alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
The President's Export Council Subcommittee on Encryption (PECSENC) will meet on February 25, 2000, at the Hewlett-Packard Company, Spyglass Room, Building 5, 1501 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California, 94304.  The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and is scheduled to adjourn at 4 p.m. The Subcommittee provides advice on matters pertinent to policies regarding commercial encryption products. 

## Open Session: 9:00 a.m.-4 p.m. 

1. Opening remarks by the Chairman 

2. Presentation of papers or comments by the public 

3. Update on Bureau of Export Administration initiatives 

4. Issue briefings 

5. Open discussion 

The meeting is open to the public and a limited number of seats will be available. Reservations are not required. To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the PECSENC. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to PECSENC members, the PECSENC suggests that public presentation materials or comments be forwarded before the meeting to the address listed below: Ms. Lee Ann Carpenter, Advisory Committees MS: 3876, U.S. Department of Commerce, 15th St. & Pennsylvania Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20230. 

For more information, contact Ms. Carpenter on (202) 482-2583. 

Dated: February 3, 2000. 

Brian Nilsson, 

Acting Assistant Secretary. 

[FR Doc. 00-2860  Filed 2-8-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510-33-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   11-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           9,789
<SECURITIES>                                    28,754
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,681
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                          37,146
<DEPRECIATION>                                     100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 190,926
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              941
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                     130,166
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   190,926
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,745
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 2,858
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 1,368
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 567
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,952
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,952
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,952
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.56<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.56<F1>
<FN>
<F1>EPS-PRIMARY AND EPS-DILUTED ARE CALCULATED FROM FEBRUARY 2, 1998 (DATE OF
INITIAL CAPITALIZATION) THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 1998. THE COMPANY HAD NO EARNINGS
PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ITS OPERATIONS ON MAY 12, 1998. WHEN CALCULATED FOR
THE PERIOD FROM MAY 12, 1998 (INCEPTION OF OPERATIONS) THROUGH DECEMBER 31,
1998, THE COMPANY'S BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS WERE $0.39 PER COMMON SHARE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                              5
<CIK>                                  0000937598
<NAME>                                 Periphonics Corporation
       
<S>                                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       MAY-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                           DEC-1-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            FEB-28-1997
<CASH>                                       20,460
<SECURITIES>                                  4,847
<RECEIVABLES>                                34,514
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (990)
<INVENTORY>                                  11,381
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             72,677
<PP&E>                                       31,234
<DEPRECIATION>                             (15,623)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               88,616
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        20,772
<BONDS>                                           0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                        137
<OTHER-SE>                                   67,650
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 88,616
<SALES>                                      29,646
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             29,646
<CGS>                                        14,444
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                14,444
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             10,070
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               5,088
<INCOME-TAX>                                  1,984
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           3,104
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                  3,104
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 $0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0
        


</TABLE>
#### THEDFORD v. STATE.

No. 24610.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 18, 1950.

*978None on appeal.

George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for driving, while intoxicated, a motor vehicle upon a public highway ; punishment a fine of $50.

No statement of facts or bills of exceptions appear in the record. Nothing is presented for review. • '

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 12 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 12

  Declaring the sense of Congress regarding periods of silence in the 
                            public schools.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 5, 1993

     Mr. Neal of North Carolina submitted the following concurrent 
    resolution; which was referred jointly to the Committees on the 
                   Judiciary and Education and Labor

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
  Declaring the sense of Congress regarding periods of silence in the 
                            public schools.

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That it is the sense of Congress--
            (1) that the Constitution of the United States does not 
        preclude periods of silence to be used, solely at the 
        discretion of the individual student in public schools, for 
        quiet and private prayer, meditation, contemplation, or 
        introspection, even if these moments are supervised by a school 
        official; and
            (2) that public school authorities should recognize the 
        historic importance of religion to our civilization by 
        encouraging such periods of silence.

                                 <all>
```
Order filed September 25, 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 12

- 00655

- CV

____________ KEVIN MATTHEW HALL , Appellant

V.

REBECCA MACCORKLE HA LL, Appellee

On Appeal from the 308th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2010

- 63670



### O R D E R
Appellant’s brief was originally due June 23, 2014. When no brief was filed, the court ordered appellant to file the brief by August 8, 2014. On August 7, 2014, appellant requested and was granted an extension of time to file the brief until September 8, 2014

. No brief or further motion for extension of time has been filed.
Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before October 13, 2014 , the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

DE-ERIC COOPER, §

 §

Plaintiff, §

§

V. § No. 3:22-cv-701-M

§

RS CLARK & ASSOCIATES, INC., §

§

Defendant. §

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 

RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The United States Magistrate Judge made Findings, Conclusions, and a 

Recommendation in this case. No objections were filed. The District Court reviewed 

the proposed Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation for plain error. Finding 

none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the 

United States Magistrate Judge.

SO ORDERED this 6th day of February, 2023.

Case 3:22-cv-00701-M-BN Document 11 Filed 02/06/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 59
# CHARTERFLEET INTERNATIONA

L ^u^^RTMENTO F "'ANSPORWIO N :;;'E T OPERMION S 2 8 Decembe r

201 0 ^01 ! JA N ! 0 P l:3 i
U.S
. Departmen t

o f Transportation , Docke t Managemen t

System , 40 0 7t h Street , SW. , Roo mP L 401 , Washington , D C 20591-000 1
RE : Reques t

for Exemptio n from135.337(f) , 135.338(f ) Charte r Flee t International , LL C (CFI ) i s requestin g exemptio n from135.337(f ) an d135.338(f

) fo r an indefinit e perio do f

time. I n makin g thi s reques t CF I onl y use s Chec k

Airma n (simulator ) fromou r approve dPar t

14 2 trainin g provider s an d ou r curren t selecte dan dapprove dtrainin g provide r ha s a curren t deviatio n authorit y allowin g CA E SimuFlite , Inc
. simulato r flight instructor s t o satisf

y th e requirement s o f

tha t sectio n b y satisfactoril y completin g an approve dLin e Operationa l Simulatio n (LOS ) eac h 1 2 calenda r

months
. A cop y o f

thei r approve dDeviation s regardin g thi s matte r i s attache d t o thi s request . Additionall y condition s require dunde r thi s reques t

for deviation , includin g instructo r eligibilit y an d LO S minimim i standard s ar e specifie di n th e documente dLine-Performance/Line-Observatio n Cours e for Part 14 2 Fligh t

Instructors , Ai r

Carrie r Confrac t Fligh t Instructor s (Simulato r

an dAi r Carrie r Confrac t Chec k Pilot s (Simulator ) locate dat www.faa.gov/pilots/training/part 142
. Thes e additiona l condition s ar e an integra l par t o f th e deviatio n grante dCAE , an dmus t b e adhere dto . T o thi s point , thi s lette r explain s an equa l leve l o f safety b y usin g thi s exemptio n fo r thos e provision s i n ou r

approve d trainin g progra mtha t

show s ou r

trainin g provide r

ha s traine dan daudite dal l o f TCE' s an dfraining cente r approve dInstructor s b y a n alternat e means:i.e
. asimulato r L.O.S
. trainin g an dcheckin g sessio n program . T o thi s end , i t

serve s n o purpos e an d i s not i n th e publi c interes t

t o publis h thi s exemptio n o n th e Federa l an dw e reques t

an approve ddeviation
. Sincerely ,

J Ro b Irwi n Manager/member CFI , LL C

1012 2 AIRPOR T COUR T BROOMFIELD , COLORAD O 8002 1
#### FOX et al. v. HOLLEY et al.

No. 2182.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Oct. 17, 1941.

*396House & House and J. W. Craig, all of Dallas, for appellants.

Coke & Coke, of Dallas, for appellees.

LESLIE, Chief Justice.

F. C. and M. J. Holley instituted this suit in trespass to try title against Earlene Fox and James Reace Richey. Defendants were duly served with citation, returnable August 5, 1940, and on the following day the case was called in due order and no answer being on file, judgment by default was then taken against them. The judgment was promptly presented to and approved by the court.

On August 8 appellants filed their motion to set aside the judgment and for a new trial. Thus the matter rested until September 28, 1940, when said motion was presented to the court for decision and the court overruled it. The appellants attempt to appeal by virtue of a purported appeal bond filed October 26, 1940. Appellees contend such bond was filed too late to confer jurisdiction upon the appellate court and they ask dismissal of the appeal.

The court from which this appeal comes is among those for which the rules of practice and procedure are prescribed by Art. 2092, Vernon’s Ann.Rev.Civ.St. of Texas, as subsequently amended by legislative acts to be found in Pocket Parts, volume 6. Under these statutes, the motion for a new trial was duly filed but it was not presented to the trial court for a decision in compliance with the mandatory provisions of said statute, which requires that such motions (original here) must be so presented within thirty days after same is filed. Hence, this original motion (filed August 8) was overruled thereafter by operation of law September 7, 1940. This conclusion is compelled by the construction given the above statute in Dallas Storage & Warehouse Co. v. W. M. Taylor, Judge, 124 Tex. 315, 77 S.W.2d 1031; Independent Life Ins. Co. v. T. A. Work, Judge, 124 Tex. 281, *77*S.W.2d 1036; Miller Mutual Fire Ins. Co. of Texas v. Mrs. Katie Wilkirson, et al., 124 Tex. 312, *77*S.W.2d 1035.

The purported appeal bond, not having been filed within thirty days after the motion for a new trial was overruled by operation of law on September 7, 1940, it was for that reason ineffective to confer jurisdiction of the appeal on this court. Under such circumstances the appeal must be dismissed. Miller Mutual Fire Ins. Co. v. Wilkirson, supra. It is so ordered.
IV

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 209

Expressing the sense of the Congress that any comprehensive health care

reform legislation that is enacted should provide for annual screenings

of children under 6 years of age for lead poisoning.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 23, 1994

Mrs. KENNELLY (for herself, Mr. JEFFERSON, Mr. DELLUMS, Mr. FOGLIETTA, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. OWENS, Ms. PELOSI, Ms. WATERS, Mr.

FROST, Mr. GEJDENSON, Mr. SCOTT, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr.

BONIOR, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Ms. FURSE, Ms.

VELA ́ZQUEZ, and Mr. WASHINGTON) submitted the following concurrent

resolution; which was referred jointly to the Committees on Energy and

Commerce and Ways and Means

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Congress that any comprehensive

health care reform legislation that is enacted should provide for annual screenings of children under 6 years

of age for lead poisoning.

Whereas lead poisoning is the most serious environmental

health problem affecting children in the United States;

Whereas more than 6,000,000 children and 400,000 pregnant women have levels of lead in their blood that exceed

the level that is considered safe by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and
2

•HCON 209 IH

Whereas studies have proven that lead poisoning in children

results in learning disabilities and medical complications:

Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of the Congress that any

3 comprehensive health care reform legislation that is en4 acted should provide for annual screenings of children

5 under 6 years of age for lead poisoning.

Æ
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5 
<LEGEND>  
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
consolidated   balance   sheet,   consolidated   statement  of  operations   and
consolidated statement of cash flows included in the Company's Form 10-Q for the
period  ended March 28,  1997,  and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND> 
<MULTIPLIER>              1,000
       
<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>             9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             JUN-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                JUN-29-1996
<PERIOD-END>                  MAR-28-1997
<CASH>                             18,076
<SECURITIES>                       51,751
<RECEIVABLES>                       8,391
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                        10,445
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   95,895
<PP&E>                              9,245
<DEPRECIATION>                      2,657
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    102,602
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              11,922
<BONDS>                                28
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             0
<COMMON>                              248
<OTHER-SE>                         90,404
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      102,602
<SALES>                            62,888
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   62,888
<CGS>                              21,624
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      48,917
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    15,920
<INCOME-TAX>                        6,209
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 9,711
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                        9,711
<EPS-PRIMARY>                        0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                        0.37
        

</TABLE>
#### JOSLYN et vir. v. FENNELL et al.

No. 16254.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

April 26, 1950.

Ronald Smallwood, San Antonio, J. Douglas McGuire, San Antonio, fo'r petitioners.

Dibrell & Gardner, San Antonio, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner, Mrs. Helen Joslyn, joined by her husband, M. N. Joslyn, has filed this motion for leave to file a petition for writ of mandamus to require the Eton. P. C. Sanders, Judge of the 57th District Court of Bex-ar County, Texas, to pass upon a motion filed by petitioner seeking to require the Clerk of the District Court to deliver to Helen Joslyn a check held by him in the sum of $500.00.

The writ of mandamus is sought for the further purpose of having the Judge enter a judgment holding Perry H. Fennell, Jr., in contempt of court and ordering him to jail until such time as he might purge himself of such contempt.’

 This Court does not have original jurisdiction to issue the writ of mandamus for either of these two purposes. All the jurisdiction we have to issue writs of mandamus is set out in Articles 1823 and 1824 of Vernon’s Ann.Civ.Stats. They read as follows :

> “Art. 1823. 1592, 997 Writs of mandamus, etc.

> “Said courts and the judges thereof may issue writs of mandamus and-all other writs necessary to enforce the jurisdiction of said courts. Id.

> “Art. 1824. 1595, 1000 May mandamus district courts

> “Said Courts or any Judge thereof, in vacation, may issue the writ of Mandamus 'to compel a-Judge'of the District or County Court to proceed to trial and judgment in a cause, returnable as the nature of the case may require. ■ Acts 1st C.S., 1892, p. 25; *839Acts 1923, p. 110; Acts 1929, 41st Leg., p. 68, ch. 33, § 1.”

See also: Adams v. Mitchell, Tex.Civ.App., 86 S.W.2d 884; Church of Christ Jesus v. Moore, Tex.Civ.App., 214 S.W.2d 690; Union City Transfer v. Kenna, Tex.Civ.App., 210 S.W.2d 431; Crowley v. Carter, Tex.Civ.App., 192 S.W.2d 787; Wichita Falls Traction Co. v. Cook, Tex.Civ.App., 50 S.W.2d 422; Texas Employers’ Ins. Ass’n v. Kirby, Tex.Civ.App., 150 S.W.2d 123.

The motion is overruled.
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.                  

###### General Services Administration

# AGENCY:

General Services Administration.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

Because of low usage the 4-part continuous, carbon interleave set construction of the following Standard Form is cancelled: SF 153, COMSEC Material Report (NSN 7540-00-935-5861).

The 4-part continuous feed, chemical transfer paper set version (identified by NSN 7540-00-935-5860) of this form is still available from FSS.

# DATES:

Effective November 9, 2000.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Barbara Williams, General Services Administration, (202) 501-0581.

Dated: October 17, 2000.

Barbara M. Williams,

Deputy, Standard and Optional Forms Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 00-28724 Filed 11-8-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820-34-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED> 
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          10,686
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   42,110
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (3,525)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,399
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                57,279
<PP&E>                                          47,121
<DEPRECIATION>                                (21,994)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 173,149
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,669
<BONDS>                                         19,440
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           133
<OTHER-SE>                                     120,274
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   173,149
<SALES>                                          1,766
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                56,504
<CGS>                                            1,341
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,917
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  (65)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   186
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 197
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,487
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,392
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,095
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,095
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.30
        

</TABLE>
#### FRISKE v. STATE.

No. 26424.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 6, 1953.

No attorney on appeal, for ■ appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

WOODLEY,. Judge.

The offense is driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated; the punishment a fine of $50.

There is nothing presented for review by this court in as much as the record on appeal contains no statement of facts or bills *oí*exception.

The judgment is affirmed.