alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
TDCJ Offender Details Page 1 of 2

TEXAS;.DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINALJUSTICE. ESUBE BfflMtfPffMm

Offender Information Details

Return to Search list

SID Number:

TDCJ Number:

Name:

Race:

Gender:

DOB:

Maximum Sentence Date:

Current Facility:

Projected Release Date:

Parole Eligibility Date:

Offender Visitation Eligible:

04102396

01546714

VALIER.NKRUMAH LAMUNBA

B

M

1970-02-11

2046-10-02

ALLRED

2046-10-02

2026-10-02

YES

Information provided is updated once daily during weekdays and multiple times per day

on visitation days. Because this information is subject to change, family members and

friends are encouraged to call the unit prior to traveling for a visit.

SPECIAL INFORMATION FOR SCHEDULED RELEASE:

Scheduled Release Date:

Scheduled Release Type:

Scheduled Release Location:

Offender is not scheduled for release at this time.

Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Will be determined when release date is scheduled.

Parole Review Information

Offense History:

Offense Date Offense Sentence Date County Case No. Sentence (YY-MM-DD)

2005-03-23 | SEXUAL ASLT 2006-09-11 | HARRIS | 1030025 | 2-00-00

http://offender.tdcj.texas.gov/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail.action?sid=04102396 8/18/2015
#### Mollie Feinstein et al., Appellants, *v.*New York City Transit Authority, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

December 8, 1958.

*46*First & First (Henry First*of counsel), for appellants.

*Daniel T. Scannell*and *Solomon Tanser,*for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

The order should be unanimously affirmed, with $25 costs. Evidence that defendant’s employee sanded the subway platform after the alleged occurrence was inadmissible to show negligence and was improperly received. *(Getty*v. *Town of Hamlin,*127 N. Y. 636; Richardson, Evidence [8th ed.], § 173.) It was error to charge that defendant, as a common carrier, owed a greater duty toward passengers than did the City of New York toward pedestrians on a public sidewalk. The duty as to platform is that of ordinary care *(Belts*v. *Buffalo, R. & P. Ry. Co.,*222 N. Y. 433; *Palmer*v. *Pennsylvania Co.,*111 N. Y. 488; *McLean*v. *Triboro Coach Corp.,*302 N. Y. 49). It was also error, in the absence of medical testimony, to instruct the jury that they might consider pain and suffering that plaintiff wife was “ likely to endure ”. Additionally, the testimony of plaintiff husband that on the day preceding the accident he saw the “ jelly spot ” on which his wife claims to have slipped was too pat to be worthy of belief. (Cf. *Bottalico*v. *City of New York,*281 App. Div. 339.) Under all the circumstances, the verdict was properly set aside.

Concur — Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ.

Order affirmed, etc.
IV 

114TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. RES. 689 

Expressing condolences to and support for the people of Ecuador following 

the devastating earthquake on April 16, 2016. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 18, 2016 

Mr. CROWLEY (for himself and Mr. DONOVAN) submitted the following 

resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

RESOLUTION 

Expressing condolences to and support for the people of 

Ecuador following the devastating earthquake on April 

16, 2016. 

Whereas, on April 16, 2016, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake 

struck Ecuador that was felt in neighboring countries; 

Whereas the epicenter was 17 miles southeast of Muisne, according to the United States Geological Survey; 

Whereas the death toll has already exceeded 350, and authorities indicate that thousands of Ecuadorians have 

gone missing; 

Whereas the earthquake damaged or destroyed homes, hospitals, roads, and businesses; 

Whereas the United Nations indicates that tens of thousands 

of people are sheltering in evacuation centers; 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 689 IH 

Whereas the earthquake has knocked out electricity and 

water to multiple communities; 

Whereas United States Secretary of State John Kerry indicated that ‘‘we stand by the people of Ecuador in this 

difficult time and are ready to assist in any way we 

can.’’; 

Whereas according to the United States Census Bureau approximately 700,000 Ecuadorian-Americans reside in the 

United States; 

Whereas the Ecuadorian-American community is deeply concerned about their families, friends, and loved ones and 

are reaching out to assist in recovery efforts; and 

Whereas flooding from El Nin ̃o is creating additional challenges to search, rescue, and recovery: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) expresses its sorrow and condolences on the 

3 loss of life following the earthquake in Ecuador on 

4 April 16, 2016; 

5 (2) recognizes and commends all those engaged 

6 in the domestic and international response to the 

7 earthquake in Ecuador, including international agen8 cies, the United States Government, and nongovern9 ment organizations; and 

10 (3) supports efforts by the United States Gov11 ernment to assist the people of Ecuador as they seek 

12 to recover from the earthquake. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          17,322
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,846
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      9,286
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,836
<PP&E>                                         506,183
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 599,762
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,997
<BONDS>                                        334,123
<COMMON>                                         1,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                     107,230
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   599,762
<SALES>                                         77,913
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                79,397
<CGS>                                           44,081
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   44,081
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                39,857
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,715
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,256)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,617
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (9,873)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (9,873)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Annex 4. Item 6.1. – Glossary definitions: ‘Aquatic Animal Health Services’, ‘Competent Authority’ and ‘Veterinary Authority’
September 2 0 , 2016

Exemption No. 14422 A

Regulatory Docket No. FAA

– 20 15

– 5453

Mr. Jeffrey J. Antonelli

Ms. Amelia R Niemi

Antonelli Law

Counsel for L.A. Drones, LLC

35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1875

Chicago, IL 60601

Dear Mr. Antonelli and Ms. Niemi :

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your petition for an amendment. It explains

the basis for our decision, describes its effect, and lists any changes to the original conditions

and limitations.

By letter dated January 2016 , you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on

behalf of L.A. Drones, LLC (hereinafter petitioner or operator) for an amendment to your

current exemption . That exemption from §§ 61.23(a) and ( c ), 61.101(e)(4 ) and (5), 61.113(a),

61.315(a) , 91.7(a), 91.119(c), 91.121, 91.151(a)(1), 91.405(a), 91.407(a)(1), 91.409(a)(1) and

(2), and 91.417(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) allows the

petitioner to conduct UAS operations

. You requested an amendment to change the company

name from LA Drones, LLC to L.A. Drones, LLC

.

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 amendment to the exemption would not set a

precedent, and any delay in acti ng on this pe tition would be detrimental to the petitioner

.

Our Decision

The FAA has determined that the justification for the issuance of Exemption No. 14422

remains valid and is in the public interest. Therefore, under the authority contained2

in 49 U.S.C

. 106(f), 40113, and 44701, delegated to me by the Administrator, the operator is

granted an amendment to change the operator name

.

The operator shall add this amendment to its original exemption.

Conditions and Limitations

In this grant of amendment, L.A. Drones, LLC is hereafter referred to as the operator. All

conditions and limitations within Grant of Exemption No. 14422 remain in effect

.

Failure to comply with any of the conditions and limitations of this grant of exemption will be

g rounds for the immediate suspension or rescission of this exemption.

T his exemption terminates on January 31, 2018 , unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/ s/

John S. Duncan

Di rector, Flight Standards Service
EXHIBIT 32.a



CERTIFICATION 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 Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund III L.P. (the "Fund") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of the general partner of the general partner of the Partnership's general partner, C&M Management Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and 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 Partnership.



|Date:             |  |                            
|----------------- |  | ---------------------------
|February 21, 2006 |  | /s/ John P. Manning        
|                  |  |                            
|                  |  | John P. Manning            
|                  |  | Principal Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
EXHIBIT 31.2

PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a), AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, John R. Howe, certify that:

|1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of The Cato Corporation (the registrant);                                                                                                                                                                                                             
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

Date: January 13, 2017/s/ John R. HoweJohn P. D. CatoExecutive Vice PresidentChief Financial Officer
#### Freitas v. Haleakala Ranch Co.

16657

4/23/96

Affirmed
#### ALEXANDER DAWSON, INC., a corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. HYDROPONICS INC., a corporation, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 13407.

Supreme Court of Utah.

June 18, 1974.

Phillip L. Foremaster, St. George, for plaintiff and appellant.

Frank A. Allen, St. George, for defendant and respondent.

HENRIOD, Justice:

Appeal from a judgment giving preference to debts incurred by a receiver appointed *at the request of*plaintiff, a secured creditor. Affirmed in part and otherwise reversed. No costs.

There seem to be two distinct parts to this case, which reduce it to half or one-third simplicity:

The plaintiff, a secured creditor, asked for the appointment of a receiver and was rewarded by such request by having it awarded and the plaintiff now complains on appeal that it should not have its secured claims subordinated to other claims, 1) including lawyers’ fees, incurred before the receivership, etc. and 2) those obligations incurred thereafter.

We conclude that the obligations mentioned in this case incurred before the requested receivership, after the plaintiff’s preferred claims are subordinate and subject thereto, but that those obligations incurred *after*the order of receivership — requested by the plaintiff, — have priority *862over plaintiff’s secured claim. This, all in the name of request for receivership by plaintiff, by virtue of plain horse sense,— or Blackstone, — or on the simple idea that one cannot order a cake and renege on the purchase price because the frosting was not to his liking.

CALLISTER, C. J., and ELLETT, CROCKETT and TUCKETT, JJ., concur.
# C_2019103EN.01006002.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/60 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/60

---

Order of the General Court of 31 January 2019 — PO v EEAS

(Case T-494/18) (1)

(2019/C 103/79)

Language of the case: French

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 381, 22.10.2018.

---
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 1**  **0 -**  **1861**

PATRICIA T. PATTERSON , Plaintiff

– Appell ant ,

v.
JAMES R . BARBER , III ; GEORGE FUNDERBURK; SUSAN BARDEN; DAVID HUFFSTERTLER , Defendant s – Appell ees .

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill

. Margaret B. Seymour , District Judge. ( 0 : 1 0

- cv - 00 025

- MBS )

Submitted : September 30 , 2010 Decided: October 7 , 2010

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE , and KEENAN, Circuit Jud ge s .

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Patricia T. Patterson, Appellant Pro Se

.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Patricia T. Patterson appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommend ation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on h er 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (200 6 ) complaint. We
have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district

court. Patterson v. Barber , No. 0:10

- cv - 00 025

- MBS (D.S.C.
June 10, 2010)

. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION * IN THE 

OF MARYLAND * COURT OF APPEALS 

 * OF MARYLAND 

 Petitioner, * 

* Misc. Docket AG No. 17 

v. * September Term, 2018 

* 

SANDY N. WEBB * 

 * 

 Respondent. * 

 

ORDER

 This matter having come before the Court on the presentation of a certified copy of 

the Opinion and Order of the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon dated May 24, 2018, 

wherein the Respondent, Sandy N. Webb, was disbarred from the practice of law for 

violating the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct. The Court having considered the 

Petition and the parties’ Responses to this Court’s Show Cause Order, dated August 21, 

2018, it is this 26th day of October, 2018, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland; 

ORDERED, that Respondent, Sandy N. Webb, be, and she hereby is, disbarred from 

the practice of law in the State of Maryland, pursuant to Maryland Rule 19-737, for 

violations of Rules 1.15 and 8.4(a), (c) and (d) of the Maryland Rules of Professional 

Conduct and Maryland Code, Business Occupations & Profession, § 10-306; and it is 

further 

 ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall strike the name of Sandy N. Webb 

from the register of attorneys in this Court and certify that fact to the Trustees of the Client 

Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and all Clerks of all judicial tribunals in this State 

in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-761(b). 

 /s/ Mary Ellen Barbera 

 Chief Judge
#### Dickinson v. Tanaka

16318

9/01/94

Affirmed
EXHIBIT 32
 CEO AND CFO CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
  (1)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended September 30, 2010 (the
Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Joseph T. DunsmoreJoseph T. DunsmorePresident, Chief Executive Officer, Chairman and Director/s/ Brenda L. MuellerBrenda L. MuellerCorporate Controller and Acting Principal Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000879898
<NAME> BOWNE-SAN FRANCISCO
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          28,677
<SECURITIES>                                    14,473
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,209
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                54,603
<PP&E>                                           6,211
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  61,048
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,259
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            16
<OTHER-SE>                                      51,131
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    61,048
<SALES>                                          7,132
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,310
<CGS>                                              131
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    4,508
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 7,646
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (492)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    648
<INCOME-TAX>                                        53
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                595
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       595
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
#### Kurk Kendall JOHNSON, Petitioner, v. The Honorable Don H. HAMPTON, District Judge, Tenth Judicial District, State of Oklahoma, Respondent.

No. O-76-150.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 4, 1978.

ORDER WITHDRAWING OPINION AND GRANTING WRIT OF PROHIBITION

WHEREAS, on December 19, 1977 there was filed in this Court a true copy of an order, certified by the Deputy Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States on the 14th of December, 1977, directing that the order entered by this Court in the above styled and numbered cause on the 16th day of May, 1977 be vacated, and remanding said cause for further consideration in the light of *Brown v. Ohio,*432 U.S. 161, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187, and *Harris v.*Oklahoma,-U.S.-, 97 S.Ct. 2912, 53 L.Ed.2d 1054.

NOW, THEREFORE, the opinion heretofore entered on the 16th day of May, 1977 in the above styled and numbered cause is vacated and set aside, and further prosecution of Kurk Kendall Johnson in the District Court, Osage County, Case No. CRF— 75-294, for the offense of Murder in the First Degree in violation of Laws 1973, c. 167, § 1 is prohibited, and the court is directed to strike from the information in that case the following language:

> “. . . said acts and killing being perpetrated by the said Kurk Kendall Johnson pursuant to, and as a result of, the commission of, or attempt to commit, the crime if Kidnapping for the purpose of Extortion . . . ”

This order is made without prejudice to the trial of the said Kurk Kendall Johnson on any charge of homicide which the facts *1302and justice may warrant, not inconsistent with the views expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in *Brown v. Ohio*and *Harris v. Oklahoma,*supra.

WITNESS OUR HANDS and the Seal of this Court this 4th day of January, 1978.

HEZ. J. BUSSEY, P. J.

TOM R. CORNISH, J.

TOM BRETT, J.