 1, 2018, the management of such personnel in the intelligence community in any fiscal year shall not be subject to an externally imposed constraint or limitation expressed in terms of man years, end strength, full-time equivalent positions, or maximum number of employees.

#### (c) Briefing and report to Congress

Not later than 180 days after May 5, 2017, the Director of National Intelligence shall issue a written report and provide a briefing to the congressional intelligence committees on—

(1) the methodology used to calculate the number of civilian and contractor full-time equivalent positions in the intelligence community;

(2) the cost analysis tool used to calculate personnel costs in the intelligence community; and

(3) the plans of the Director of National Intelligence and the head of each element of the intelligence community to implement a multi-sector workforce as required by subsections (a) and (b).

#### (d) Report

Not later than 240 days after May 5, 2017, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community shall submit to the congressional intelligence committees a written report on the accuracy of intelligence community data for the numbers and costs associated with the civilian and contractor workforce in each element of the intelligence community.

(Pub. L. 115–31, div. N, title III, §306, May 5, 2017, 131 Stat. 812.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Definitions

For definitions of "intelligence community" and "congressional intelligence committees", referred to in text, see section 2 of div. N of Pub. L. 115–31, set out as a note under section 3003 of this title.
CUSIP
                         SOUTHWEST MORTGAGE CORPORATION


              INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

                                                               SEE REVERSE FOR
                                  COMMON STOCK               CERTAIN DEFINITIONS



                                    SPECIMAN


This
certifies
that







is the owner of


FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK, $0.0001 PAR VALUE, OF
                         SOUTHWEST MORTGAGE CORPORATION


(hereinafter  called  the  "Corporation"),  transferable  on  the  books  of the
Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney,  upon
surrender of the Certificate properly endorsed.  This certificate and the shares
represented hereby are issued and shall be held subject to all the provisions of
the Certificate of Incorporation  and the Bylaws of the Corporation,  as amended
(copies of which are on file at the  office of the  Transfer  Agent),  to all of
which  the  holder  of this  Certificate  by  acceptance  hereof  assents.  This
Certificate  is not valid unless  countersigned  and  registered by the Transfer
Agent and  Registrar.  Witness  the  facsmile  seal of the  Corporation  and the
facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.


DATE:


                            [CORPORATE SEAL OMITTED]



                               Countersigned:
PRESIDENT                                    SECURITIES TRANSFER CORPORATION
                                             P.O. Box 701629
                                             Dallas, TX 75370
                                          By:


SECRETARY                                    ___________________________________
                                             TRANSFER AGENT-AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
#### PEOPLE ex rel. O’SULLIVAN v. WELLS et al.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 24, 1905.)

Proceedings by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of Michael O’Sullivan, against James L. Wells and others. E. M. Leventritt, for relator. T. Connoly, for respondents. No opinion. Writ dismissed, and proceedings affirmed, with costs.
#### William R. Springborn, Respondent, v. George Gottler, Defendant, and Donald A. Staerker, Appellant. George Gottler, Respondent, v. Donald A. Staerker, Appellant.

Appeals dismissed unless printed briefs are filed and served on or before June 1, 1960 (2 motions).
#### § 922.785 Requirements for permits for special categories of mining.

Part 785 of this chapter, *Requirements for Permits for Special Categories of Mining,* shall apply to each person who makes application for a permit to conduct certain categories of surface coal mining and reclamation operations as specified therein.
#### § 938.1 Scope.

This part contains all rules applicable only within Pennsylvania that have been adopted under the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977.

[47 FR 33079, July 30, 1982]
4200

4500

4500

4100

4600

4600

4300

4550

4400

4250

4350

4750

4100

4800

4200

4800

4100

4900 4800

4500

4700

4600 4850

4300

4400

4800

9

9

9

9

A 0 0 9 C O U N T Y R D

A 0 0 8 C O U N T Y R D A 0 0 8 C O U N T Y R D

A 0 0 9 C O U N T Y R D

A 0 0 8 C O U N T Y R D

9

9

9

9

A 0 0 9 C O U N T Y R D

A 0 0 8 C O U N T Y R D A 0 0 8 C O U N T Y R D

A 0 0 9 C O U N T Y R D

A 0 0 8 C O U N T Y R D

Gerrys

Tank

Potrillo

East

Potrillo

Mountains

EA

S

T

P

O

T

RILLO

M

O

U

N

TAIN

S

Federal

'H' Number

One Mine

Herrington's

Home Ranch

Lanark

Potrillo Noria

Mount

Riley Kilbourne

Hole

Mount

Riley SE

35

280

20

E 000 FEET

35

17

35

14

310

FEET

3

30"

55'

35

35

19

35

000m

3

3

25

21

15

3

35

3

3

107°

FEET

57'

52'

30"

52'

26

24

18

N

35

000m

35

35

22

3

28

106° 30"

31°

50'

55'

22

16

27

19

35

3 3

35

12

18

14

23

30"

30"

107°00' 57'

47'

31°

45'

35

24

000m

35

20

3

N

3

17

35

35

17 20

30"

31°

52'

15

35

000m

35

3

000

1 16

35

27

3

3

35

11 15 3 3

35

00'

52'

30"

21

25

000 FEET

13

3

3

3

35

440

410 E

26

35

30"

47'

31° 45'

50'

106°

35

3

15

17

20

3

1

23

35

12 19

16

22

13

000

35

21

18

18

16

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

NEW MEXICO

ADJOINING 7.5' QUADRANGLES

QUADRANGLE LOCATION

POTRILLO, NM-CHH

2010

Interstate Route State Route

ROAD CLASSIFICATION

Interstate Route US Route State Route

Ramp 4WD

US Route Local Road

POTRILLO QUADRANGLE

NEW MEXICO-CHIHUAHUA

7.5-MINUTE SERIES

Zone 13R

North American Datum of 1983 (NAD83)

World Geodetic System of 1984 (WGS84). Projection and

1 000-meter grid: Universal Transverse Mercator,

Produced by the United States Geological Survey

10 000-foot ticks: New Mexico Coordinate System of 1983

(central zone)

Imagery................................NAIP, January 2005 - July 2009

Roads..............................................©2006-2010 Tele Atlas

Names...............................................................GNIS, 2008

Hydrography.................National Hydrography Dataset, 2005

Contours............................National Elevation Dataset, 2001

1000 500 0 METERS 1000 2000

1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000

FEET

This map was produced to conform with version 0.5.10 of the

draft USGS Standards for 7.5-Minute Quadrangle Maps.

A metadata file associated with this product is draft version 0.5.11

SCALE 1:24 000

1 0.5 0 1

MILES

MN

1 0.5 0 KILOMETERS 1 2

GN

UTM GRID AND 2010 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET

1° 1 ́

18 MILS

9° 8 ́

162 MILS

U.S. National Grid

100,000-m Square ID

Grid Zone Designation

13R

CR

CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET

NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988
#### Margaret Cosentino, Individually and as Executrix of Dominick Cosentino, Deceased, Respondent, v Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff-Appellant. Tuckahoe Construction Co., Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Respondent.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., defendant third-party plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered January 21, 1977, which is in favor of plaintiff and against it in the principal amount of $128,500, upon a jury verdict, the trial court having directed a verdict in favor of plaintiff and having dismissed the third-party complaint at the conclusion of the jury trial as to the issue of liability. On this court’s own motion, the notice of appeal is deemed amended to show that it is also from the judgment of the same court, entered January 27, 1977, which is in favor of the third-party defendant and against the appellant (see CPLR 5520, subd [c]). Judgments reversed, on the law, and *1029new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Plaintiff was injured on November 2, 1972 when she fell into a hole excavated at the appellant’s instance. At the conclusion of the trial, the court directed a verdict in plaintiff’s favor on the issue of appellant’s negligence and dismissed the third-party complaint. Appellant argues that there was sufficient evidence of plaintiff’s contributory negligence to create an issue of fact for the jury to determine. Without in any manner intimating our view on the merits, we agree that the question of contributory negligence should have been submitted to the jury. The trend in recent New York cases where the injured party sues in tort and has the burden of proving his freedom from contributory negligence is to treat the issue of contributory negligence as one of fact for the jury *(Wartels v County Asphalt,*29 NY2d 372; *Rossman v La Grega,*28 NY2d 300; *Jackson v Livingston Country Club,*55 AD2d 1045). With respect to the third-party action, the third-party defendant appears to have had a contractual obligation to maintain barricades around the hole which it excavated for the appellant until such time as the latter "backfilled” the hole, and to "indemnify and save harmless the [appellant] from and against any and all liability arising from injury to person or property occasioned wholly or in part by any act or omission of the [third-party defendant] arising out of work done under [the] Contract.” The third-party defendant apparently failed to safeguard the hole. It argued that the clause in the contract imposing the obligation was inapplicable and unreasonable. The trial court dismissed the third-party complaint. We believe that the question of the third-party defendant’s contractual obligation should also have been submitted to the jury. Accordingly, we have reversed and ordered a new trial. Titone, J. P., Gulotta, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.
FOURTH DIVISION

DOYLE, C. J.,

MILLER, P. J., and DILLARD, P. J.

NOTICE: Motions for reconsideration must be

physically received in our clerk’s office within ten

days of the date of decision to be deemed timely filed.

http://www.gaappeals.us/rules

December 14, 2016

In the Court of Appeals of Georgia

A14A1770. REGENT v. THE STATE.

MILLER, Presiding Judge.

In Regent v. State, 299 Ga. 172 (787 SE2d 217) (2016), the Supreme Court of

Georgia reversed the judgment of this Court in Division 1 of Regent v. State, 333 Ga.

App. 350 (774 SE2d 213) (2015), in which this Court affirmed the denial of Regent’s

motion to merge his convictions for aggravated battery and aggravated assault.

Consequently, we vacate Division 1 of our opinion in Regent, supra, 333 Ga. App.

at 215, and in its place adopt the judgment of the Supreme Court as our own.

The Supreme Court of Georgia did not address or consider Division 2 of our

earlier opinion, in which we vacated the banishment provision inRegent’ssentencing

order, and remanded this case to the trial court for the purpose of resentencing Regent

on that provision. Because Division 2 is consistent with the Supreme Court’s opinion,
that division becomes binding upon the return of the remittitur. Shadix v. Carroll

County, 274 Ga. 560, 563 (1) (554 SE2d 465) (2001).

Judgment reversed in part, and case remanded. Doyle, C. J., and Dillard, P.

J., concur.

2
#### RICHKE, Respondent, v. AMERICAN ICE CO., Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 10, 1905.)

Action by Joseph Richke, as administrator, against the American Ice Company. B. B. Gattell, for appellant. No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.
Exhibit 31.1
                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Randall K. Read, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Tradequest
International Inc.


2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;


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


4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) for the small business issuer and
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 small business issuer,
     including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others
     within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report
     is being prepared;

     b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
     internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
     business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
     fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
     affected or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
     issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and


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

     a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
     operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
     likely to adversely affect the small business issuer'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 small business issuer's
     internal control over financial reporting.


Date: August 24, 2004


/s/ Randall K. Read
-------------------
Randall K. Read
President and Chief Executive Officer



<PAGE>
DISMISS and Opinion Filed May 17, 2021 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-20-01109-CV 

RAHCHIDATOU ABIBOU, Appellant 

V. 

AH TRAILS PROPERTY INVESTOR, LLC D/B/A THE TRAILS OF 

WHITE ROCK, Appellee 

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-04261-E 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Molberg, and Justice Goldstein 

Opinion by Chief Justice Burns 

Appellant’s brief in this case is overdue. After appellant failed to respond to 

our request about the reporter’s record, we ordered the appeal submitted without a 

reporter’s record and appellant’s brief to be filed by April 15, 2021. By postcard 

dated April 20, 2021, we notified appellant the time for filing his brief had expired. 

We directed appellant to file a brief and an extension motion within ten days. We 

cautioned appellant that failure to file his brief by that time might result in the 

dismissal of this appeal without further notice. To date, appellant has not filed a 
 –2– 

brief, filed an extension motion, nor otherwise corresponded with the Court 

regarding the status of this appeal. 

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a)(1); 42.3(b), 

(c). 

201109F.P05 

 

/Robert D. Burns, III/

ROBERT D. BURNS, III 

CHIEF JUSTICE 
 –3– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

RAHCHIDATOU ABIBOU, 

Appellant 

No. 05-20-01109-CV V. 

AH TRAILS PROPERTY 

INVESTOR, LLC D/B/A THE 

TRAILS OF WHITE ROCK, 

Appellee 

 On Appeal from the County Court at 

Law No. 5, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. CC-20-04261-

E. 

Opinion delivered by Chief Justice 

Burns. Justices Molberg and 

Goldstein participating. 

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

DISMISSED. 

Judgment entered May 17, 2021
Editorial Note on Part 780
Editorial Note: At 82 FR 54949, Nov. 17, 2017, as required by the Congressional Review Act and Public Law 115-5, the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement removed all amendments to part 780 made effective on Jan. 19, 2017, at 81 FR 93330, Dec. 20, 2016.

§ 780.12 Operation plan: Existing structures. ( a ) Each application shall contain a description of each existing structure proposed to be used in connection with or to facilitate the surface coal mining and reclamation operation. The description shall include— ( 1 ) Location;
( 2 ) Plans of the structure which describe its current condition;
( 3 ) Approximate dates on which construction of the existing structure was begun and completed; and
( 4 ) A showing, including relevant monitoring data or other evidence, whether the structure meets the performance standards of subchapter K (Permanent Program Standards) of this chapter or, if the structure does not meet the performance standards of subchapter K of this chapter, a showing whether the structure meets the performance standards of subchapter B (Interim Program Standards) of this chapter.
( b ) Each application shall contain a compliance plan for each existing structure proposed to be modified or reconstructed for use in connection with or to facilitate the surface coal mining and reclamation operation. The compliance plan shall include— ( 1 ) Design specifications for the modification or reconstruction of the structure to meet the design and performance standards of subchapter K of this chapter;
( 2 ) A construction schedule which shows dates for beginning and completing interim steps and final reconstruction;
( 3 ) Provisions for monitoring the structure during and after modification or reconstruction to ensure that the performance standards of subchapter K of this chapter are met; and
( 4 ) A showing that the risk of harm to the environment or to public health or safety is not significant during the period of modification or reconstruction.
[44 FR 15357, Mar. 13, 1979, as amended at 81 FR 93330, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54949, Nov. 17, 2017]
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-10-00557-CV

Phillip Orlando Jones and Walter Lee Hall, Jr., Appellants

v.

Deutsche Bank National Trust Company as trustee for the Registered Holders of RESMAE

Asset-Backed Pass-Through Certificates, Series 2006-1, Appellee

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. C-1-CV-10-005164, HONORABLE ERIC SHEPPERD, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Walter Lee Hall, Jr. filed a bankruptcy petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy

Court of the Western District of Texas on January 24, 2011. We therefore abate this appeal until a

party files a motion to reinstate or a motion to sever. See Tex. R. App. P. 8.1, 8.2, 8.3. Hall is

ordered to inform this Court within ten calendar days of the resolution of the bankruptcy proceeding

or some other event that would allow the appeal to be reinstated. Should Hall fail to provide such

notice, the appeal will be subject to dismissal for want of prosecution on this Court’s or another

party’s motion.

__________________________________________

David Puryear, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Rose

Bankruptcy

Filed: June 3, 2011