alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Ex parte HILL.

No. 19688.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 23, 1938.

J. E. Greer, of San Antonio, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

This is an appeal from an order of the judge of the district court of the Forty-Fifth judicial district of Texas, declining to discharge appellant from the custody of the Bexar County School for Girls. Appellant is detained there by virtue of an order of Hon. Everett Johnson, judge of the Fifty-Seventh judicial district of Texas, made upon the petition of Mimi Koester, assistant probation officer in and for Bexar county. Said officer alleged in the petition that the appellant, Dorothy Hill, was a dependent or neglected child under 16 years of age. On the 20th day of August, 1936, upon a hearing thereof, said judge found that appellant was a dependent or neglected child and ordered her turned over to the care and custody of the above-mentioned school. Thereafter, on the 17th day of January, 1938, the judge of the first-named court, upon a hearing of a writ of habeas corpus, declined to discharge her. From said order, defendant has prosecuted her appeal to this court.

The original proceeding was instituted tender article 3257, R.C.S. of Texas. Hence, an appeal, if any, from the original order, should have been to the Civil and not to the Court of Criminal Appeals of this state.

Wherever the matter of confinement grows out of a civil proceeding and appellant appeals, this court will decline to entertain the appeal by reason of the comity between this court and the civil courts. If appellant had been charged as a delinquent child and proceeded against as provided by articles 1083, 1084, and 1085, C.C.P., this court would have exclusive jurisdiction. Such, however, is not the case.

The appeal is dismissed.

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.
Order entered March 11, 2013

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-12-00903-CV

EVAN LANE (VAN) SHAW, Appellant

V.

D. BRENT LEMON, Appellee

On Appeal from the 14th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 07-01451

ORDER

The Court has before it appellant’s March 7, 2013 unopposed and verified motion for 

forty-five day extension of time to file reply and cross-appellee brief. The Court GRANTS the 

motion and ORDERS appellant to file any reply and cross-appellee brief by April 22, 2013.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
```

CONFIRMING STATEMENT

    This statement confirms that the undersigned, Michele Kawiecki, has authorized and designated, Jennifer Mainord, Deanna Brass or Rhonda Bost, to execute and file on the undersignedTMs behalf, all Form 3, 4, and 5 (including amendments thereto) that the undersigned may be required to file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as a result of the undersignedTMs ownership of or transactions in securities of First Merchants Corporation.  The authority of Jennifer Mainord, Deanna Brass or Rhonda Bost under this statement shall continue until the undersigned is no longer required to file Form 3, 4, and 5 with regard to the undersigned ownership or transactions in securities of First Merchants Corporation, unless earlier revoked in writing.  The undersigned acknowledges Jennifer Mainord, Deanna Brass or Rhonda Bost are not assuming any of the undersignedTMs responsibilities to comply with Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

                        __/s/ Michele Kawiecki______
                        Michele Kawiecki

Date: March 3, 2015
```
#### MOORE COMMON SCHOOL DIST. NO. 2 OF FRIO COUNTY et al. v. FRIO COUNTY BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES et al.

No. 3319.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. El Paso.

Jan. 23, 1936.

*289Dodson & Ezell and Chas. W. Duke, all of San Antonio, for appellants.

H. D. Barrow, of Jourdanton, for appel-lees.

HIGGINS, Justice.

This is a controversy between Moore common school district No. 2, of Frio county, and its board of trustees on the one side and J. O. Jones on the other.

On March 3,1934, by written contract two of the members of the board of trustees of the common school district by written contract employed Jones to teach the ensuing 1934-35 school term. Later, the personnel of the board changed and the board made another contract with W. G. Morris to teach in the place of Jones.

Upon trial without a jury, judgment was rendered in favor of Jones at the contract rate of compensation and warrant to cover ordered issued.

The judgment is erroneous for two reasons :

 1. The contract upon which Jones relies was never approved by the county superintendent as required by articles 2693 and 2750, R.S. Without such approval no recovery upon the contract can be had. Ratcliff v. Buna Independent School District (Tex.Civ.App.) 46 S.W.(2d) 459, and cases there cited. The letter of the county superintendent to the county board of education, which is relied upon by Jones as evidencing the superintendent’s approval, cannot be so regarded. In approving or disapproving a teacher’s contract, the superintendent is exercising a judicial discretion vested in him. Vanlandingham v. Hill (Tex.Civ.App.) 47 S.W.(2d) 641.

The letter mentioned simply expressed the opinion of the superintendent that the contract between Jones and the trustees was valid and binding, but ‘such opinion did not imply that the superintendent approved same. No particular form of approval is necessary, but it should be reasonably sufficient to show that the contract has the superintendent’s approval. The letter relied upon does not so show.

2. But conceding that the contract was approved by the county superintendent, nevertheless the trustees of the district had power to dismiss Jones. Article 2749, R.S. When the term commenced, Jones presented himself at the school for the purpose of teaching. He was not permitted to do so. This constituted a dismissal. He had the right to appeal from such dismissal to the county and state superintendents (article 2749 R.S.), but did not do so. His dismissal, therefore, became effective and valid.. The appeals which Jones did prosecute, appearing in the record, were not from the action of the trustees in dismissing him from his position a's teacher. They in nowise operate to relieve him of the consequences attaching to his failure to appeal from the action of the board of trustees in discharging him.

For the reasons stated, the judgment in favor of Jones is erroneous. It is reversed and here rendered in appellants’ favor.
Presidential Documents

77753 

Federal Register 

Vol. 89, No. 185 

Tuesday, September 24, 2024 

Title 3— 

The President 

Memorandum of September 6, 2024 

Delegation of Authority Under Section 506(a)(1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 

Memorandum for the Secretary of State 

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the 

laws of the United States of America, including section 621 of the Foreign 

Assistance Act of 1961 (FAA), I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State 

the authority under section 506(a)(1) of the FAA to direct the drawdown 

of up to $250 million in defense articles and services of the Department 

of Defense, and military education and training, to provide assistance to 

Ukraine and to make the determinations required under such section to 

direct such a drawdown. 

You are authorized and directed to publish this memorandum in the Federal 

Register. 

THE WHITE HOUSE, 

Washington, September 6, 2024 

[FR Doc. 2024–21942 

Filed 9–23–24; 8:45 am] 

Billing code 4710–10–P 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with FR_PREZDOC0BIDEN.EPS</GPH>
# C_2023004EN.01000701.xml

| 6.1.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 4/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

6.1.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 4/7

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10874 – DSM / FONTERRA / TASMAN)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2023/C 4/07)

On 20 December 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10874. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10874. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
# Official Journal L 339/2022

| | ISSN 1977-0677 |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 339 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 6530 December 2022 |

ISSN 1977-0677

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 339

English edition

Legislation

Volume 6530 December 2022

---

| Contents | | II   Non-legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2553 of 21 September 2022 amending the regulatory technical standards laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/815 as regards the 2022 update of the taxonomy for the single electronic reporting format (
  1
  ) | 1 |

Contents

II   Non-legislative acts

page

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2022/2553 of 21 September 2022 amending the regulatory technical standards laid down in Delegated Regulation (EU) 2019/815 as regards the 2022 update of the taxonomy for the single electronic reporting format (
  1
  )

1

1

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance. |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance.

| 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>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
Note:  This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Form 10-K for the Year Ended December 31, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>  0001029307
<NAME>  Account Portfolios Inc
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          23,979
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   27,730
<ALLOWANCES>                                       538
<INVENTORY>                                     42,915
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                96,205
<PP&E>                                          44,695
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,132
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 381,690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           77,647
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     11,699
<COMMON>                                            53
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   381,690
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               271,683
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  290,102
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              28,791
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (47,210)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    11,127
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (58,337)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (58,337)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
v / 2023663675 LincOSTWSS 310 OS 56 01 o m 

JIM MATHESON 

ZwDnacT.UiM) 

hlto:/teothtminJtpu».ww 

Consre£(sf of tfie iHniteb &tate£( . 

ilousfe of 3£Uprdrentatft)£fr 

tiaa^fnston, SC 20515-4402 

August 27,2010-

ENERaV AND COMMERCE 

C0UMITTS6 

sincQMlcrTTUS; 

H(MJH 

Encrav u o Aia OiMunr 

CM»ttta,TWOI«fd> 

coMwia Ptwurwn 

SOENCEcoMMnre AND TeCHNOLOO e V 

The Honorable Ray LaHood 

Seor«taiy 

U.S. Dcfjartment of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave. SB 

Washington D.C. 20590-0001 

Dear Secretary LaHood. 

— t 

r o 

> 

o 

CO 

r n -

:3D: !rn 

Co 

I am writing in support of the grant application filed by the City of St George for the sWi! 

Community Air Service Development (SCASD) grant program. 

Currently, the St George Municipal Airport only provides nonstop service by SkyWest to Salt 

Lake City with a 33 seat EMB-120 aircraft A new replacement airport is imder construction and 

schedul^ for completion in January 2011. Recent studies show an increased need for access to 

and &om St. George plus a strong local demand for air service to Los Angeles, Denver, Phoenix, 

San Francisco, arid Dallas. Community leaders are actively recruiting additional air service 

providers for the new aiiport, however most airlines are seeking incentives to begin operations in 

St George. 

It is toy understanding that the SCASD funding, if successful, will aid in rccniitment efforts by 

providing marketing fbnds and possible revenue guarantees for airlines expanding or starting 

new service from the St George Airport 

As you develop priorities for the use of the SCASD funding, I hope you will give the City of St 

George's application every appropriate consideratioiL 

Thank you again for your consideration of this request Please do not hesitate to contact Kristen 

Lingley of my staff at 202-225-3011 with any questions you have regarding this matter. 

SinceFely, 

m 4 MATHESON 

Member of Congress 

24S« (bnuw^fitM^^ ^ OinpM 

WMwaror, DC 20ftt B<4402 

(WM : 00 9 33(4011 

U1IU0 

2401>W MMOAvMKin w Sound «23S 

So<niSttTUiLUrS411B 

naclB0i}4as*i2aa 

Ru!{001)48S'14l7 

tfiUUm UUH fl(BC& 

aitHambUuDowiHIOI B 

ewrORmcU T 84700 

nocHanen-CBBo 

Fun (435) 627-1473 

ncMTtD ON HCVCiCO fWOI
#### HOOPER et al. v. STATE.

Mo. 16947.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 17, 1934.

W. Van Sickle, of Alpine, and W. C. Austin, of Fort Worth, for appellants.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

This is an appeal from a final judgment upon the forfeiture of a bail bond.

There are no briefs filed in this court and it is not made to appear from the record that any were filed by the appellants in the trial court, and no waiver of the filing of such briefs appears from the record. Under kuch conditions this court is required to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. It is the uniform holding of this court that in cases such as this briefs must be filed in the trial court and in this court in compliance with law and the rules governing civil eases, or a waiver of such filing must appear of record. Article 2283, R. C. S. 1925; Article 866, C. C. P. Lewis et al. v. State, 100 Tex. Cr. R. 661, 7 S.W.(2d) 74.

*275It Is therefore ordered that the appeal in this case be and the same is dismissed.

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.
# C_2022412EN.01001801.xml

| 27.10.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 412/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.10.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 412/18

---

Corrigendum to Communication from the Commission concerning Council Regulation (Euratom) No 1493/93 on shipments of radioactive substances between Member States

(
  Official Journal of the European Union C 288 of 29 July 2022
  )

(2022/C 412/13)

On page 1, ‘Belgium’:

for:

| ’Rue Ravensteinstraat 36 |
| --- |
| 1000 Brussels’, |

’Rue Ravensteinstraat 36

1000 Brussels’,

read:

| ‘Rue du Marquis/Markiesstraat 1 |
| --- |
| Boîte/bus 6 A |
| 1000 Bruxelles/Brussel’; |

‘Rue du Marquis/Markiesstraat 1

Boîte/bus 6 A

1000 Bruxelles/Brussel’;

on page 2, ‘Finland’:

for:

| ‘P.O. Box 14 |
| --- |
| FI-00881 Helsinki’, |

‘P.O. Box 14

FI-00881 Helsinki’,

read:

| ‘Jokiniemenkuja 1 |
| --- |
| FI-01370 Vantaa’; |

‘Jokiniemenkuja 1

FI-01370 Vantaa’;

on page 3, ‘Poland’:

for:

‘Email: secretariat.dor@paa.gov.pl’,

read:

‘Email: sekretariat.dor@paa.gov.pl’.

---
NOTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________ GEORGE BEARDEN,
Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, Respondent

______________________

2024

- 1491

______________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No. DC

- 844E

- 21

- 0215

- I

- 2

.

______________________
O R D E R

The petitioner having failed to file the required Statement Concerning Discrimination, it is

ORDERED that the pe tition for review be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED, for failure to prosecute in Case: 24-1491 Document: 8 Page: 1 Filed: 03/22/2024B EARDEN V

. OPM 2

accordance with the rules.

FOR THE COURT

March 22, 2024 Date

ISSUED AS A MANDATE: March 22, 2024 Case: 24-1491 Document: 8 Page: 2 Filed: 03/22/2024
# Official Journal L 280/2011

| | ISSN 1977-0677
  doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2011.280.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | L 280 |
| | |
| English edition | Legislation | Volume 5427 October 2011 |

ISSN 1977-0677

doi:10.3000/19770677.L_2011.280.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

L 280

English edition

Legislation

Volume 5427 October 2011

---

| Contents | | I   Legislative acts | page |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| | | DECISIONS |
| | * | Decision No 1080/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 granting an EU guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan guarantees for projects outside the Union and repealing Decision No 633/2009/EC | 1 |

Contents

I   Legislative acts

page

DECISIONS

*

Decision No 1080/2011/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 granting an EU guarantee to the European Investment Bank against losses under loans and loan guarantees for projects outside the Union and repealing Decision No 633/2009/EC

1

| | | II   Non-legislative acts |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | | REGULATIONS |
| | * | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1081/2011 of 25 October 2011 amending for the 160th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network | 17 |
| | | Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1082/2011 of 26 October 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables | 19 |

II   Non-legislative acts

REGULATIONS

*

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1081/2011 of 25 October 2011 amending for the 160th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with the Al-Qaida network

17

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1082/2011 of 26 October 2011 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

19

| 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.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ )

OCEANA, INC., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

WILBUR L. ROSS

, United States )

Secretary of Commerce, et al

., ) Civil Action No. 0 8

- 1881 (PLF)

)

Defendant s, )

)

and )

)

FISHERIES

- SURVIVAL FUND

, )

)

Defendant

- Intervenor. )

___________________________________ _ )

O RDER

For the reasons set forth in the opinion issued this same day, it is hereby

ORDERED that this matter is REMANDED WITHOUT VACATUR to the

National Marine Fisheries Service for the limited purpose outlined in the accompanying opinion;

it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the par ties shall meet and confer in order to propose

a schedule by which the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) will address the

deficiencies identified in the accompanying opinion. On or before October 30, 2020 , the parties

shall file a joint status re port informing the Court whether they have reached agreement on a

proposed schedule. If the parties are not in agreement, they shall inform the Court of their

respective positions ; and it is2 FURTHER ORDERED that the NMFS shall file status reports updating the Court

on its formal consultation progress every sixty days.

SO ORDERED.

________ _____________ PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

United States District Judge

DAT E: October 1, 2020 /s/
Petition for Exemption 14 CFR 11.81 

Mr. Kevin Ingraham 

502 Valley Road

Cos Cob, CT 06807

Cell phone: (203) 536-1004

Email: Kevin.Ingraham44@gmail.com

I want the ability to operate my drone for what may be considered commercial purposes. As an 

active member of the volunteer fire department in my town we would like to use the UAS for 

situational awareness purposes. It can also be used in training and real time scene investigation. 

This use of the UAS would benefit the public as a whole protecting the lives of firefighters and 

civilians alike. A UAS can be used to observe a scene much faster than firefighters can put a 

ladder up on a roof. In addition on calls involving hazardous materials, the UAS can give 

firefighters information on the scene without endangering their lives in potentially hazardous or 

explosive situations.

The UAS would be operated at a safe distance. Limits would be placed on what individuals 

could operate said device and would require all necessary training to comport with FAA 

standards. 

Summary: 

The use of UAS at fire and accident scenes alike would help to limit the risk placed on 

firefighters and increase the response time where safety issues would ordinarily have to be 

mitigated prior to firefighter entry.