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

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

IN THE MATTER OF TROY S. POE

TRUST §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 18

- 00074

- CV

Appeal from

Probate Court No. 1

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 2016

- CPR00308 )

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the

judgment. We therefore reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the cause for further

proceedings, in accordance with this Court’s opinion. We further order that Appellant recover

from Appellee all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue, and this decision be certified

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 2 8TH DAY OF AUGUST , 2019.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Palafox, JJ.
AGREEMENT

     AGREEMENT by and between Java Express, Inc. a Nevada Corporation and
Kirch Communications, Inc., a Utah Corporation and Ms. Stephanie Harnicher, an
individual.

     In exchange for Kirch Communications, Inc. and Stephanie Harnicher
agreement to retire the following convertible notes listed below:

1.    Kirch Communications, Inc. for the sum of       $   8,435.00
2.    Kirch Communications, Inc. for the sum of       $   4,500.00
3.    Ms. Stephanie Harnicher for the sum of          $  10,000.00

     Java Express hereby agrees to sale, convey and otherwise transfer to
Kirch Communications, Inc. and Ms. Stephanie Harnicher all interest in the
following assets:

1   Eight-item Multi Compartment Steamer     2 Expresso Grinders
2   Multiple Adjustment Coffee Grinders      3 Vita Mix Professional Blenders
1   Stainless Steel Coffee Cart         1 Three-head Espresso Machine
2   Glass Refrigeration Units           3 Frozen Ice Drink Machines
1   Storage Unit                        1 Sofa Table
1   Mirror                              1 Kiosk
2   Computer desks with bookcase tops   1 Computer
1   72" Executive Desk                  1   72" Executive Credenza
1   Stainless Steel Preparation Station
    with Multiple Sinks

Miscellaneous office furniture

15,242 shares of IMNL Common Stock


IN WITNESS WHEREOF

Effective this 21 day of June, 2004.


    /s/ Lance Musicant
By:_________________________________________
        President, Java Express, Inc.


    /s/ John Chris Kirch
By:__________________________________________
        President, Kirch Communications, Inc.


    /s/ Shephanie Harnicher
   ___________________________________________
        Ms. Stephanie Harnicher, Individually
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0091

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

MARY DARLEAN WRIGHT,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including January 13, 2021, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 2 2020

12/02/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0091
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON

FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK, AS

TRUSTEE FOR THE

CERTIFICATEHOLDERS CWABS, INC.,

ASSET-BACKED CERTIFICATES,

SERIES 2004-3 7105 CORPORATE

DRIVE PLANO, TX 75024

 v.

VIOLETTE BREA, 147 NORTH DAWES

AVENUE, KINGSTON, PA 18704-5705

PETITION OF: VIOLETTE BREA

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 622 MAL 2014

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the

Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of December, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of

Appeal is DENIED.
1 

### Ngo, Dan (FAA)

From: Zektser, Alex (FAA)

Sent: Friday, August 26, 2016 10:55 AM

To: Ngo, Dan (FAA); Bouffiou, Dale (FAA); Roberts, Brandon (FAA)

Subject: FW: Univ. of Miami - Section 333 Exem ption Request for closed-set filming*

Attachments: Univ of Miami Section 333 Exemption Requ est.pdf; University of Miami - 16956.pdf

Dan,

Original email from Anne is below. I’m not tech

‐ savvy, so not sure how to make it a pdf.

Best,

Alex Zektser

Federal Aviation Administration

Office of Chief Counsel, Regulations Division

Phone: (202) 267

‐ 3011

Fax: (202) 267

‐ 7971

From: Swanson, M. Anne [ mailto:aswanson@cooley.com ]

Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2016 6:47 PM

To: Zektser, Alex (FAA)

Cc: Roberts, Brandon (FAA)

Subject: Univ. of Miami - Section 333 Exemption Request for closed-set filming*

Alex

– per your request, and as we discussed, I attach the Section 333 exemption request that the University of Miami

filed, seeking authority to use UAVs to conduct both aerial data collection and closed

‐ set movie filming. I also attach

the 333 that was granted on June 17 and that we received on June 23; in footnote one, the grant specifically says it is

limited to aerial data collection, although the grant includes the final two paragraphs that are typical of 333s that

authorized closed

‐ set filming. The University is very interested in having this grant corrected to include authorization

for closed set filming as well. As you will see, these materials appear in Docket FAA

‐ 2015

‐ 8004.

In support of its 333 request, the University filed a number of lengthy (and expensive) materials with a request for

confidential treatment

– a flight operations manual, aircraft flight manuals for every UAV craft that the 333 specified,

and the MPTOM, the Movie Picture and Television Operating Manual

– all of which at the time were required with 333

submissions. These were all prepared by John McGraw’s team. In my next email, I will send you the MPTOM, for which

confidentiality was sought.

M. Anne Swanson

Cooley LLP

1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW • Suite 700

(enter from 12th and E Streets)

Washington, DC 20004-2400

Direct: +1 202 776 2534

• Fax: +1 202 842 7899

•

Bio: www.cooley.com/aswanson

• Practice: www.cooley.com/business2 This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. An y unauthorized review, use,

disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and d estroy all copies of the original message.

If you are the intended recipient, please be advised that the content of this message is subject to access, review and disclosu re by the sender's Email System

Administrator.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1

                           CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements No. 
333-42363 and No. 333-60417 of GateField Corporation on Form S-8, and No. 
333-08089 and No. 333-27283 on Form S-3 of our reports dated April 8, 1998 
(November 4, 1998 as to Note 11 and the second paragraph of Note 10) (which 
expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph 
relating to the restatement described in Note 11), appearing in this Annual 
Report on Form 10-K/A of GateField Corporation for the year ended December 
31, 1997.

DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

San Jose, California
November 13, 1998
#### Moravitz et al. *v.*Baer, Appellant, et al.

Argued April 14, 1939.

*8June 27, 1939:

Before Keller, P. J., Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker, Rhodes and Hirt, JJ.

*Irwin M. Ring old,*for appellant.

-S’. *A. Robinson,*of *Dickie, Robinson & McCamey,*for appellee.

Per Curiam,

This action in trespass for damage done to the plaintiffs’ building by an automobile backing into it was tried in the county court by a judge without a jury.

The plaintiffs, who were entirely without fault, joined in the action as defendants, Mrs. Blanche S. Baer, the owner of the automobile, and Affiliated Service Stations, Inc., which operated a gasoline and service station adjoining plaintiffs’ building and had supplied gasoline to the automobile and was about to assist in the adjustment of the carburetor. The damage to the building was due to the negligence of Mrs. Baer’s driver, or of the other defendant’s attendant, or of both. The backing of the automobile was caused by the driver *9reaching into the car from the outside, and turning on the ignition switch, thus starting the motor, while the hand throttle was pulled out and the gear was in reverse. The main point of dispute was as to who had pulled out the throttle, the driver or the attendant.

The trial judge found that the fault lay with Mrs. Baer’s driver and not with the service station attendant, and entered judgment accordingly. The court in banc refused to disturb the findings and judgment.

The question was wholly one of fact, to be decided, in this instance, by the trial judge. His findings have the force and effect of the verdict of a jury and will not be disturbed by an appellate court in the absence of clear error, which was not here shown.

Judgment affirmed.
#### Kenneth W. POGUE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 28361.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 6, 1956.

*907No attorney on appeal for appellant.

Leon B. Douglas, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

PER CURIAM.

The offense is driving while intoxicated; the punishment, 3 days in jail and a fine of $50.

The record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. All proceedings appear to be regular, and nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### HUDIBURG CHEVROLET, INC., Appellant, v. GLOBE INDEMNITY COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 16563.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Fort Worth.

Nov. 19, 1965.

Rehearing Denied Dee. 17,1965.

*955Kerr, Day & Cook, and Taylor Gandy, Fort Worth, for appellant.

Thompson, Knight, Wright & Simmons, and Pinkney Grissom, David S. Kidder and George C. Chapman, Dallas, for appellee.

MASSEY, Chief Justice.

The judgment of this court, in part affirming and in part reversing that of the trial court, is to be observed in a previous opinion. See Hudiburg Chevrolet, Inc. v. Globe Indemnity Co., Tex.Civ.App., 383 S.W.2d 65.

On October 6, 1965, the Supreme Court (see 394 S.W.2d 792) affirmed that portion of our judgment which reversed that of the trial court, being our holding which negated any insurance coverage under what was referred to and described as “Policy A” in our previous opinion. However, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded that portion of our judgment affirming the trial court, that being the holding that there was no insurance coverage under what was referred to and described in our opinion as “Policy B”. Remand to this Court was for the purpose of deciding whether the jury finding that Roark’s taking of the truck from the premises of Hudiburg Chevrolet, Inc. on June 13, 1961, was theft (within the meaning of Policy B) constituted a finding against the great weight and preponderance of all the evidence.

We overrule the point of error presented by Globe Indemnity Company wherein it contends that the jury finding that the taking of the truck was theft (under Policy B) was against the great weight and preponderance of the evidence. There was evidence to the effect that the taking was theft according to the Supreme Court’s opinion. Our previous holding of “no evidence” was made because of a misinterpretation of the efficacy of the proof introduced. As efficient evidence we agree that it had probative force and effect.

As we interpret the prayer for relief by Hudiburg Chevrolet, Inc. the maximum amount we may award it is $2,428.83.

Judgment of the trial court is reversed. The judgment of this Court is that Hudi-burg Chevrolet, Inc. have and recover of and from Globe Indemnity Company the sum of $2,428.83, plus interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from June 13, 1961. All costs are adjudged against Globe Indemnity Company.
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 Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.

The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

*Name of Committee:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIAID Resource Related Research Projects (R24 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).                    

*Date:*                         March 11, 2024.                    

*Time:*                         10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G11, Rockville, MD 20852 (Video Assisted Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Barry J. Margulies, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, 5601 Fishers Lane, Room 3G11, (301) 761-7956,                         *barry.margulies@nih.gov*.                    

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

 Dated: February 20, 2024. 

Lauren A. Fleck, 

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2024-03817 Filed 2-23-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1552 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1552

 To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the 
    possession of a firearm by a person who is adjudicated to have 
               committed a violent act while a juvenile.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 14, 2011

  Mr. Israel introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, to prohibit the 
    possession of a firearm by a person who is adjudicated to have 
               committed a violent act while a juvenile.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preventing Gun Violence Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON POSSESSION OF A FIREARM BY A PERSON WHO IS 
              ADJUDICATED TO HAVE COMMITTED A VIOLENT ACT WHILE A 
              JUVENILE.

    (a) Possession Ban.--Section 922(g) of title 18, United States 
Code, is amended--
            (1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (8);
            (2) by striking the comma at the end of paragraph (9) and 
        inserting ``; or''; and
            (3) by inserting after paragraph (9) the following:
            ``(10) who has been adjudicated by a court of the United 
        States to have committed a violent juvenile act,''.
    (b) Violent Juvenile Act Defined.--Section 921(a) of such title is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(36)(A) The term `violent juvenile act' means an act by a 
        person before the person attains 18 years of age that, if 
        committed by an adult, would be punishable by a term of 
        imprisonment exceeding one year, and--
                    ``(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or 
                threatened use of physical force against another 
                person; or
                    ``(ii) that by its nature, involves a substantial 
                risk that physical force against another person may be 
                used in the course of committing the act.''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEET AS OF, AND THE STATEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997
INCLUDED IN REGISTRANT'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH BALANCE
SHEET AND STATEMENT OF INCOME AND THE NOTES THERETO.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                             308
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,348
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,080
<INVENTORY>                                     37,581
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,404
<PP&E>                                          12,088
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,379
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  72,663
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,405
<BONDS>                                         29,726
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              354
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        19,559
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,437
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    72,663
<SALES>                                        135,952
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               135,952
<CGS>                                          117,272
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  137,419
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (1,766)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,336
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (6,569)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (1,303)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (5,266)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (5,266)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (1.01)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (1.01)
<FN>
<F1>FOR PURPOSES OF THIS EXHIBIT, PRIMARY MEANS BASIC.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Exhibit 4.23


 


Group support letter


 


To be typed on VGIL headed
paper


 


VEH plc


Address


 


 


28th April
2004


 


Dear Sirs


 


We, Virgin
Group Investments Limited (‘VGIL’), in our capacity as the ultimate parent of
Virgin Express Holdings PLC (‘VEH PLC’), have been asked to provide a formal
letter of support in connection with the finalisation of the financial
statements of VEH PLC for the year ended 31 December 2003.


 


This letter of
support is to confirm that VGIL intends to provide or procure that Virgin Sky
Investments Limited (‘VSIL’), as a wholly owned subsidiary of VGIL, provides
such financial support may become necessary in order to enable VEH PLC to meet
its ongoing financial obligations as and when they fall due for the foreseeable
future and in any event, at least the next 12 months.


 


In providing
this letter, the directors of VGIL have considered the cash flow projections of
the VEH PLC group for the period ending 30 April 2005. The attached cash flow
projections show an anticipated maximum funding requirement of €18.0m.  Based upon our assessment of these
projections, the directors are comfortable that VGIL will have the resources to
provide such financial support as may be necessary.


 


We understand
that on the basis of this representation, the following disclosures will be
included in the financial statements of VEH PLC:


 


“The financial
statements have been prepared on a going concern basis in view of the fact that
Virgin Group Investments Limited (“VGIL”) the ultimate holding company of the
company’s principal shareholder, has provided or procured that Virgin Sky
Investment Limited (“VSIL”), a wholly owned subsidiary of VGIL, will provide
sufficient funding to the company to enable it to meet its liabilities as they
fall due, for at least the next twelve months.


 


The directors
have no reason to believe that VSIL will not be in a position to provide the
support referred to above and, accordingly, they have prepared the financial
statements on the going concern basis.”


 


Nothing in
this letter is intended to be legally binding upon us nor does it create any
legally enforceable obligations on us.


 


Yours
faithfully,


 


 


for and on
behalf of

Virgin Group Investments Limited

Director
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE CEO PURSUANT TO 18 S.S.C. SECTION1350**

 

 

**CERITFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with theAnnual Report of PurchaseSoft, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSBfor the period ending May 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Steven A. Flagg, President ofthe Company, certify, solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Sec.1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, thatto the best of my knowledge:

 

1.                                       The report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

2.                                       The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company as of May 31, 2003 and for the periods then ended.

 
|  /s/ Steven A. Flagg                  |   |   |
|--------------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|                                       |   |
| Steven A. Flagg, President  and Acting CEO |   |
| Dated August 20, 2003                      |   |

 

----