alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Margaret Taylor, Plaintiff, *v.*William H. Wallace, Defendant.

(Supreme Court, Kings Trial Term,

May, 1900.)

Slander — Pleading — Words not necessarily imputing unchastity.

A complaint in slander alleging that the defendant said of the plaintiff, a woman, that she had “ coaxed his bartender to stay with her all night ” is not, without an allegation showing that the meaning was to attribute unchastity to the plaintiff, sufficient, as the words in. question do not necessarily impute unchastity.

Motion for a new trial-. Action for slander, the alleged words being as follows: “ *‘*Who is that woman that was here with your wife? ’ Mr. Worth made answer, ‘ She keeps a little boarding house-down in South Brooklyn.’ Defendant replied, ‘ I think she keeps something else besides a boarding house. She (meaning plaintiff)came down here and coaxed my bartender to stay with her all night.’ ” Mo meaning of the words was alleged in the complaint» The complaint was dismissed for not stating a cause of action.

George J. O’Keefe for plaintiff.

Michael Burst for defendant.

Gaynob, J.:

It was claimed at the trial that the words imputeuncliastity to the plaintiff. They do not necessarily do so. A woman may ask a man to stay at her house over night for more reasons than one. It is a familiar rule of pleading in actions for damages for libel or slander that where the words are not necessarily slanderous, i. e. are capable of a meaning not slanderous, the slanderous meaning which is claimed must be alleged in the complaint in order to state a cause of action. Otherwise the defendant is not put on his defense as to such meaning, and enabled to plead facts in justification or mitigation. It is not for him to attribute a slanderous meaning to his words in order to plead thereto (Hemmens v. Nelson, 138 N. Y. 517; Smid v. Bernard, 31 Misc. Rep. 35).

Motion for a new trial denied.
2 / 2 5 / 2 0 1 5 U n d e r g r o u n d I n j e c t i o n C o n t r o l Q u e r y

h t t p : / / w e b a p p s 2

. r r c
. s t a t e
. t

x
. u s / E W A

/ u i c Q u e r y A

c t i o n
. d o 1 / 2 

## O i l & G a s D a t a Q u e r y Q u e r y M e n u H e l p 

## I n j e c t i o n & D i s p o s a l Q u e r

y C r i t e r i a
E n t e r y o u r s e a r c h c r i t e r i a a n d c l i c k o n S u b m i t t o v i e w t h e r e s u l t s . S e a r c h C r i t e r i a C h o o s e O n e : O i l W e l l s G a s W e l l s B o t h

D i s t r i c t : N o n e S e l e c t e d O i l L e a s e N o . / G a s W e l l I D N o : S e a r c h f o r L e a s e C o u n t y : N o n e S e l e c t e d

F i e l d ( s ) : S e a r c h f o r F i e l d

O p e r a t o r ( s ) : S e a r c h f o r O p e r a t o r

U I C N o . : O r i g i n a l A u t h o r i t y D a t e : ( M M / D D / Y Y Y Y ) t o ( M M / D D / Y Y Y Y ) A P I U n i q u e N o . : 4 2
­ ­ T o p I n j e c t i o n Z o n e D e p t h : B e t w e e n a n d B o t t o m I n j e c t i o n Z o n e D e p t h : B e t w e e n a n d

* * * H
­ 1 N o . :

* * * W
­ 1 4 N o . :2 / 2 5 / 2 0 1 5 U n d e r g r o u n d I n j e c t i o n C o n t r o l Q u e r y

h t t p : / / w e b a p p s 2

. r r c
. s t a t e
. t

x
. u s / E W A

/ u i c Q u e r y A

c t i o n
. d o 2 / 2 R e t u r n H
­ 1 0 S t a t u s : N o n e S e l e c t e d P e r m i t t e d F l u i d : N o n e S e l e c t e d I n j e c t i o n T

y p e : N o n e S e l e c t e d S p e c i a l C o n d i t i o n s : N o n e S e l e c t e d

* * * I f a n H
­ 1 N o . i s e n t e r e d , a W
­ 1 4 c a n n o t b e e n t e r e d a t t h e s a m e t i m e . T h e s a m e i s t r u e w h e n e n t e r i n g a W
­ 1 4 N o . S u b m i t R e s e t

D i s c l a i m e r | R R C H o m e | C o n t a c t
## NO. 12

- 16

- 00158

- CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

WILLIE D. BEASLEY, APPELLANT

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 173R D

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

HENDERSON COUNTY, TE XAS

MEMORANDUM O PINION PER CURIAM Appellant attempts to appeal from an order denying his motion for appointment of counsel to assist him with his habeas corpus proceedings. As a general rule, an appeal in a criminal case may be taken only from a judgment of conviction. See Workman v. State , 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (Tex. Crim. App. 1961). However, there are certain narrow exceptions. Wright v. State , 969 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1998, no pet.) (listing exceptions). The order Appellant complains of is not a judgme nt of conviction nor does it fall within any exception to the general rule. Therefore, this Court does not have jurisdiction over the appeal.
On May 31, 2016 , this C ourt notified Appellant that the information received in this appeal does not include a fi nal judgment or other appealable order and therefore does not show the jurisdiction of this C ourt. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 37.2. Appellant was further notified that the appeal would be dismissed unless the information was amended
, on or before June 10, 2016
, to show the jurisdiction of this C ourt. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 44.3. This deadline has now passed, and Appellant has neither shown the jurisdiction of this C ourt n or otherwise responded to its May 31,
2016 notice. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 42.3(a). Opinion delivered June 15, 2016. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J., and Neeley, J. ( DO NOT PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

JUNE 1 5 , 2016

NO . 12

- 16

- 00158

- CR

WILLIE D. BEASLEY, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

Appeal from the 173rd District Court of Henderson County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. A

- 9192) THIS CAUSE came to be heard on the appellate record; and the same being considered, it is t he opinion of this court that this court is without jurisdiction of the appeal, and that the appeal should be dismissed.

It is therefore ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by this court that this appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed for want of jurisdic tion ; and that this decision
be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Hoyle, J. and Neeley, J.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

April 17, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00430

- CR

Orlando ORTIZ

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas, Appellee

From the 218th Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17

- 06

- 00056

- CRL

Honorable Donna S. Rayes, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Chief Justice Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

Appellant ’s brief was originally due on January 16, 2019. On January 17, 2019, we granted appellant’s first motion for extension of time to February 15, 2019. On February 25, 2019, we granted appellant’s second motion for extension of time to March 15, 2019. We

exp lained in our order that no further extensions would be granted absent extenuating circumstances. On March 20, 2019, after appellant filed a third motion for extension of time arguing extenuating circumstances existed, we granted a third extension to April 12, 2019. In our order, we again explained that no further extensions would be granted absent extenuating circumstances. Appellant has now filed a fourth motion for extension of time. Appellant’s

motion is DENIED.

We ORDER appellant’s attorney to file a ppellant’s brief on or before April 29, 2019. If appellant’s brief is not filed by that date, we will abate this appeal to the trial court for an abandonment hearing. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 38.8(b)(2).

_________________________________ Liza A. Rodriguez , Just iceIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 17th day of April, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, C lerk of Court
## Adams, Kevin (OST) -.l ;··:.

### )'")ih.}{ 

## !Ni ...l\ 1 

### l.**,~**

### '··J'·.\SPOf~T/I.JIO!\i 

# . Adams, Kevin (OST) 

### ·······."'""--··r-,,,,R·'T'' ..,,, .., d d From: 

### Sent: ··.. ,j 

## .i:_l**.Jn~** 

### .•

### --1/\, ll):'.::J We nes ay, May 

### 16, 2012 11:19 AM To: 

### Cc: Subject: Attachments: Request for Comment

Dear MayorWaligora: Alpena, Mayor, Matt Waligora; Alpena, Airport Manager, Billi McRoberts, ; 

## 1 1: 5[}enjmoolenaar@senate.michigan.gov'; PeterPettalia@house.mi.gov Carrier, Air Choice One, Shane Storz; 'Bilek@FiyADI.com'; Carrier, SkyWest, Michael Thompson; Devany, Dennis (OST) Request for Comment Proposal of ADI.pdf; Proposal of Air Choice One.pdf; Proposal of SkyWest.pdf

Attached above are copies ofthe proposals by Aerodynamics, Inc., Multi-Aero, Inc., d/b/a Air Choice One, and SkyWest Airlines, Inc., to provide EAS at Alpena,Michigan, as submitted to us and as we will file in Alpena's Docket (DOT-OST

### 2009-0300). We ask that you carefully review these three proposals and submit commentsto us no laterthan May 31. The best way to submit your comments are by email, preferably as a signed PDF. The comments ofthe community, especially elected officials, are a critically important element in ourtarrier-selection decision. We will docket this email, as well as any replies. As always, ifyou have questions, please either call or email me. Best Regards,
Kevin Adams Industry Economist 

### 202-366-1047

1
1 min read

# JUST UPDATED! NASA’s Technology Innovation

### Loura Hall

Oct 18, 2016

Article

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

The newest edition of NASA’s *Technology Innovation*, Issue 19.2 on Distant Moons is now available for download.

Each issue of our digital publication*Technology Innovation* features space technology innovators and project developments across NASA, highlighting the American inventors, entrepreneurs, and application engineers who have transformed space exploration technologies into products that benefit the nation.

The newest edition of the digital publication is now available in the **iTunes store** as an iPhone or iPad app as well as in the **Google Play store**as an Android app. A desktop viewer is also available.

**IOS APP:**

**GOOGLE PLAY STORE:**

**WEBVIEWER:**

**Click****HERE****to sign up to receive updates to the digital publication.**
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             DEC-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                       1,642,437
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  905,406
<ALLOWANCES>                                    36,239
<INVENTORY>                                  1,556,375
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             4,259,317
<PP&E>                                       1,175,703
<DEPRECIATION>                                 880,716
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,834,058
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,664,509
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,153,489
<OTHER-SE>                                   (485,273)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,834,058
<SALES>                                      1,809,898
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,841,279
<CGS>                                          858,302
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,410,862
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,057
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (443,942)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (443,942)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (443,942)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 2 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 6 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 7 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to trademarks regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 1 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 3 pertaining to both patents and trademarks is placed in the grouping pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 4 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter I

#### Editorial Note:

Part 5 is placed in the separate grouping of parts pertaining to patents regulations.

#### § 41.41 Reply brief.

(a) *Timing.* Appellant may file only a single reply brief to an examiner's answer within the later of two months from the date of either the examiner's answer, or a decision refusing to grant a petition under § 1.181 of this title to designate a new ground of rejection in an examiner's answer.

(b) *Content.*

(1) A reply brief shall not include any new or non-admitted amendment, or any new or non-admitted affidavit or other Evidence. See § 1.116 of this title for amendments, affidavits or other evidence filed after final action but before or on the same date of filing an appeal and § 41.33 for amendments, affidavits or other Evidence filed after the date of filing the appeal.

(2) Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the examiner's answer, including any designated new ground of rejection, will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.

(c) *Extensions of time.* Extensions of time under § 1.136(a) of this title for patent applications are not applicable to the time period set forth in this section. See § 1.136(b) of this title for extensions of time to reply for patent applications and § 1.550(c) of this title for extensions of time to reply for *ex parte* reexamination proceedings.

[69 FR 50003, Aug. 12, 2004, as amended at 76 FR 72298, Nov. 22, 2011]
#### § 17.115 Claims in cases of incompetent patients.

Where the patient is insane and incompetent, the patient will not be required to make claim for reimbursement for personal effects lost by fire, earthquake, or other natural disaster as required under the provisions of § 17.113. The responsible official will make claim for the patient, adding the certification in all details as provided for in § 17.113. After countersignature of this certification by the Director, payment will be made as provided in § 17.113, and the amount thereby disbursed will be turned over to the Director for custody.

[39 FR 1843, Jan. 15, 1974, as amended at 49 FR 5616, Feb. 14, 1984. Redesignated and amended at 61 FR 21966, 21967, May 13, 1996, and further redesignated at 67 FR 35039, May 17, 2002]
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,322,039
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  961,601
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (34,939)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,510,889
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,968,744
<PP&E>                                       1,197,354
<DEPRECIATION>                               (923,752)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,518,852
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,224,050
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,153,489
<OTHER-SE>                                 (1,326,687)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,518,852
<SALES>                                      1,579,749
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,596,479
<CGS>                                          775,418
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  775,418
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,287,863
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,740
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (495,542)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     8,632
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (504,174)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (504,174)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
###### Editorial Note on Part 36

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 36 appear at 61 FR 7217, Feb. 27, 1996, and 86 FR 51275, Sept. 15, 2021.

#### § 36.4201 Applicability of the § 36.4200 series.

The § 36.4200 series shall be applicable to each loan entitled to guaranty under 38 U.S.C. 3712 on or after the date of publication thereof in the Federal Register.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED April 23, 2003 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-41320 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, versus JOSE LUIS MORALES-SALAZAR, also known as Antonio Garcia-Diaz, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:02-CR-49-1

-------------------- Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *The Federal Public Defender representing Jose Luis MoralesSalazar (Morales) has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Morales was sent a copy of counsel’s motion and brief, but has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED,No. 02-41320 -2- counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-22-00774-CV

In re David N. Cotton

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING FROM BELL COUNTY

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

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.8(a).

__________________________________________

Darlene Byrne, Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Byrne, Justices Triana and Smith

Filed: December 29, 2022
###### Editorial Note on Part 3

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 3 appear at 61 FR 7216, Feb. 27, 1996; 62 FR 35970, July 3, 1997; 62 FR 47532, Sept. 9, 1997; and 67 FR 46868, July 17, 2002.

#### § 3.112 Fractions of one cent.

In all cases where the amount to be paid under any award involves a fraction of a cent, the fractional part will be excluded.

[26 FR 1570, Feb. 24, 1961]
```

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 181 (Monday, September 21, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 48067]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-22651]

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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meetings

Time and Date:  Thursday, September 17, 2009, 1 p.m.

Place:  Room 714, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20814.

Status:  Closed to the Public.

Matter to be Considered: 

Internal Procedures

    The Commission will discuss matters relating to internal procedures 
for Commission decisionmaking.
    For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, 
call (301) 504-7948.

Contact Person for More Information:  Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway. Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: September 15, 2009.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-22651 Filed 9-18-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE M
```
HomeRemarks and Releases – Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration...Congressional Presentation Document for Fiscal Year 2019

# 									Congressional Presentation Document for Fiscal Year 2019							

Report

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration

August 29, 2018

**Report****Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration****Washington, DC****August 29, 2018**

----

For reports from previous fiscal years, please visit the state.gov archive.
Download FY19 Report						 [1 MB]

Tags

Bureau of Population, Refugees, and MigrationRefugee AdmissionsRefugees

Back to Top
#### PICKLE, ET AL. V. SIMS.

(Decided April 18, 1912.)

Appeal from Birmingham City Court.

Heard before Hon. H. A. Sharpe.

No counsel marked for either party.

Per curiam.

Affirmed on certificate.
§ 21.6059 Limitations on the number of evaluations. ( a ) *Number of evaluations.* No more than 3,500 evaluations of the reasonable feasibility of achieving a vocational goal may be given during any 12-month period, beginning on February 1, 1985, and each subsequent February 1 during the program period. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(a)(3); Pub. L. 100-227)
( b ) *Cases counted as evaluation.* An evaluation is deemed to be countable against the 3,500 limit permitted during each 12-month period when the following conditions are met: ( 1 ) The veteran is provided one or more personal interviews by a Counseling Psychologist (CP) or Vocational Rehabilitation Counselor (VRC); and
( 2 ) A determination of the reasonable feasibility of achieving a vocational goal is made by the CP or VRC. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(a)(3); Pub. L. 100-227)
( c ) *Cases not counted as evaluations.* Computation of the number of evaluations which may be provided in a 12-month period shall exclude cases in which: ( 1 ) The veteran under age 45 awarded pension during the program period is unable to participate for reasons beyond his or her control;
( 2 ) Review of available information does not indicate a good potential for employment of other qualified veterans.
( 3 ) The veteran either fails to keep a scheduled appointment to complete the evaluation or withdraws the claim for an evaluation, or
( 4 ) The veteran who has completed an evaluation requires or requests a reevaluation. (Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(a)(3); Pub. L. 100-227, Pub. L. 101-237)
( d ) *Priority.* If a veteran below age 45 for whom an evaluation is required cannot be provided an evaluation during a particular 12-month period because of the limitation on the number of evaluations, the veteran will be given first priority for evaluation during the following 12-month period, or first available subsequent 12-month period, if otherwise eligible.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1524(a)(3), Pub. L. 101-237)
[53 FR 4397, Feb. 16, 1988, as amended at 55 FR 17272, Apr. 24, 1990; 56 FR 21448, May 9, 1991; 81 FR 26132, May 2, 2016]