alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Opinion issued June 7 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals

For The 

## First District of Texas

———————————— NO. 01

- 1 6

- 00 182

- C R

——————————— IN RE JAWAID PARKER , Relator

Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Relator, Jawaid Parker , ha s filed a petition for writ of mandamus, seeking an
order compelling the trial court to (1) rule on properly and timely filed motions
including one for a Barker 1 hearing; (2) require the State to provide discovery and a

1 See Barker v. Wingo , 407 U.S. 514, 92 S. Ct. 2182 (1972).2

private investigator; and (3) vacate the trial court’s order granting the State’s motion

for continuance

. 2

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 52.8(a).

PER CURIAM
Panel consists of Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings and Lloyd

.

2 The underlying proceeding is Parker v. State
, cause number 1435056 , in the 182nd Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, the Hon orable Jeannine Barr presiding.
###### Editorial Note on Part 397

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 397 appear at 66 FR 49874, Oct. 1, 2001.

#### § 397.2 Compliance with Federal motor carrier safety regulations.

A motor carrier or other person to whom this part is applicable must comply with the rules in parts 390 through 397, inclusive, of this subchapter when he/she is transporting hazardous materials by a motor vehicle which must be marked or placarded in accordance with § 177.823 of this title.

[37 FR 18080, Sept. 7, 1972]
# Feb. 28: Military Airstrikes Continue Against ISIL in Syria and Iraq

/ Published Feb. 28, 2015

	February 28, 2015

	Release # 20150228FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**SOUTHWEST ASIA** — On Feb. 27, U.S. and Coalition military forces continued toattack ISIL terrorists in Syria, using attack, fighter, bomber and remotelypiloted aircraft to conduct 9 airstrikes. Separately, U.S. and Coalitionmilitary forces conducted 11 airstrikes in Iraq, using attack, fighter andremotely piloted aircraft against ISIL terrorists. All strikes took placebetween 8 a.m., Feb. 27, and 8 a.m., Feb. 28, local time.

	The following is a summary of the strikes conducted since the last pressrelease:

	Syria
      - Near Kobani, four airstrikes destroyed two ISIL tactical units and fourISIL fighting positions.	
      - Near Al Hasakah, three airstrikes struck three ISIL tactical units anddestroyed three ISIL vehicles.	
      - Near Tal Hamis, one airstrike struck an ISIL tactical unit and destroyedan ISIL vehicle.	
      - Near Aleppo, one airstrike struck two ISIL tactical units and destroyed anISIL HQ building.	

	Iraq
      - Near Al Asad, four airstrikes struck a large ISIL tactical unit, an ISILtactical unit, destroyed four ISIL fighting positions and an ISIL vehicle.	
      - Near Sinjar, two airstrikes struck an ISIL tactical unit, destroyed oneISIL building, damaged another, and destroyed an ISIL vehicle and damagedanother.	
      - Near Mosul, three airstrikes destroyed an ISIL mortar and an ISIL fightingposition.	
      - Near Fallujah, one airstrike destroyed an ISIL humvee and an ISIL frontend loader.	
      - Near Al Huwayjah, one airstrike destroyed an ISIL tactical unit.

	Airstrike assessments are based on initial reports. All aircraft returned tobase safely.

	The strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, theoperation to eliminate the ISIL terrorist group and the threat they pose toIraq, Syria, the region, and the wider international community. Thedestruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terroristgroup's ability to project terror and conduct operations. Coalition nationswhich have conducted airstrikes in Iraq include Australia, Belgium, Canada,Denmark, France, Jordan, Netherlands, United Kingdom and the U.S. Coalitionnations which have conducted airstrikes in Syria include the U.S., Bahrain,Jordan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and the U.S.
§ 92.35 Interest, penalties and administrative costs. ( a ) Where a DOT creditor operating element (see § 92.5(g)) is the creditor, it shall charge interest on an outstanding debt at the rate published by the Secretary of the Treasury in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3717. The rate of interest assessed shall be the rate of the current value of funds to the United States Treasury (i.e., the Treasury tax and loan account rate), as prescribed and published by the Secretary of the Treasury in the Federal Register and the Treasury Financial Manual Bulletins annually or quarterly, in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3717. The DOT creditor operating element shall charge a penalty of six percent a year, in addition to interest, on any portion of a debt that is more than 90 days past due. It shall assess administrative charges to cover additional costs incurred in processing and handling the debt beyond the payment due date. The imposition of interest, penalties and administrative charges is made in accordance with 31 U.S.C. 3717 and 4 CFR 102.13.
( b ) Interest on debt shall begin to accrue on the date on which the debtor is first sent or delivered notice of the debt and of the interest requirements or, in the case of advance billings, on the calendar date following the specified due date of the debt provided the advance billing gives notice of the interest requirements for late payment. Interest on the debt shall continue to accrue until payment is received. Interest shall be calculated only on the principal of the debt (simple interest). The rate of interest charged shall be the rate in effect on the date from which interest begins to accrue, and shall remain fixed for the duration of the indebtedness.
( c ) A DOT creditor operating element shall waive the monthly interest on debt that is paid within 30 calendar days after the date on which interest began to accrue.
( d ) A DOT creditor operating element may waive interest, penalties and/or administrative charges if it finds that: ( 1 ) The debtor is unable to pay any significant sum toward the claim within a reasonable period of time;
( 2 ) Collection of interest, penalties or administrative charges will jeopardize collection of the principal of the debt; or
( 3 ) It is otherwise in the best interest of the United States, including the situation where an offset or installment payment agreement is in effect.
-----Original Message----- 

From: Michael Gawdun [mailto:mgawdun@att.net] 

Sent: Friday, February 12, 2010 4:36 PM 

To: EBSA, E-ORI - EBSA 

Subject: RIN 1210-AB33 

I am opposed to any effort to confiscate my retirement savings in a 

401K and IRA in the guise of "protecting us" from outliving our savings 

or having them erode because of inflation. 

This is an unnecessary intervention on the behalf of the government. 

It would be better if the good folks in our government would sponsor 

classes to train the population on how to read stock charts and 

understand how government intervention in our economy destroys our 

wealth, and then offer mitigation strategies that we can act on. 

regards,
#### John Benkendorff, Respondent, v. The New York, Lake Erie and Western Railway Company, Appellant.

Judgment reversed, without costs.
Editorial Note on Part 571
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 571 appear at 69 FR 18803, Apr. 9, 2004.

§ 571.113 Standard No. 113; Hood latch system. S1 . *Purpose and scope.* This standard establishes the requirement for providing a hood latch system or hood latch systems.
S2 . *Application.* This standard applies to passenger cars, multipurpose passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses.
S3 . *Definitions. Hood* means any exterior movable body panel forward of the windshield that is used to cover an engine, luggage, storage, or battery compartment.
S4 . *Requirements.* S4 . 1 Each hood must be provided with a hood latch system.
S4 . 2 A front opening hood which, in any open position, partially or completely obstructs a driver's forward view through the windshield must be provided with a second latch position on the hood latch system or with a second hood latch system.
# July 24: Military airstrikes continue against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq

/ Published July 24, 2017
July 24, 2017Release # 20170724-01FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE**SOUTHWEST ASIA -** On July 23, Coalition military forces conducted 16 strikes consisting of 27 engagements against ISIS terrorists in Syria and Iraq.In Syria, Coalition military forces conducted 13 strikes consisting of 17 engagements against ISIS targets.* Near Abu Kamal, three strikes destroyed eight ISIS oil refinement stills and two oil tankers.* Near Dayr Az Zawr, three strikes engaged an ISIS tactical unit and destroyed a vehicle, an oil tanker, and an oil storage tank.* Near Raqqah, seven strikes engaged five ISIS tactical units; destroyed two fighting positions, a mortar tube, and a mortar facility; and damaged five fighting positions and a supply route.In Iraq, Coalition military forces conducted three strikes consisting of 10 engagements against ISIS targets.* Near Bayji, one strike engaged an ISIS tactical unit and destroyed two vehicles and a staging area.* Near Qayyarah, one strike suppressed an ISIS tactical unit.* Near Tal Afar, one strike engaged an ISIS tactical unit and destroyed two ISIS-held buildings, two vehicles, a mortar system, and a fighting position.Additionally, 14 strikes were conducted in Syria and Iraq on July 22 that closed within the last 24 hours.* On July 22, near Kisik, Iraq, one strike suppressed an ISIS tactical unit.* On July 22, near Dayr Az Zawr, Syria, one strike engaged an ISIS tactical unit and destroyed a vehicle.* On July 22, near Raqqah, Syria, 12 strikes engaged 10 ISIS tactical units and destroyed three fighting positions, a storage facility, and a tunnel.These strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria.  The destruction of ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria also further limits the group's ability to project terror and conduct external operations throughout the region and the rest of the world.This Coalition strike release contains all strikes conducted by fighter, attack, bomber, rotary-wing, or remotely piloted aircraft, rocket propelled artillery and ground-based tactical artillery.A strike, as defined in the Coalition release, refers to one or more kinetic engagements that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single, sometimes cumulative effect in that location.  For example, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIS vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against a group of ISIS-held buildings and weapon systems in a compound, having the cumulative effect of making that facility harder or impossible to use. Strike assessments are based on initial reports and may be refined.CJTF-OIR does not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target. The information used to compile the daily strike releases is based on 'Z' or Greenwich Mean Time.
ATA-10-310-E 

Jul 09 2010 

 Exemption No. 134M 

 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2001-9410 

Lt. Colonel Timothy M. Kersey 

Chief, Flight Standards Division 

Department of the Air Force 

6500 South MacArthur Boulevard 

Oklahoma City, OK 73169 

Dear Lt. Col. Kersey: 

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition to extend Exemption 

No. 134, as amended. It explains the basis for our decision and describes its effect. 

The Basis for Our Decision 

On June 15, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of the 

U.S. Air Force (USAF) for an extension of Exemption No. 134, as amended. That exemption 

from § 91.159 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations allows the USAF to conduct nontraining photographic reconnaissance missions that require flying a series of tracks at a 

constant altitude under visual flight rules, without maintaining the appropriate cruising 

altitudes required by § 91.159. 

In your petition, you indicate that there has been no change in the conditions and reasons 

relative to public interest and safety that were the basis for granting the original exemption. 

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition 

in the Federal Register because the requested extension of the exemption would not set a 

precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to the USAF. 

Our Decision 

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 134, as 

amended, remains valid with respect to this exemption and is in the public interest. Therefore, 

under the authority provided by 49 U.S.C. § 40109, which the FAA Administrator has 
2

delegated to me, I grant your petition. Notwithstanding the provisions of the exemption, the 

pilot of an aircraft engaged in the above operations is not relieved of the responsibility to see 

and avoid other aircraft as required by other provisions of the regulations. 

The Effect of Our Decision 

Our decision extends the termination date of Exemption No. 134, as amended, to 

 September 30, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded. 

All conditions and limitations of Exemption No. 134, as amended, remain the same. This 

letter must be attached to, and is a part of, Exemption No. 134. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Elizabeth Ray 

Director, Airspace and Aeronautical Information Management 
3

Project No.: ATA-10-310-E 

Project Officer: _______________ 

ARM-105:TTHOMAS:06/21/10:Doc# 30210 

ARM-1/100/105:AJR-33 

LT COLONEL TIMOTHY M KERSEY 

CHIEF FLIGHT STANDARDS DIVISION 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE 

6500 SOUTH MACARTHUR BOULEVARD 

OKLAHOMA CITY OK 73169
#### Johanna Nolan, Respondent, v. The New York, Lake Erie and Western Railway Company, Appellant.

Verdict set aside, new trial ordered, costs to abide event. Opinion by

Davis, p. J.
<PAGE>   1




               EXHIBIT 11.1 - COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS



            ADVANCED COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                        PRO FORMA NET INCOME PER SHARE

               (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT SHARE AND PER SHARE DATA)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                   THREE MONTHS ENDED                     NINE MONTHS ENDED
                                                                         JUNE 30                              JUNE 30
                                                                1997                  1996              1997              1996
                                                          --------------     ---------------      -------------     -------------
<S>                                                       <C>                <C>                  <C>               <C>
Weighted average common stock outstanding                      3,812,250           3,732,750          3,788,397         3,732,750

Common stock equivalent                                             -                 73,440             16,402            73,440 
                                                            
Stock options issued during twelve months                   
  immediately preceding the offering date (using the        
  treasury stock method and the initial public
  offering price per share)                                       80,857              75,833             71,111            75,833

Stock issued to satisfy S corporation distribution in       
  excess of preceding twelve month earnings based on 
  the initial public offering price per share                    549,000             479,333            502,323           479,333
                                                          --------------     ---------------      -------------     -------------
                                                            
     Pro forma weighted average shares                         4,442,107           4,361,356          4,378,233         4,361,356
                                                          ==============     ===============      =============     =============
                                                            
Pro forma net income                                      $          562     $           204      $      1,335      $         784
                                                          ==============     ===============      =============     =============
                                                            
Pro forma net income per share                            $         0.13     $          0.05      $        0.31     $        0.18
                                                          ==============     ===============      =============     =============
</TABLE>





                                      13
[No. 1310.]

#### Perry et al. v. Lynch.

Appellate Practice.

Where a jury renders a verdict in favor of plaintiff upon his unsupported testimony as against a number of witnesses for defendants, and their verdict is sustained by the trial court, the appellate court will not interfere. The court of appeals will not undertake to disagree with the jury on the question of credibility of witnesses.

*Appeal from the District Court of Lake County.*

Mr. J. W. Horner, for appellants.

Mr. A. J. Sterling, for appellee.

Thomson, P. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

*550The appellee brought suit against the appellants, alleging a contract between himself and them for the performance of work and labor by him at an agreed price. He testified to the contract, and its performance on his part, and the refusal of the defendants to pay him. The defendants in answer alleged a contract by which, in consideration of payment by them of the cost of his transportation from Denver to Lead-ville, and of furnishing him with his board, and with clothing suitable with his work, he was to labor on their mining claims, and receive what his work was worth, provided paying mineral should be found in the claims, and the money to pay him should be taken from them. The evidence in their behalf was in line with their answer. The jury believed the plaintiff and gave him a verdict. The defendants-are here by appeal, and assign for error the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, the admission of improper evidence for the plaintiff, the exclusion of proper evidence offered for the defendants, and the overruling of their motion for a new trial.

In relation to the evidence, the effect of the argument for the defendants is that the unsupported testimony of the plaintiff must fall before that of their array of witnesses ; but the jury seem to have thought that he told the truth, and, for aught that we know, he did. Where the question of the credibility of witnesses is involved, we never undertake to disagree with the jury.

The assignment of errors does not direct our attention to the evidence received which counsel thinks improper, or to that excluded which he regards as proper. The allegation of error, in these particulars, is too general to require notice; but upon an examination of the bill of exceptions we find no erroneous ruling by which the defendants could have been in any Way prejudiced.

The grounds of the motion for a new trial were the admission and rejection of evidence, and the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict. The court decided that it had committed no error in receiving and refusing evidence, *551and we agree with it. It also held that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict. Upon that point it could form a much more intelligent opinion than we can, and it would he a considerable stretch of assumption for us to say that the court was wrong.

Let the judgment be affirmed.

Affirmed,
# Syrian Arab Coalition prepares to seize Manbij

/ Published June 23, 2016

June 23, 2016 Release # 20160623-02FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

**SOUTHWEST ASIA —** Syrian Arab Coalition (SAC) elements have consolidated their position around Manbij in anticipation of the next phase of operations to secure the city.  For the last seven days they have been refining their plans as to how to gain a foothold in Manbij and maintain the safety of the civilian population trapped by Da'esh.    Despite this consolidation the pressure on Da'esh is unrelenting.  Last week 73 strikes were conducted bringing the total to 233 since the assault began.  The SAC are also seeing firsthand the large foreign fighter influence in Manbij.  This information will be vital in continuing to protect Turkey, wider Europe, and the United States from this threat.  To the east of Manbij displaced persons are returning to several villages.  They welcomed the freedom and security the SAC have so far brought.  We are working closely with NGOs to ensure they can focus their initial efforts on these villagers.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                             CERTIFICATE 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 Heritage Worldwide, Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form  10-QSB for the period ending  March 31, 2004 as filed with
the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Claude  Couty,  Chief  Financial 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  result of operations of the
Company.

     A  signed  original  of  this written statement required by Section 906 has
been  provided  to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished
to  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or  its  staff  upon  request.


/s/  Claude  Couty
------------------
Claude  Couty
Chief  Financial  Officer
May  28,  2004


                                       82
<PAGE>