alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

James Owen Winchester, * From the 119th District Court

 of Tom Green County,

 Trial Court No. B-12-0120-SB.

Vs. No. 11-14-00083-CR * August 31, 2016

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Willson, J.

 (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

 Willson, J., and Bailey, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that 

there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this 

court’s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
EXHIBIT 12

Boeing Capital Corporation and Subsidiaries  Computation of Ratio of Income to Fixed Charges

|                                                                                     |                                                            | Years Ended December 31,
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------- | ------------------------
|
|
|Income:                                                                              |                                                            |                         
|                                                                                     | Income before provision for income taxes                   |                         
|                                                                                     | Fixed charges                                              |                         
|                                                                                     |                                                            |                         
|                                                                                     | Income before provision for income taxes and fixed charges |                         
|                                                                                     |                                                            |                         
|Fixed charges:                                                                       |                                                            |                         
|                                                                                     | Interest expense                                           |                         
|                                                                                     | Preferred stock dividend requirement(1)                    |                         
|                                                                                     |                                                            |                         
|                                                                                     |                                                            | $                       
|                                                                                     |                                                            |                         
|Ratio of income before provision for income taxes and fixed charges to fixed charges |                                                            |                         
|                                                                                     |                                                            |                         

---

82

---

QuickLinks
400 MARYLAND AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, DC 20202

www.ed.gov

The Department of Education's mission is to promote student achievement and preparation for global 

competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Postsecondary Education

2024 Program Integrity and Institutional Quality Committee

Session 3, March 4-7, 2024

Agenda

Day 1 Monday, March 4, 2024

• Announcements/Updates (Facilitator)

• R2T4 (Issue Paper 4)

• Lunch Break

• TRIO Subcommittee Report/Committee Discussion

• Distance Education (Issue Paper 3)

• Public Comment

Day 2 Tuesday, March 5, 2024

• Facilitator Remarks

• State Authorization (Issue Paper 2)

• Lunch Break

• State Authorization (Issue Paper 2)

• Cash Management (Issue Paper 1)

• Public Comment

Day 3 Wednesday, March 6, 2024

• Facilitator Remarks

• Cash Management (Issue Paper 1)

• Lunch Break

• Accreditation Issues (Issue Paper 5)

• Public Comment

Day 4 Thursday, March 7, 2024

• Facilitator Remarks

• Accreditation Issues (Issue Paper 5)

• Lunch Break 

• Accreditation Issues (Issue Paper 5)

• Facilitator Closing Remarks
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. CON. RES. 46 

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make a correction 

in the enrollment of H.R. 5895. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2018 

Mr. SHELBY submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

considered and agreed to 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Directing the Clerk of the House of Representatives to make 

a correction in the enrollment of H.R. 5895. 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That, in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 5895, 

3 the Clerk of the House of Representatives shall make the 

4 following correction to the title so as to read: ‘‘Making 

5 consolidated appropriations for Energy and Water Devel6 opment, the Legislative Branch, Military Construction, 

7 Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies for the fiscal year 

8 ending September 30, 2019, and for other purposes.’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSK79D2C42PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                         311,786
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  173,469
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,374
<INVENTORY>                                    222,518
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               702,313
<PP&E>                                       1,055,689
<DEPRECIATION>                                 832,045
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 925,957
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          141,674
<BONDS>                                        121,606
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,361,440
<COMMON>                                       969,834
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,668,597)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   925,957
<SALES>                                      1,558,240
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,559,420
<CGS>                                        1,136,001
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  229,745
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 6,705
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,880
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                182,089
<INCOME-TAX>                                    60,245
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   121,844
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
#### James W. Osgood et al., Respondents, v Saturnino Martes et al., Appellants.

[831 NYS2d 724]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schack, J.), dated April 25, 2005, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff James W. Osgood did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint is granted.

The defendants satisfied their prima facie burden of demonstrating that the plaintiff James W. Osgood (hereinafter the plaintiff) did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d) as a result of the subject accident *(see Toure v Avis Rent A Car Sys.,*98 NY2d 345 [2002]; *Gaddy v Eyler,*79 NY2d 955, 956-957 [1992]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact warranting the denial of summary judgment. The affirmed medical reports of the plaintiffs treating physician failed to compare the range of motion of the plaintiffs lumbar spine to what is considered the normal range of motion *(see Caracci v Miller,*34 AD3d 515 [2006]; *Nagbe v Minigreen Hacking Group,*22 AD3d 326, 327 [2005]; *Bent v Jackson,*15 AD3d 46, 49 [2005]). Moreover, the plaintiff failed to offer an adequate explanation for the almost three-year gap in his treatment *(see Pommells v Perez,*4 NY3d 566, 574 [2005]; *Hasner v Budnik,*35 AD3d 366, 368 [2006]; *Connors v Flaherty,*32 AD3d 891, 893 [2006]; *Caracci v Miller, supra; Batista v Olivo,*17 AD3d 494 [2005]). The MRI reports submitted by the plaintiffs were unaffirmed, and thus were without probative value in opposing the motion for summary judgment *(see Grasso v Angerami,*79 NY2d 813, 814-815 [1991]; *Hernandez v Taub,*19 AD3d 368 [2005]; *Pagano v Kingsbury,*182 AD2d 268, 270 [1992]).

*517Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted. Crane, J.E, Santucci, Florio, Dillon and Balkin, JJ., concur.
#### Philipp Brothers, Division of Minerals & Chemicals Philipp Corp., Appellant, v. Glaser Lead Co., Inc., Respondent.

—Order, entered on May 6, 1963, unanimously affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to the respondent. No opinion. Order entered March 18, 1964, vacating and annulling a warrant of attachment and denying the cross motion to vacate the order to show cause by which the motion to vacate and annul the warrant of attachment was brought and which confirmed the report of a Special Referee, unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, with $30 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the warrant of attachment rein*652stated. The warrant of attachment was properly granted on sufficient supporting evidence. The main issue to be determined is whether or not plaintiff is estopped from pursuing its remedies under the warrant of attachment by reason of the conduct of plaintiff’s attorney while attending a meeting of defendant’s creditors. On July 26, 1962, plaintiff obtained a warrant of attachment. Defendant was served with a summons and complaint on July 30, 1962. Subsequently, defendant, finding itself in financial distress, retained counsel who called an informal meeting of creditors for September 17, 1963, to discuss the matter. On the day of the meeting plaintiff, without the knowledge of the other creditors, or the defendant, entered default judgment against defendant. At the meeting the creditors were advised by defendant’s attorney that he would not permit any one creditor to gain a preference over any other creditor and that if the creditors would co-operate a settlement would be worked out for the benefit of all. There was also testimony by an attorney for one of the other creditors that he was told by plaintiff’s attorney at the meeting that he would do absolutely nothing so far as the warrant of attachment was concerned without first consulting and advising him. A petition in bankruptcy was filed against defendant on January 4,-1963, and defendant was adjudicated a bankrupt on February 21, 1963. While plaintiff’s attorney admits. attending the meeting, he denies that he actively participated and maintains he attended as an observer. The record does not admit of any agreement by plaintiff’s attorney to forebear foreclosing on its warrant of attachment. The conduct of plaintiff’s attorney was not such as would bind the plaintiff and estop it from executing under its attachment. Motion for a stay dismissed, as academic, inasmuch as the determination on the appeal released herewith, reinstates the warrant of attachment. Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Babin, Eager and Staley, JJ.
#### Richardson *v.*Georgia and Florida Railway.

December 11, 1912.

Action for damages. Before' Judge Thomas. Berrien superior court. September 21, 1911.

*Hendrichs*cG *Christian,*for plaintiff.

*W. H. Barrett, J. W. Quincey,*and *J. P. Knight,*for defendant.

Eish, C. J.

The court did not err in sustaining a general demurrer to the petition.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*All the Justices concur.*
IIA 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. J. RES. 28 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency relating to accidental release prevention requirements of risk management programs under the Clean Air Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 2, 2017 

Mr. INHOFE (for himself, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. 

MORAN, and Mrs. FISCHER) introduced the following joint resolution; 

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

Public Works 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency relating to accidental release prevention requirements 

of risk management programs under the Clean Air Act. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Ad4 ministrator of the Environmental Protection Agency relat5 ing to accidental release prevention requirements of risk 

6 management programs under the Clean Air Act (42 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 28 IS 

1 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) (84 Fed. Reg. 4594; January 13, 

2 2017), and such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
NUMBER 13-22-00577-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

 

IN RE ROBERT ALLEN SATTERFIELD

 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Silva

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice Contreras1

On December 1, 2022, Robert Allen Satterfield filed a petition for writ of mandamus 

seeking to compel the trial court to allow certain discovery, including testing and analysis 

of DNA samples and ballistics evidence.

In a criminal case, to be entitled to mandamus relief, the relator must establish 

both that the act sought to be compelled is a ministerial act not involving a discretionary 

or judicial decision and that there is no adequate remedy at law to redress the alleged 

1 See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not 

required to do so. When granting relief, the court must hand down an opinion as in any other case.”); id. R. 

47.4 (distinguishing opinions and memorandum opinions).
2

harm. See In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d 383, 388 (Tex. Crim. App. 2020) (orig. proceeding); 

In re Harris, 491 S.W.3d 332, 334 (Tex. Crim. App. 2016) (orig. proceeding) (per curiam); 

In re McCann, 422 S.W.3d 701, 704 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (orig. proceeding). If the 

relator fails to meet both requirements, then the petition for writ of mandamus should be 

denied. State ex rel. Young v. Sixth Jud. Dist. Ct. of Apps. at Texarkana, 236 S.W.3d 207, 

210 (Tex. Crim. App. 2007) (orig. proceeding). It is the relator’s burden to properly request 

and show entitlement to mandamus relief. See State ex rel. Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210; 

In re Pena, 619 S.W.3d 837, 839 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2021, orig. 

proceeding).

The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of mandamus, 

the response filed by the State of Texas, and relator’s reply, is of the opinion that relator 

has not met his burden to obtain relief. See In re Meza, 611 S.W.3d at 388; State ex rel. 

Young, 236 S.W.3d at 210. Accordingly, we lift the stay previously imposed in this case. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary 

relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”). We deny the petition for writ of 

mandamus. Given our disposition of this original proceeding, we dismiss as moot the 

State’s “Motion to Access Sealed Record or Alternative Motion to Strike Record” and 

“Motion to Suspend the Rules of Appellate Procedure to Expedite this Proceeding.” 

DORI CONTRERAS

Chief Justice

Do not publish.

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Delivered and filed on the

29th day of December, 2022.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.1
                                                                     -----------


                             INCORPORATED UNDER THE
                         LAWS OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND
NUMBER                                                                    SHARES
                     [TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC. LOGO]

                        TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.
                            SHARES OF CLASS A COMMON
                                     STOCK


THIS CERTIFIES THAT

IS THE REGISTERED HOLDER OF

        FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK OF THE
CORPORATION (PAR VALUE $.01)

transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in
person or by duly authorized Attorney upon surrender of this Certificate
properly endorsed.

                       [TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC.
                                    MARYLAND
                                   2000 SEAL]

        IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to
be signed by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be hereunto
affixed this        day of         A.D. 2000.




----------------------------               -------------------------------------
Thomas M. Brandt, Jr.,                      Maurice B. Tose,
 Assistant Secretary                        Chairman of the Board, President and
                                            Chief Executive Officer


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

        For Value received,                            hereby sell, assign and
transfer unto



                                      -1-
<PAGE>   2
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHER
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS, INCLUDING ZIP CODE, OF ASSIGNEE



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Shares
represented by the within Certificate, and do hereby irrevocably constitute and
appoint                                Attorney to transfer the said stock in
the books of the within named Corporation with full power of substitution in
the premises.


Dated,                                  x
      ------------------------           ---------------------------------------
                                         NOTICE: THE SIGNATURE TO THIS
                                         ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE
                                         NAME AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE
                                         CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR,
                                         WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR
                                         ANY CHANGE WHATEVER.

                                      -2-
#### 1314.201 Preparation of invitation for bids.
I, James Steffey, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this 10-K of Tasa Products Limited;

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 the 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 registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this 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-15(e) and 15d- 15(e)) and internal control over financial
reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f)) for the registrant 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 registrant, 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. Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,
to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;

c. 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

d. 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
registrants 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 the 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 control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summerize 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: 8-17-05



/s/James Steffey
Co-General Partner