alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### JOHN F. GRANT LUMBER CO. v. HUNNICUTT et al.

No. 2228.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Waco.

Oct. 17, 1940.

Wood, Morrow, Gresham & McCor-quodale and Walter E. Boyd, all of. Houston, for plaintiff in error.

J. G. Minkert, of Bryan, for defendants in error.

ALEXANDER, Justice,

This is a suit to foreclose an abstract of judgment lien. A trial before the court resulted in judgment for the defendants. The plaintiff has appealed.

Appellees have not favored us with a brief nor otherwise attempted to justify the judgment of the court. The only indications found in the record as to the apparent theory upon which judgment for appellees was rendered is that recited in the judgment.

One of the grounds recited in the judgment is that Dr. R. J. Hunnicutt, the judgment debtor, had; in good faith, conveyed the land in question to the other appellees in satisfaction of an old indebtedness to them, after the abstract of judgment had been recorded. Under our statutes, R.S. art. 5449, Vernon’s Ann.. Civ.St. art. 5449, the recording of an abstract of judgment creates a lien upon all of the debtor’s property within the-county from the time it is recorded' and indexed. Necessarily, such lien is superior to the rights of subsequent purchasers and lienholders, for otherwise it-would be of practically no value. 26 Tex. Jur. 395; Firebaugh v. Ward, 51 Tex., 409, 413; Estelle v. Hart, Tex.Com.App., 55 S.W.2d 510, par. 11. Therefore, under well-settled rules, the judgment debt- or could not defeat the statutory lien by such a conveyance to his creditors, after-the abstract of judgment had been recorded.

The second ground recited in the judgment is that there was a variance between the pleadings in the original suit in Harris county, where the judgment was obtained, and the terms. of the judgment that was rendered thereon. It was recited that the pleadings in the original suit declared on a note bearing eight per cent, whereas the judgment bore interest; after its date at ten per cent per annum.. We have ' not undertaken to determine-whether such a variance would render *977the judgment subject to collateral attack. It is sufficient to say that the pleadings in the original suit were not before the court upon the trial of this case. Such pleadings cannot be found either in the transcript or the statement of facts in this case. Since such pleadings were not before the court, there was no evidence of the alleged variance between the pleadings and the judgment rendered thereon in the original suit. Therefore, the judgment cannot be sustained on this ground.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause is remanded for a new trial.
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 Defense

###### Office of the Secretary

# SUMMARY:

The Defense Science Board Task Force on Logistics Transformation Phase II was held in closed session on November 15-16, 2000, at SAIC, 4001 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22203.

The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Technology on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At this meeting, the Task Force will review and evaluate DoD's progress on the transformation of the DoD logistics system. In addition, the Task Force will review future plans and programs to determine their compliance with the recommendations contained in the 1998 DSB report on DoD Logistics Transformation; determine the nature of barriers inhibiting the rapid transformation of the system, paying particular attention to technical, legal, and operational issues; and determining if any future implementation actions are required.

Due to critical mission requirements, there is insufficient time to provide timely notice required by Section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and Subsection 101-6.1015(b) of the GSA Final Rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, 41 CFR Part 101-6, which further requires publication at least 15 calendar days prior to the meeting of the Task Force on November 15-16, 2000.

Persons interested in further information should call Commander Brian D. Hughes, USN, at (703) 695-4157.

Dated: November 16, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00-29934  Filed 11-22-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
Case 3:22-cv-03282-C-BK Document 15 Filed 10/24/22 Page 1 of 1 PageID 53
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS****Chief Executive Officer’s Certification Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)**I, Michael K. Paulk, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of American Natural Energy Corporation;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:          (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries,is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;          (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controlsand procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and          (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small businessissuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred duringthe small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small businessissuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, thesmall business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal controlover financial reporting.     Date: January 7, 2008 /s/ Michael K. Paulk         Michael K. Paulk    President
1

Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance

Agenda

September 9, 2021

11:00 – 11:15 am Introduction & FIO Update

11:15 – 11:35 am Presentation and Discussion on Impact of Ransomware.

• Rahul Prabhakar, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Treasury’s Office 

of Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Protection

11:35 – 12:05 pm Discussion Led by the Subcommittee on COVID-19

12:05 – 12:20 pm Update from the Subcommittee on the Availability of Insurance 

Products

12:20 – 12:35 pm Update from the Subcommittee on FIO’s International Work

12:35 – 12:50 pm Update from the Protection Gap Subcommittee

12:50 – 12:55 pm New Business

1:00 pm Adjourn
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SITEL Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Jorge A. Celaya, Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ *Jorge  A. Celaya*                             |   |
|----------------------------------------------------|--------|
| **Jorge A. Celaya**                                |   |
| Executive Vice President, Chief Financial  Officer |   |
|                                               |   |
| November 9, 2005                              |   |
|                                                    |        |  |

 

----
#### SMITH v. STATE.

*No.*21440.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 12, 1941.

Fred O. Jaye, of De Leon, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austni, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is theft of sheep. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of three years.

There are no bills of exception in the record complaining of any matter of procedure. Consequently the only question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction.

The testimony shows that on or about the 20th day of March, 1940, Clyde Inches miss-' ed some sheep from his pasture. All of his sheep were branded with red paint on the hip. One of those which he lost was a ewe with a long tail, one was blade faced and one had a hump on his back like a camel. The officers located these sheep in East-land County in the possession of Tom Payne, who testified that on the 21st day of March, he purchased seven sheep from appellant for the sum of $2.50 each, or a total of $17.50. Clyde Inches positively identified the sheep which Payne had purchased from appellant as his sheep and carried them back home to Coryell County. Appellant did not testify or offer any affirmative defense.

We deem, the evidence sufficient tc sustain the jury’s conclusion of appellant’s guilt.

Finding no reversible error in the record, the judgment is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
# Official Journal L 48/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 48 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6525 February 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 48

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6525 February 2022

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/327 of 25 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Council Decision (CFSP) 2022/327 of 25 February 2022 amending Decision 2014/512/CFSP concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine

1

| EN | Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.
  The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk. |
| --- | --- |

EN

Acts whose titles are printed in light type are those relating to day-to-day management of agricultural matters, and are generally valid for a limited period.

The titles of all other Acts are printed in bold type and preceded by an asterisk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                           2,273
<SECURITIES>                                        22
<RECEIVABLES>                                    2,623<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,476
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,969
<PP&E>                                             468<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 107,187
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,764
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              263
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      65,856
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   107,187
<SALES>                                         21,620
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                21,620
<CGS>                                           18,968
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   18,968
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,489
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   173
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (35)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (947)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (947)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.08)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.08)
<FN>
<F1>AMOUNTS REPORTED FOR ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE AND PROPERTY PLANT & EQUIPMENT ARE
NET AMOUNTS.
</FN>


</TABLE>
4212-B East Capitol Street, NE

Washington, DC 20019

202-431-5180

Coordinating Housing with 
BACKGROUND
Overview of GreatSchools

MISSION: To help parents become more effectiv

education in their homes and commun

3

• • • • 
We provide online tools to help parents 

4

• Profiles on 

traditional pcharter and schools acr

• Over 900,00

and reviews 

• Reaches m

people each approximateAmerican faage children 

• GreatSchoo

reach is houusers that eper year
...build skills to help in their child’s educ

5

COLLEGE BOUND• Digital media program that 

engages parents in their children’s education

• Includes short lessons, 

community and resources (English and Spanish)

• Developed with leading 

experts

• Piloted by over 12 partners 

and more than 4,000 users

• Partners include KIPP, 

Rocketship Education, Los Angeles Unified School District and Univision Dallas
OBJECTIV

• Help u

find go

• Drive m

perform

• Fuel adFEATURES• Parent 

supporperson 

• Printed 

and oth

• Comm

reach oadditio

...and work on-the-ground in select c

6

GreatSchools created local programs to help low-income, low-literacy parents make good school choices – and to provide a laboratory for innovation for our national programs. Currently operating in DC, Milwaukee and now Indianapolis.
7

www.GreatSchools.o
Using GreatSchools.org to find s

8
...see what other parents are sa

9
...find additional resources

10

In infoGrprotopheactthelev
...and information for unique family 

11

• • • 
12

For More Information Please 

GreatSchools.org

Or Contact: 

Natanya Levioff, DC Program Director

nlevioff@greatschools.org

D.C. Office: 202.450.5278

Weezie Hough, Business Development Account E

lhough@greatschools.org

National Headquarters: 415.977.0700
United States District Court

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

AYASHA MIMS, Individually and on 

Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated 

§

§

§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-1437-S

v. §

§

RA SUSHI ADDISON CORP. §

ORDER

The parties have filed a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal with Prejudice [ECF No. 20]. The 

Clerk is directed to REOPEN this case to enable the dismissal of this case with prejudice pursuant 

to the parties’ Stipulation.

In light of the Stipulation, all claims that Plaintiff asserts, or could have asserted, against 

Defendant in this lawsuit are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Each party will bear 

their own attorney’s fees and costs. All relief not expressly granted is DENIED.

SO ORDERED. 

SIGNED September 20, 2023.

____________________________________

KAREN GREN SCHOLER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:22-cv-01437-S Document 21 Filed 09/20/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 65
AGENDA

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON INSURANCE

NOVEMBER 14, 2012

1:30-1:35 Chair Calls Meeting to Order

1:35-1:45 Opening Comments – Duperreault and McRaith

1:45-1:50 Approval of Minutes

1:50-2:10 Sandy/Flood Insurance

2:10-2:35 Subcommittee I Update

2:35-2:45 Break

2:45-3:10 Subcommittee II Update

3:10-3:35 Subcommittee III Update

3:35-4:00 IAIS Update (Comments Received on EU-US Insurance Dialogue Summary Report)

4:00-4:15 New Business/2013 Meeting Schedule

4:15 Adjournment
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 14

- 00112

- CR

TEVIN SHERARD ELLIOT T

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 54th District Court

McLennan County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2012

- 1543

- C2

ORDER

Tevin Sherard Elliott’s motion for rehearing is denied.

TOM GRAY

Chief Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Motion denied

Order issued and filed May 28, 2015
Brian Crozier 

UAS Integration Office 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Filed with www.regulations.gov 

September 7, 2015 

AkinGump 

STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 

GREGORY S. WALDEN 

+1 202.887.4213/fax: +1 202.887.4288 

gswalden@akingump.com 

Re: Re: Docket FAA 2014-0400, Petition for Amendment to Exemption No. 11150A 

to Conduct Cell Tower Inspections; Request for Expedited Handling 

Dear Mr. Crozier: 

This firm represents AeroCine Ventures Inc. (formerly AeroCine, LLC) which received FAA 

Exemption No. 11150 on January 23, 2015 to operate its unmanned aircraft system ("UAS") for 

purposes of capturing high definition feature film quality aerial cinematography. On April 29, 

2015, AeroCine received amended Exemption No. 11150A to operate the same UAS - the 

Kopterworx Hammer X12 for additional purposes, namely real estate photography and 

videography, agriculture, inspections of oil and gas facilities, flare stacks, and bridge 

infrastructure, wildlife preservation industries, and search and rescue operations. That amended 

Exemption also includes authority to operate two additional types of UASs -the DJI S 1000 and 

the Aerobo UAV, designed and manufactured by AeroCine - for the same purposes authorized 

in Exemption No. 11150, which AeroCine requested by petition dated March 9, 2015. 

Currently pending is a June 11, 2015 petition for an amendment to Exemption No. 11150A, by 

which AeroCine seeks to operate three additional types of UASs for the purposes listed above: 

(1) the on Phantom 3 and (2) the on Inspire 1; and (3) the Aerobo X12, and to revise several 

conditions and limitations set forth in Exemption No. 11150A. 

By this petition, AeroCine seeks to amend Exemption No. 11150A simply to authorize cell phone 

tower inspections, operating the DJJ SI 000 UAS, under the same conditions and limitations in 

Exemption No. 11150A. 

AeroCine also respectfully requests the FAA expedite its consideration of this petition to permit 

AeroCine to begin cell tower inspections no later than September 15, 2015, so that it may 

RobertS. Strauss Building 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. 1 Washington, D.C. 20036-1564 1 202.887.4000 I fax 202.887.4288 1 ak~ngump com 
Brian Crozier 

Federal Aviation Administration 

September 7, 2015 

Page 2 

AkinGump 

STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 

contemporaneously enter into a nationwide contract to perform such inspections. AeroCine is 

amenable to the FAA's postponing consideration of its June 11 petition for amendment and 

proceeding in summary fashion to process this petition to operate cell tower inspections. 

Thank you for your consideration ofthis petition.
Exhibit B-Notice of Related Case Page 1 of 2 

12120.49 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

THOMAS PIZZO,

Plaintiff,

v. 

HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., 

Defendant.

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§

Civil Action No. 4:22-CV-748 

NOTICE OF RELATED CASE

_____________________________________________________________________________

Comes now, Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., and files this Notice of Related Case in 

accordance with Local Rules 3.3 and 81.1(a)(3) and respectfully shows as follows: 

The style and civil action number of the related case is: Cause No. 3442-3344780-22 

styled Thomas Pizzo v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. in the 342nd Judicial District of Tarrant County, 

Texas.

The presiding judge of the related case is: Judge Kimberly Fitzpatrick

Status of the related case is: pending removal. 

This case has not been dismissed or remanded so no final judgement or order remanding 

the case has been entered. 

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Chad L. Farrar

By: Chad L. Farrar 

MULLIN HOARD & BROWN, L.L.P.

Chad L. Farrar, Texas Bar No. 00793716 

EXHIBIT B

Case 4:22-cv-00748-O Document 1-8 Filed 08/25/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID 28
Exhibit B-Notice of Related Case Page 2 of 2 

12120.49 

C. Brett Stecklein, Texas Bar No. 00794688

Katie P. Harrison, Texas Bar No. 24062767

2515 McKinney Ave., Suite 900

Dallas, Texas 75201

Telephone: (214) 754-0040

Facsimile: (214) 754-0043

cfarrar@mhba.com

bstecklein@mhba.com

kharrison@mhba.com

Attorneys for Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this the 25th day of August 2022, a true and correct 

copy of the foregoing was served by email and ECF addressed to: 

Via ECF & email

Edward S. Gaytan 

Charles M. Noteboom 

Noteboom – The Law Firm

669 Airport Freeway

Hurst, Texas 76053 

gaytan@noteboom.com 

/s/ Chad L. Farrar

Chad L. Farrar 

Case 4:22-cv-00748-O Document 1-8 Filed 08/25/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID 29