alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
This Certificate certifies that 

Christopher Bird

Having satisfactorily completed the course of study

And having passed the required examination in Flying,Controlling, 

Maneuvering and FAA Rules & Regulations is a

Qualified for UAV Flight 

Given under my hand on the 18th Day of October, 2015

Ken Taboh
K:. ~’ 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

1; AUSTIN 

We have oarefuJly 

~i.j,n’a letter arltten 

Of ~svllls, T4xa8, 

~waa’ forwarded 

.sohroeder. 

itten.by Ur. Turner 

s an~:admia%atration 

8 wa8 neoeas.ary .ln order 

sister his estate. 

8 owned 80x114 

soaal 

e land was fbally 80 

ax suit ma brought and 

le wa8 made under an or&w of ‘SPA 

judgpeot and that tha sum oi #B&lb was 

he Administrator after all debts iaoluding 

of ooyr54, have the papers in the tar suit 

ither do w4 have the probate proceedings other 

judgment randered in the probete oourt On April 9, 2939, 

estate was finally olbeml. This order oonfornm to t&e 

of the e&eta etatutaa. 
., -. 

,p-- 

Honorable CharLeg Loakhart, pa&e 2 

, 

‘u:e do not think the land esoheetcd to the :itste; under 

Artialea 3272 and 3273, it 1s yrovlCWl that ii” there Is any 

lend that has not been olaLm4A the county attorney mey bring 

a suit to esaheut the 1enA to the State. Sinae the oounty 

attorney did not bring a suit to esahest the land and since 

the administration was oontlnued In forae and the Adnlnistretor 

ioontinueA to oontrol the.property as Administrator for the BsI tate, ha should have rendered the property for taxes. If he 

Aid not render it, it was the duty of the tax ass44aor to ren- 

; Aer.the property egainst the Estete of Henry SohroeAer for tex- 

/es and It we8 ths oounty attorn4y*s r4sponslbUlty to bring 

1 suit to foreclose this t5x lien and a sale iortcxes pnssed a 

good title unless 

under the low. 

Artialos 

same was reAeem4d within the period-allowe& 

3844 to 3660, inalusive, proviCe th:it when .~ _ 

'the person 4ntltleU to en estatb does not alaim 88~ the addin- 

: istirator shall psy the money to the State Treasurer, who shall 

! hold same In the Estate Fund. It se4ms thet the $202.16 which 

j.‘you have reoeived from the Administrator of tha sohroeder Es- 

\:tate has been tendered to you under these articlas. 

:. !~ 

I:; Under the raots as stated In Mr. Turner's letter, we 

,think the money should be held in the Zetate Fund and not in 

.'the Eaaheat Fund. 

W4 are sending a aogy of this letterto Mr. John bB. 

'Turnor, County Attorney, Beeville, Texas. 

We return you herewlth the aopy of the jud&?uent of the 

,~probete oourt Ln the Sofiroeder 'Estete. 

Yours very truly 

ATTORMY CEK.QGL OF T!WAS 

Geo. W. Barcus 

Assistant
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS INCLUDED IN
THE REGISTRANT'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           5,188,179
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      501,768
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                        110,405
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,574,556
<PP&E>                                           3,964,688
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,598,913
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  13,606,041
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,156,053
<BONDS>                                          4,315,016
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                      5,023,349
<COMMON>                                         2,975,946
<OTHER-SE>                                      (3,235,947)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    13,606,041
<SALES>                                          1,405,838
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,405,838
<CGS>                                              218,514
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,399,875
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 747,962
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (20,868,324)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (20,868,324)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (20,868,324)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         (.98)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (.98)
        


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-3(Nos. 333-112823, 333-114274, 333-114274-01 and 333-114274-02) and the Registration Statements onForm S-8 (Nos. 333-50793, 333-72156, 333-133998 and 333-136971) of Ameren Corporation of our reportdated February 28, 2008 relating to the financial statements, financial statement schedule and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
#### Robledo v. Broderick

17851

10/24/96

Affirmed
# C_2018352EN.01002401.xml

| 1.10.2018 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/24 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

1.10.2018

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/24

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Cour de cassation (France) lodged on 20 July 2018 — Société de perception et de distribution des droits des artistes-interprètes de la musique and de la danse (SPEDIDAM), PG, GF v Institut national de l’audiovisuel

(Case C-484/18)

(2018/C 352/29)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Cour de cassation

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: Société de perception et de distribution des droits des artistes-interprètes de la musique and de la danse (SPEDIDAM), PG, GF

Respondent: Institut national de l’audiovisuel

Other parties: Syndicat indépendant des artistes-interprètes (SIA-UNSA), Syndicat français des artistes-interprètes (CGT)

Question referred

Must Article 2(b), Article 3(2)(a) and Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (1) be interpreted as not precluding national rules, such as those laid down in Article 49 II of Law No 86-1067 of 30 September 1986 on freedom of communication, as amended by Article 44 of Law No 2006-961 of 1 August 2006, from establishing, for the benefit of the National Audiovisual Institute, the beneficiary of the exploitation rights of national broadcasting companies in the audiovisual archives, derogating provisions under which the terms on which performers’ works can be exploited and the remuneration for that exploitation are governed by agreements concluded between the performers themselves or the employee organisations representing performers and that institute, which must specify, inter alia, the scale of remuneration and the arrangements for payment of that remuneration?

---

(1)  OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10.

---
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

April 10, 2019

No. 04-19-00215-CR

IN RE STATE OF TEXAS, EX. REL. TODD A. DURDEN, COUNTY ATTORNEY

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Liza A. Rodriguez, Justice

On April 8, 2019, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. This court is of the 

opinion that a serious question concerning the mandamus relief sought requires further 

consideration. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(b). The respondent (the Honorable Spencer Whitewood 

Brown), the Honorable James T. “Tully” Shahan, and any other real party in interest may file a 

response to the petition for writ of mandamus in this court no later than April 25, 2019. Any 

such response must conform to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.4. 

It is so ORDERED on April 10, 2019.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle, 

Clerk of Court

 1 This proceeding arises out The State of Texas v. Mark Anthony Gonzalez; Cause No. 10041CR; and twenty-one 

other cases, pending in the County Court, Kinney County, Texas. The Honorable Spencer W. Brown signed the 

order at issue in this proceeding.
#### Finis Lavell CHISUM and Lura Mae Chisum, Appellants, v. Huff KELLY, Loy M. Simpkins, Dale Dage, Jerry Webb, Robert Denton, Clarence L. Jeffers, and Farmers National Bank, of Elk City, Oklahoma, a Foreign Corporation, Appellees.

No. 3234.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

Feb. 24, 1978.

*1278George M. Kapolchok and Jesse C. Bell, Atkinson, Conway, Young, Gell & Gagnon, Anchorage, for appellants.

Phillip J. Eide and Michael G. Briggs, Ely, Guess & Rudd, Anchorage, for appel-lees.

Before BOOCHEVER, Chief Justice, and RABINO WITZ, CONNOR, BURKE and MATTHEWS, Justices.

OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Finis and Lura Chisum mortgaged their property to appellees Simpkins, Dage and Webb as trustees for a group which had guaranteed repayment to a bank of a loan to the Chisums. When the Chisums defaulted on the loan they executed a deed, absolute on its face, in favor of the guarantors. The issue in this case is whether the deed should be reformed and given the effect of an equitable mortgage. The trial court found that the deed was intended as a conveyance. In so doing it properly followed *Rizo v. MacBeth,*398 P.2d 209, 211 (Alaska 1965) where we held “that a deed absolute on its face may be declared to be a security agreement. However, there is a presumption that an instrument is what it purports to be, and clear and convincing evidence is required to overcome this presumption.”

As we view the case the only question presented is whether the trial court’s finding was clearly erroneous. We hold that it was not. In reaching this conclusion we accept appellants’ contention that Carl Mitchell was the agent of the guarantors. Mr. Chisum testified that he agreed with Mitchell that the property should be sold and the sale proceeds should be applied to his indebtedness, with any surplus to be returned to him.1 It seems evident that the Chisums executed the deed to facilitate this agreement.2 Consistent with this agreement the guarantors eventually did sell the property and since the sale proceeds were less than the outstanding indebtedness the Chisums were entitled to nothing.

AFFIRMED.

1

. At trial Chisum testified as follows:

> Chisum: There was (sic) several discussions with Carl Mitchell and myself in agreement to sell the property to pay off the mortgage and I was to get what was left out of the proceeds.

> 

> Counsel: And I believe you stated that the idea was to sell the property and then the guarantors would get their money back and you’d get the excess.

> Chisum: That is exactly right. That was the agreement I had with Carl Mitchell.

2

. Upon questioning at oral argumént counsel acknowledged this, but added that the Chisums would have to approve any future sale. We find no testimony, however, indicating the need for their approval.
June 6, 2000

22662

#### Tsukamoto v. Lau

Affirmed
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Soil Treatment Facilities

Last Modified: 

Print

A permit can be issued by the Permit Unit usually within 2 weeks if the applicant has

requested an authorization for less than three pounds of soil (per shipment), and the

soil can be heat sterilized by PPQ at ports with appropriate facilities. Permits of this

type may be provided for a single shipment or for continuous shipments over a

period of up to 3 years.

Most major ports have PPQ operated facilities where soil can be treated under

prescribed treatment schedules. These treatments require dry heat at 250 F. for at

least two hours or steam heat at the same temperature for 30 minutes with 15"

pressure.

Importers are cautioned that P525 Soil Permit does not authorize hand carried

shipments to the port of entry, all foreign soil packages must be shipped via bonded

carrier. As a result, handling and forwarding arrangements may be necessary to

ensure that the shipment is forwarded to the destination after it has been treated

and released by PPQ. The importer or permittee is responsible for all arrangements

and the costs associated with handling and forwarding.

Mail and cargo shipments must arrive with postage or freight paid for delivery to the

destination. Applicants indicating a need to ship by mail or freight are provided with

labels (PPQ Form 508) which should be affixed to the outside of shipping packages.
These labels identify the package as regulated material subject to special handling.

A copy of the permit should also accompany each shipment.

All packages for transport, authorized to be treated at APHIS’ Plant Inspection

Stations, must be able to be heat treated with dry heat at 250 F. for at least two

hours or steam heat at the same temperature for 30 minutes with 15" pressure

without removing the soil. Notes, labels, or reference materials related to the

shipment should be separate to be sure that important information is not lost or

destroyed during treatment. Permittees are encouraged to contact the Plant

Inspection Station before shipping soil for further guidance on current treatment

availability and packaging questions or concerns.

Any shipment which is not authorized under permit will be held by PPQ at the PIS

pending the issuance of a formal written permit from the Permit Unit. Any shipment

which is not ultimately authorized or is not in compliance with permit requirements,

must be destroyed or re-exported at the importer's expense.
January 13, 2015

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

IN THE INTEREST OF J.A.F., A CHILD

NO. 14-14-00641-CV

________________________________

This cause, an appeal from a judgment terminating parental rights signed 

July 23, 2014, was heard on the transcript of the record. We have inspected the 

record and find no error in the judgment. We order the judgment of the court below 

AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
EXHIBIT 32

                CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Municipal Securities  Purchase,  Inc.
(the  "registrant")  on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006,  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "report"),
we, LeAnn Rogers and Peter Graham,  Chairman and Vice  President and  Treasurer,
respectively,  of the registrant,  certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350,
that to our knowledge:

(1)      The report fully  complies  with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)      The  information  contained  in  the  report  fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the registrant.


April 26, 2006

/s/ LeAnn Rogers
----------------
LeAnn Rogers
Chairman
(Principal Executive Officer)



/s/ Peter Graham
----------------
Peter Graham
Vice President and Treasurer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### Carlton W. SMITH, Petitioner, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent.

No. 8454.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Nov. 10, 1939.

Albus & Greaney, of Washington, D. C., for petitioner.

Samuel O. Clark, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., and J. P. Wenchel, of Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before HICKS, ALLEN, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Upon reading the stipulation made and entered into by the above named parties, through their respective attorneys, and filed in this court, and in accordance with said stipulation,

It is now ordered by this Court that the above and foregoing proceeding be, and the same is hereby, remanded to the said Board of Tax Appeals for further proceedings in accordance with the provisions of Section 214 of the Revenue Act of 1939.

And it is further ordered by this Court that the mandate in this cause issue forthwith to the said Board of Tax Appeals.
98 P.3d 979

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF HAWAI'I

October 7, 2004

25690

#### Doe, In re

Affirmed
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

NAHMS Cervid Studies

Last Modified: 

Print

NAHMS conducted a study in 2014 on health and management practices on U.S.

farmed cervid operations.

See the complete list of all NAHMS studies and related materials

Loading...
Cervid Studies
EXHIBIT 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES

OF

INTEGRATED SILICON SOLUTION, INC.



|                                                     |  |                       
|---------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Name                                                 |  | Place of Incorporation
|Integrated Silicon Solution Inc. (Hong Kong) Limited |  | Hong Kong             
|                                                     | 
|Integrated Silicon Solution (Shanghai) Inc.          |  | China                 
|                                                     | 
|Integrated Silicon Solution (Taiwan) Inc.            |  | Taiwan                
|                                                     | 
|Integrated Circuit Solution Inc.                     |  | Taiwan                
|                                                     | 
|Sofwin, Inc.                                         |  | California            
|                                                     | 
|Winston, Inc.                                        |  | California
#### Lester v. Rapp.

16387

12/17/96

Affirmed
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.                  

###### Department of State

          - [Public Notice: 12277]

# SUMMARY:

                        Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “Käthe Kollwitz” at The Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the                         **Federal Register**                        .                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:                         *section2459@state.gov*). The mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, 2200 C Street NW (SA-5), Suite 5H03, Washington, DC 20522-0505.                    

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,                     *et seq.;*22 U.S.C. 6501 note,                     *et seq.*), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, and Delegation of Authority No. 523 of December 22, 2021.                

Nicole L. Elkon,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Professional and Cultural Exchanges, Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of State.

[FR Doc. 2023-26535 Filed 12-1-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 579 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 579

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                       January 6, 2016.
    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 3762) to provide for reconciliation 
pursuant to section 2002 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal 
year 2016, with the Senate amendment thereto, and to consider in the House, 
without intervention of any point of order, a motion offered by the chair of the 
Committee on the Budget or his designee that the House concur in the Senate 
amendment. The Senate amendment and the motion shall be considered as read. The 
motion shall be debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the 
chair and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Budget or their 
respective designees. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the motion to adoption without intervening motion.
    Sec. 2.  Section 3(b)(1) of House Resolution 5 is amended by striking ``the 
first session of''.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```