alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
The Schedule contains summary financial information extracted
from the financial statements for Cambridge Advantaged Proper-
ties II Limited Partnership and is qualified in its entirety by refer-
ence to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                          0000771996
<NAME> Cambridge Advantaged Properties II Limited Partner-
ship
<MULTIPLIER>                   1

<S>                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              MAR-25-2000
<PERIOD-START>                 MAR-26-1999
<PERIOD-END>                   JUN-25-1999
<CASH>                         1,441,267
<SECURITIES>                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                   0
<INVENTORY>                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               3,442,053
<PP&E>                         114,627,381
<DEPRECIATION>                 47,416,294
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                 74,044,083
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          16,239,787
<BONDS>                        89,760,273
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>          0
<PREFERRED>                    0
<COMMON>                       0
<OTHER-SE>                     (31,955,977)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   74,044,083
<SALES>                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>               4,373,277
<CGS>                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>               3,224,766
<LOSS-PROVISION>               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>             1,736,908
<INCOME-PRETAX>                (588,397)
<INCOME-TAX>                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            0
<DISCONTINUED>                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                0
<CHANGES>                      0
<NET-INCOME>                   (586,518)
<EPS-BASIC>                  (81)
<EPS-DILUTED>                  0



</TABLE>
NEY GENERAL. 

QFTEXAS 

Honorable William D. Pratt Opinion No. C-324 

County Attorney 

Palo Pinto County Re: Whether the word "or" 

Mineral Wells, Texas contained in Section 32 of 

Article 666, V.P.C., Is dlsDear Mr. Pratt: junctlve or-conjunctive. 

In your request you ask whether the word 'or' 

contained in Section 32 of Article 666, V.P.C., Is dlsjunctlve or conjunctive. 

The pertinent part of the Statute reads as follows: 

"No signature shall be counted unless the 

residence address of the signer is shown, or unless it Is signed exactly as the name of t= voter 

appears on the official copy of the current poll 

list or the official copy of the current list of 

exempt voters." (Emphasis Supplied) 

It is a familiar rule of statutory construction 

that words used by the Legislature in a statute are to.be 

given theirusual meaning, unless that meaning is shaded or 

changed by the manner in which they are used In the particular statute. 39 Tex.Jur. 194. 

Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition, defines "or": 

'A disjunctive particle used to express an 

alternat‘ive or to give a choice of one among two 

or more things . . .' (Bnphasis Supplied) 

Inits ordinary use, the term 'or" is disjunctive 

and alternative in Its effect. Unless there Is some impelling 

Geason apparent in the context, It should be given Its ordinary 

rathez Y than ___-_. a - cordunctlve _...v..--- -- meanlna. ~~..-.~~~~~~ _~ Oxsheer v. Watt, 91 Tex. 

402, 44 S.W. 67 (1898). There atg;irs no lmoellinn' reason in 

the context for giving the -word ..--- anv other,thaE its usual 

meaning. Moreover, the p: resence of theYword "unless" following 'or' In the statute iends weight to the disjunctive posltion as opposed to the aonjunctlve. 

-1545- 
Honorable William D. Pratt, Page 2:,(&32!+) .~ ': 

Webster's Dictionary defines "unless" as meaning 

any case other than", "except that", "exaeDt when." 

"in 

This would 

further indicate that the second re&lsite-phrase in the statute was intended by the Legislature as an alternative. 

SUMMARY 

The word "or" in Section 32 of Article 

666, V.P.C., is used in the disjunctive', not 

the conjunctive. 

Respectfully submitted, 

WAQQONER CARR 

Attorney General of Texas 

BSC/lh 

APPROVED: 

OPINION COMMITTEE 

W., V. 'Qeppert, Chairman 

Joe Long 

Jqnes Stroak 

Pat Bailey 

Jack Goodman 

By: 

APPROVED FOR THE ATTORNEY QENBRAL 

BY: Roger Tyler 

-1546-
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2927 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2927

     To strengthen Inspector General audits and investigations by 
               streamlining computer matching agreements.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 13, 2014

  Mr. Coburn introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To strengthen Inspector General audits and investigations by 
               streamlining computer matching agreements.

    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 ``Inspectors General Streamlining 
Act''.

SEC. 2. COMPUTER MATCHING AGREEMENTS.

    Section 6 of the Inspector General Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
    ``(g)(1) In this subsection, the terms `agency', `matching 
program', and `record' have the meanings given those terms in section 
552a(a) of title 5, United States Code.
    ``(2) In addition to the authority otherwise provided by this Act, 
each Inspector General, in conducting an audit, investigation, 
inspection, evaluation, or other review authorized under this Act, may 
compare any records with other records or non-Federal records.
    ``(3) For purposes of section 552a of title 5, United States Code, 
or any other provision of law, a comparison of records with other 
records or non-Federal records performed by an Inspector General or by 
an agency participating with an Inspector General under the authority 
described in paragraph (2) shall not be considered a `matching 
program'.''.
                                 <all>
```
# News

## U.S. Air Force LogoUnited States Air Force

# Esper thanks Diversity, Inclusion Board for tackling tough subjects

              - Published  July 15, 2020
              -                             By Jim Garamone                                                         ** 
              - Department of Defense News

**WASHINGTON (AFNS) --  **
At its first meeting July 15, the Defense Department's Board on Diversity and Inclusion pledged to rid the department of systemic discrimination.Defense Secretary Dr. Mark T. Esper chartered the board in response to the larger, national conversation on racism and diversity.Esper said George Floyd's death personally served as a reminder of the racial injustice, bias and prejudice that continues to afflict the United States. "We must continue to do our best to recognize this, to confront it, and to eradicate prejudice and bias and discrimination, because we know we are a reflection of the society that we come from and that we have sworn an oath to protect and defend," he told the board just after signing their charter.The board will meet every other week and is chaired by **Secretary of the Air Force Barbara Barrett**.The board's charter looks to smash systemic racism and discrimination in any form. "Diversity is more than tolerance," Barrett said. "Genuine diversity generates acceptance. This board's mandate is to move forward with alacrity and positively transform the Defense Department for today's service members and for generations to come."The board seeks to inculcate a culture of inclusivity.In addition to Barrett, the board includes **Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman Ramón "CZ" Colón-López**, **Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Matthew Donovan**, as well as officer and enlisted personnel of the services. The SEAC has joined Esper on a number of trips in the United States to begin the conversation in the force on diversity and inclusion."We had very good discussions — very tough, very candid discussions," Esper said. "The SEAC and I have learned a number of things. One of the things is we don't have a toolkit, a lexicon by which we discuss issues of race and prejudice and bias. It's very uncomfortable to even begin the discussion." Yet the conversations have begun, and will continue, he said."This is very important, very historic, it's a chance for us to make a monumental ... and lasting change in ... how we deal with one another, how we treat one another, how we address diversity and inclusion, how we deal with race and bias and prejudice," Esper said. "At the end of the day, it's all about building a more cohesive, a more ready and more capable force in defense of our Constitution and our fellow Americans."

AFWNUSAFAFAir ForceSecAFSecretary of the Air ForceSecretary of Defense Mark EsperBoard on Diversitysystemic discriminationcultureinclusivityOne Air ForceacceptanceTomorrow’s Air Force
DENY; and Opinion Filed May 19 , 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05
- 14
- 00584
- CV IN RE DIXIE FRANKLIN , Relator Original Proceeding from the 301st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF
- 09
- 07141
- T 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Bridges, Lang

- Miers, and Myers Opinion by Justice Lang

- Miers Relator files this petition for writ of mandamus, seeking relief from the tri al court’s May 5, 2014 temporary orders. The facts and issues are well known to the parties, so we need not recount them herein. Both the Rule 52.3(j) and 52.3(k) certifications of the petition for writ of mandamus and the appendix are defective. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(j), (k). The rule 52.3(j) certification must include the statement that the person filing the petition “has reviewed the petition and concluded that every factual statement is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or recor d.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.3(j). The crucial element missing in the rule 52.3(j) certification of this petition is the certification as to the competence of the evidence supporting the petition for writ of mandamus. The rule 52.3(k) certification of the ap pendix is defective because the attached documents are not certified copies and relator’s counsel only swears that the documents are true and correct copies “to the best of my knowledge and ability” and “to the best of my knowledge.” To be a– 2

– sworn copy, d ocuments must be attached to a proper affidavit. Republic Nat’ l Leasing Corp. v. Schindler , 717 S.W.2d 606, 607 (Tex. 1986) (per curiam). An affidavit must affirmatively show it is based on the personal knowledge of the affiant. Brownlee v. Brownlee , 665 S.W.2d 111, 112 (Tex. 1984). An affidavit under Rule 52.3(k) must “positively and unqualifiedly represent the ‘facts’ as disclosed to be true and within the affiant's personal knowledge.” In re Butler , 270 S.W.3d 757, 759 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 2008, orig. pr oceeding) (citing Brownlee , 665 S.W.2d at 112). As in Butler, in this case the affiant does not s wear to personal knowledge the copy of the documents in the appendix are correct copies of the originals. Rather, she equivocates “to the best of my knowledge, ” and “to the bes t of my knowledge and ability.” Both of these statements imply less than personal knowledge and do not meet th e requirements of r ule 52.3(k). See Butler , 270 S.W.3d at 759; Brownlee , 665 S.W.2d at 112. Because the appendix is deficient under rule 52.3(k), the mandamus record is also deficient under rule 52.7. T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 52.7 (relator must file a record containing “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to the relator’s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding”). Because we conclude relators’ petition and record are not authenticated as required by the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus.

140584F.P05 /Elizabeth Lang

- Mi ers/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: ABMS scale-up, C-130J base selections, and E-SportsPublished Jan. 1, 2021
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Eric Mann
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)   --**
                This week’s look around the Air Force highlights the Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office as they work to speed development of the Advanced Battle Management System, the Air Force selects four new C-130J locations, and the Air Force Services Center launches an E-Sports program aimed at inclusiveness, resilience, and mental well-being. (Produced by Tech. Sgt. Eric Mann)





For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:
- Air and Space Force’s acquisition chief appoints Rapid Capabilities Office as integrating PEO for ABMS
- Air Force Selects next C-130J locations
- AF Services Center debuts Air Force GamingFeatured Video 



AFTV 



ATAF 



Around the Air Force 



Air Force 



AF 



USAF 



LR 



Louisville ANG 



McLaughlin ANG 



C-130J Super Hercules 



C-130H 



Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base 



Savannah ANG 



Air National Guard 



ANG 



AFWN 



ABMS 



Advanced Battle Management System 



Dr. Will Roper 



acquisition 



Rapid Capabilities Office 



Iot.mil 



internet of military things 



Onramps 



Programs Executive Office 



PEO 



Air Force Gaming 



E-gaming 



Air Force Services Center 



AFSC 



AFIMSC 



AFGSC 



resiliency 



retention 



Dyess AFB
[No. 45071-9-I.

Division One.

April 17, 2000.]

#### Future Shop, Inc., *Appellant,*v. Bruce M. Blume, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 99-2-16034-7, Larry Jordan, J., entered July 28, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 175 (Friday, September 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 55329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22700]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Notice

September 3, 2010.

TIME AND DATE:  10 a.m., Thursday, September 16, 2010.

PLACE:  The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, 9th Floor, 601 New Jersey 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC.

STATUS:  Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  The Commission will consider and act upon 
the following in open session: Secretary of Labor v. Dynamic Energy, 
Inc., Docket No. WEVA 2007-448-R. (Issues include whether the 
administrative law judge properly found a violation of 30 CFR 
77.1607(b), which requires mobile equipment operators to have ``full 
control'' of their equipment while it is in motion.)
    Any person attending this meeting who requires special 
accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 
interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. 
Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and Sec.  2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFO:  Jean Ellen, (202) 434-9950/(202) 708-
9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

Jean H. Ellen,
Chief Docket Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2010-22700 Filed 9-8-10; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 6735-01-P
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to

Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18
U.S.C. 1350)

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2012 (the
Report) of FS Investment Corporation II (the Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Michael C. Forman, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify, to
the best of my knowledge, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



/s/ MICHAEL C. FORMANName:

Michael C. FormanDate:

March 26, 2013
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2984 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2984

  To modify the definition of cotton futures contracts in the United 
                       States Cotton Futures Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            December 4, 2014

 Mr. Chambliss introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To modify the definition of cotton futures contracts in the United 
                       States Cotton Futures Act.

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

SECTION 1. COTTON FUTURES CONTRACTS.

    Section 1952(c) of the United States Cotton Futures Act (7 U.S.C. 
15B(c)) is amended by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the 
following:
            ``(1) Cotton futures contract.--The term `cotton futures 
        contract' means any contract of sale of cotton for future 
        delivery made at, on, or in any exchange, board of trade, or 
        similar institution or place of business which has been 
        designated a `contract market' by the Commodity Futures Trading 
        Commission pursuant to the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 
        et seq.) and the term `contract of sale' as so used shall be 
        held to include sales, agreements of sale, and agreements to 
        sell, except that--
                    ``(A) any cotton futures contract that, by its 
                terms, is settled in cash is excluded from the coverage 
                of this paragraph and section; and
                    ``(B) any cotton futures contract that permits 
                tender of cotton grown outside of the United States is 
                excluded from the coverage of this paragraph and 
                section to the extent that the cotton grown outside of 
                the United States is tendered for delivery under the 
                cotton futures contract.''.
                                 <all>
```
[No. 24131-5-II.

Division Two.

April 14, 2000.]

#### Christopher Russell, *Appellant,*v. Kitsap County Sheriff’s Department, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 96-2-11472-9, Vicki L. Hogan, J., entered November 6, 1998. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Seinfeld, J., concurred in by Hunt, A.C.J., and Morgan, J.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2785 

To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to publish a health advisory and submit reports with respect to microcystins 

in drinking water. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 10, 2014 

Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. PORTMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 

Agency to publish a health advisory and submit reports 

with respect to microcystins in drinking water. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safe and Secure 

5 Drinking Water Protection Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. MICROCYSTINS IN DRINKING WATER. 

7 (a) HEALTH ADVISORY.—Not later than 180 days 

8 after the date of enactment of this Act, the Administrator 

9 of the Environmental Protection Agency (referred to in 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2785 IS

1 this Act as the ‘‘Administrator’’) shall develop and publish 

2 a health advisory including recommendations on— 

3 (1)(A) the level of microcystins in drinking 

4 water below which the water is expected to be safe 

5 for human consumption; and 

6 (B) feasible treatment techniques and other 

7 means for achieving that level; and 

8 (2) standardized procedures for testing for 

9 microcystins in drinking water. 

10 (b) REPORTS.—Not later than 180 days after the 

11 date of enactment of this Act, and each year thereafter, 

12 the Administrator shall submit to Congress a report that 

13 includes— 

14 (1) a description of the status of the efforts of 

15 the Administrator to determine whether to regulate 

16 drinking water with respect to the level of 

17 microcystins; 

18 (2) a description of the steps taken by the Ad19 ministrator to promote testing of drinking water for 

20 microcystins in areas that have been affected by 

21 harmful algal blooms; and 

22 (3) an analysis of available treatment tech23 niques and other means for addressing microcystins 

24 in drinking water. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Opinion filed May 19, 2022



### In The 

# Eleventh Court of Appeals

_____ _

_____ 

### No. 11

- 2 2

- 00 0 74

- C V

_____ _

_____


### JANET BIEREG , Appellant

V.

LAUREL HERNANDEZ , Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court
Howard County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. C

- 6212

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

, Janet Biereg

, ha s filed in this court a motion to withdraw her
appeal. In the motion, Appellant states that she has voluntarily vacated the premises

that was at issue. She also states that Appellee is not opposed to the motion

. See

T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a) (1)

. Accordingly, we dismiss th is appeal.
Appellant’s motion is granted, and th e appeal is dismissed

.

May 19, 2022 PER CURIAM

Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J., Trotter , J., and W ill iams , J.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>             3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>         Oct-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>            May-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>              Jul-31-1998
<CASH>                         927013
<SECURITIES>                   393100
<RECEIVABLES>                  522970
<ALLOWANCES>                        0
<INVENTORY>                     23262
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              1524175
<PP&E>                        1650386
<DEPRECIATION>                 631850
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                3282671
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          315806
<BONDS>                             0
<COMMON>                        19430
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<OTHER-SE>                    2129255 
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  3282670                   
<SALES>                       1849100
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              2089555 
<CGS>                          190827
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 1926355
<OTHER-EXPENSES>              1474261
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              13803
<INCOME-PRETAX>                197255
<INCOME-TAX>                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>            197255
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                   197255
<EPS-PRIMARY>                     .05
<EPS-DILUTED>                     .05
        

</TABLE>