alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03

- 19

- 00814

- CV

Yevgenia Shockome, Appellant

v.

Robert Brendel, Barbara Trevino

- Kuvet, Stratos Apostolou, Mary F. Iverson, Randolph V. Gonzalez, Cary Street Partners, Riverstone Wealth Management , Kyle Coward, Beth Layman, First Clearing, Tara Randle, River Del Llano, Amber Vasquez Bode, Erin Lemaster, Noelle Davis, Timothy Shockome,

and Does 1 through 20, Appellee s

FROM THE 459TH DISTR ICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. D

- 1

- GN

- 19

- 003849 , THE HONO R ABL E DUSTIN M. HOWELL, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Yevgenia Shocko me has filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this

appeal. We gran t the motion and dismiss the appeal. S ee Tex. R. App. P. 42. 1(a).

________________ __________________________ Chari L. Kelly , Just ice

Before Justices Goodwin, K e lly, and Smith

Dismissed on Appellant ’ s Motion

Filed: F e bru ar y 6, 2020
#### John D. Field, Jr., administrator, plaintiff in error, vs. William P. Price, defendant in error.

"Where an equitable plea is filed to a common law suit, and a decree had in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff cannot, by bill, set the same aside, claiming that it was rendered in a court of law. The plaintiff, on the trial of the case, had the right and the opportunity to have availed himself of any legal or equitable claim which he then had as fully and completely as if the case had been pending in a court of equity, and if he failed or neglected to do so at the proper time, and in the proper manner, no one is to blame but himself. lie has had his day in court, and must now abide its judgment.

Equity. Judgments. Before Judge Knight. Lumpkin Superior Court. April Term, 1874.

For the facts of this case, see the decision.

Wier Boyd, for plaintiff in error. .

W. P. Price, for defendant.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This was a bill filed by the complainant against the defendant to set aside a judgment which had been obtained in the court below, and affirmed by the judgment of this court, *470with a prayer for injunction. On the hearing of the motion for an injunction the judge refused the same, and dismissed the complainant’s bill. Whereupon the complainant excepted. The main ground of equity alleged in the bill is, that the court below, in rendering its former judgment, and this court in affirming that judgment, misconstrued and misinterpreted the agreement on which that judgment was founded. The argument here is, that inasmuch as that judgment was rendered in a court of law, a court of equity has jurisdiction to review and set it aside. It is true that the suit was originally commenced in a court of law, but the defendant in that suit filed an equitable defense *thereto*under the rules and' practice of our courts, and obtained an equitable decree in his favor. The complainant, on the trial of that case, had the right and the opportunity to have availed himself of any legal or equitable claim which he then had as fully and completely as if the case had been pending in a court of equity, and if he failed or neglected to do so at the proper time, and in the proper manner, no one is to blame but himself. He lias had his day in court, and must now abide its judgment, the more especially as he alleges no legal or equitable ground for the interference of the court in his behalf. There was no error in the judgment of the court below on the allegations contained in the complainant’s bill.

Let the judgment of the court below be affirmed.
Human Factors Information System (HFIS)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

From 01/01/2007 to 12/31/2007Page 1 of 110/09/2008 15:22:58

2x N

Total 

N

Document Types: IR, LER IR/LER Category Analysis by Docket Report

N

Average for Se

Details Department Work Type 

Facility Name: South Texas 2 Docket (050- 00499)

Human-System Interface & Environmnt / IR173 - Physical conditions LTA H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 173 - Physical conditions LTA H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 

217

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Oversight / IR130 - Inadequate suprevision / command and control H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 

18

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Problem Identification & Resolution / IR140 - Problem not completely or accurately identified M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 143 - Tracking / trending LTA M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 

217

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Work Planning & Practices / IR183 - Pre-job activities LTA M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 185 - Procedural adherence LTA H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements D - Emergency Planning Q - Fire Protection 186 - Failure to take action / meet requirements M - Mechanical M - Maintenance / Repair 188 - Work practice or craft skill LTA H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 188 - Work practice or craft skill LTA H - Health Physics H - Health Physics 189 - Recognition of adverse condition / questioning attitude LTA M - Maintenance / Repair 

M - Mechanical

758

Number of Items for this Docket: 

Percent of Total for this Docket: 

Total Items for this Docket: 12
115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 37 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration relating to 

the Federal Acquisition Regulation. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the 
2 

•HJ 37 EH 

1 Department of Defense, the General Services Administra2 tion, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administra3 tion relating to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (pub4 lished at 81 Fed. Reg. 58562 (August 25, 2016)), and 

5 such rule shall have no force or effect. 

Passed the House of Representatives February 2, 

2017. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. J. RES. 37 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Department 

ulation. istration relating to the Federal Acquisition Regand the National Aeronautics and Space Adminof Defense, the General Services Administration,
Exhibit 99.4

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the
Annual Report (Form 40-F) of Stantec Inc. (the Company) of our audit reports dated February 23, 2012, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of the Company and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
reporting of the Company, included in the 2011 Financial Review Report to Shareholders of the Company.



|                  |  |                      
|----------------- |  | ---------------------
|                  |  | LOGO                 
|Edmonton, Canada  |  |                      
|February 23, 2012 |  | Chartered Accountants
RA-13-00963

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations, M-30

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Room W12-140, West Bldg. Ground Floor

Washington, DC 20590-0001

Subject:

Petition for Exemption from Title 14 Code of 

Federal Regulations Section 25.853(d) and Special 

Condition No. 25-370-SC

Model: 787 Series

Reference: Boeing Letter RA-13-00288, Petition for Exemption from Title 

14 Code of Federal Regulations Section 25.853(d) and Special 

Condition No. 25-370-SC, dated January 29, 2013 

This letter submits:

(X) Petition for Exemption

The Boeing Company respectfully submits the enclosed Petition for Exemption from Title 14 Code 

of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 25.853(d) and Special Condition No. 25-370-SC, Boeing 

Model 787 Series Airplanes. The enclosed provides the details of the petition in accordance with 14 

CFR Section 11.81. 

This petition for exemption is similar to the, above, referenced petition, but requests applicability to 

the entire Boeing Model 787 series, rather than the applicability to the Boeing Model 787-9 only. 

Timely cooperation with this matter is greatly appreciated.
Docket Operations

RA-13-00963

Page 2

Please contact this office or the following individuals if you have further questions:

Project Administrator (PA): Reza Tavakoli at (425) 717-1170

Prospective Project Administrator (PPA): JR Brownell at (425) 266-4539

BCA Regulatory Administration 787 Program Manager: Tim Dowling at (425) 717- 8574

Sincerely,

Douglas M. Lane

ODA Deputy Lead Administrator

(425) 237-1383, MC 03-52

FAX: (425) 294-9340

Enclosure: Petition for Exemption from Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations

 Section 25.853(d) and Special Condition No. 25-370-SC

cc:

Name Sharepoint Comments

J. Voytilla Yes BASOO Program Manager 6Y-01

J. Gardlin Yes Transport Airplane Directorate
BCA Sign Off Sheet

RA-13-00963 File No.: PS12-0937

Subject: Petition for Exemption from 

Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations 

Section 25.853(d) and Special Condition 

No. 25-370-SC

__ Project Initiation and Application

__ Cert Basis

__ Cert Plan

__ Compliance

__ Misc

__ Ref Material

A/P Model (s): 787-9

8100-9/8110-3s Enclosed: No

ITAR/EAR No

Response Requested: N/A

RA Project No.: PS12-0937

EASA Project No.: N/A

TS Project No.: N/A

C/S Reference(s): 787InteriorCertification13-006 Rev A

Home Org: B-T230

Date Stamp to RA:

Email Address

eliza.j.weber2 Steven.j.moss2

Pamela.E.Herbert Nicholas.a.smith2

kent.w.porter GRP 787 RA Delivery

GRP 787 Eng Ops Cert

Eric.L.Fisher

Prepared By

Approved by

PA

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: 

Standard Flow: M-Days Was Short Flow 

Approved?

No

Impact Statement:

Response requested to support testing scheduled for .

Airplane Effectivity Supported: Customer VAA Effectivity ZB027

Project Administrator Name: Reza Tavakoli BASOO TPM: Shannon Lennon

Special Notes: 

Date READ 

ONLY

*For CDC Processing Only* M DAYS Initials

PDF PA-Proj SP WFM E-mail EDT CJ DCCS
`Exhibit      32.1






          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Karl F. Arleth, III, the Chief Executive Officer of Teton Petroleum Company
(the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that to the best of my
knowledge:

(1)      the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Company for the year ended
         December 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements
         of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15
         U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

(2)      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Teton Petroleum Company and will be retained by Teton Petroleum
Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.


Dated: April 21, 2004



                                              /s/ Karl F. Arleth
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Name: Karl F. Arleth
                                              Title: Chief Executive Officer`
THEATTORNEYGENERAI, 

0F TEXAS 

September 15, 1977 

Honorable Joe Resweber 

County Attorney 

Harris County Courthouse 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Opinion No. H-1054 

Re: Whether a sheriff or 

constable can recover the 

cost of postage incurred 

when service of citation is 

by mail. 

Dear Mr. Resweber: 

You have requested our opinion concerning whether a sheriff or constable can recover the cost of postage incurred when 

service of citation is by mail. 

Article 3933a, V.T.C.S., provides in part: 

Sheriffs and Constables shall receive the 

following fees: 

For each person, corporation or legal 

entity, on whom service of citation, subpoena, summons, or process not otherwise 

provided for, is performed and return 

made, including mileage, if any, a fee of 

(a) Small Claims Courts $4.00 

(b) All other Courts $8.00 

Rule 106, Tex. R. Civ. P., provides for personal service, 

substituted service, service by mail, "or in any other manner 

which will be reasonably effective to give the defendant notice 

of the suit." Rule 116, Tex. R. Civ. P., provides for citation 

by publication. In Cook v. Jones, 521 S.W.2d 335 (Tex. Civ. App. 

-- Dallas 1975, writ ref'd n.r.e.), the court stated in dicta 

that the sheriff or constable could normally recover the costs 

of publication "as he may charge a fee for serving other citations." 521 S.W.Zd at 338. Apparently the court viewed 

Rule 116 as providing for service not contemplated under article 3933a. However, article 3933a was clearly intended to 

apply to personal service, and service by mail is provided for 

by the same Rule 106. 

p. 4332 
Honorable Joe Resweber - Page 2 (H-1054) 

In Attorney General 

stated: 

Opinion S-87 (1953) at 2 this office 

Fee statutes are strictly construed and 

fees are not permitted by implication. 

Binford v. Robinson, 112 Tex. 86, 244 S.W. 

807 (1922); McCalla v. City of Rockdale, 

112 Tex. 209, 246 S.W. 654 (1922). 

In light of the general rule noted in S-87 and the provision 

for personal service and service by mail in the same rule, in 

our opinion article 3933a was intended to apply to service 

by mail. Accordingly, a sheriff or constable may receive only 

the fees specified in article 3933a for service of citation 

by mail; he may not recover the cost of postage. 

SUMMARY 

The fee for service of citation by mail 

is governed by article 3933a, V.T.C.S. A 

sheriff or constable may not recover the 

costs of postage in addition to the fees 

authorized by article 3933a. 

/ Attorney General of Texas 

APPROVED: 

Opinion Committee 

jst 

p. 4333
#### First National Bank & Trust Company of Racine, Guardian, Appellant, vs. Hardy and others, Respondents.

*December 7, 1937*

January *11, 1938.*

*460For the appellant there was a brief by *Hand & Quinn*of Racine, and oral argument by *E. B. Hand.*

*Thomas P. Hardy*of Racine, *in pro. per.,*and for the respondents.

Wickhem, J.

The jurisdiction of the trial court to relieve against the previous order confirming the sale in response to defendant’s petition must be found in sec. 269.46 (1), Stats., which provides as follows :

> “The court may, upon notice and just terms, at any time within one year after notice thereof, relieve a party from a judgment, order, stipulation or other proceeding against him obtained, through his mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable neglect and may supply an omission in any proceeding.”

That' the court assumed to act under this section is extremely*doubtful in view of the terms of the order appealed from. ' Had the order been grounded on mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or' excusable neglect, it seems unlikely that it would have been made conditional upon the performance by defendants of acts that have no relation to their obligations under the judgment of foreclosure. The purpose of the order, and its sole purpose, was either to enforce between the parties a legally unenforceable oral land contract, and this *461not according to its terms, or else to substitute for the statutory procedure on foreclosure one which was solely judicial in creation. If this be the proper conclusion, the court had no jurisdiction to make the order. If not, the order must be reversed for the reason that the relief granted was wholly beyond the power of the court to give. Having set aside the order of confirmation, the court could do no more than to leave defendant at such point in the process of foreclosure as he would have been had the order so set aside never been made. The court had no power to enforce an oral land contract between the parties if such a contract was in fact made, and much less could the court enforce, as here, an oral understanding different from that alleged to have been made. The latter observation is made in view of the fact that defendant claimed the agreement to be that he was to pay $1,000 down and receive a land contract covering the balance due. Neither could the court vary by such an order the statutory method of foreclosure and compel plaintiff to accept a sum in redemption less than that due under the foreclosure judgment. Since the conditions attached to the order make it evident that the confirmation was set aside solely for the purpose of granting this relief, it follows that the entire order must be reversed.

*By the Court.*

Order reversed, and cause remanded with directions to set aside and vacate the order appealed from.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Super Garuda Shield 2022 Showcases Multinational Partnership and Joint Interoperability

Combined Joint Information Bureau 7th Infantry Division Public Affairs

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 230 (Friday, November 29, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 94782]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-27922]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

POSTAL SERVICE

Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: November 29, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
November 19, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a 
USPS Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 764 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-456, K2025-453.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-27922 Filed 11-27-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
```
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 140 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 140

To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify 
    those classes of individuals born in the United States who are 
         nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2017

Mr. King of Iowa (for himself, Mr. Duncan of South Carolina, Mr. Gosar, 
Mr. Gohmert, Mr. Jones, Mr. Smith of Texas, Mr. Brooks of Alabama, Mr. 
Babin, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Barletta, Mr. Rohrabacher, and Mr. Woodall) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
                             the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify 
    those classes of individuals born in the United States who are 
         nationals and citizens of the United States at birth.

    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 ``Birthright Citizenship Act of 
2017''.

SEC. 2. CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH FOR CERTAIN PERSONS BORN IN THE UNITED 
              STATES.

    (a) In General.--Section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(8 U.S.C. 1401) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``The 
        following'';
            (2) by redesignating subsections (a) through (h) as 
        paragraphs (1) through (8), respectively; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following:
    ``(b) Definition.--Acknowledging the right of birthright 
citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th amendment to the 
Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered 
`subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States for purposes of 
subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of 
parents, one of whom is--
            ``(1) a citizen or national of the United States;
            ``(2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in 
        the United States whose residence is in the United States; or
            ``(3) an alien performing active service in the armed 
        forces (as defined in section 101 of title 10, United States 
        Code).''.
    (b) Applicability.--The amendment made by subsection (a)(3) shall 
not be construed to affect the citizenship or nationality status of any 
person born before the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```