alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Richard Boaz v. E. S. Graham.

(No. 1154, Op. Book No. 3, p. 511.)

Appeal from Young County.

March 19, 1881.

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

§ 159. *Jurisdiction; forcible entry and detainer.*In a suit of forcible entry and detainer, where the justice rendered judgment for more than $200 damages, his judgment was void for the excess over that sum, and that sum having been paid by the defendant, an execution for the excess of the iudgment was perpetually enjoined.

Eeverséd and rendered.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5086]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     WORK TOGETHER TO SAVE MEDICARE

  (Mr. CHABOT asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. CHABOT. Mr. Speaker, let us go over it one more time. According 
to the President's own advisors, the Medicare Trust Fund will be 
bankrupt by the year 2002. Republicans have crafted a bill which will 
save Medicare.
  Let me refer to this chart. In doing so, we have proposed that 
Federal spending on Medicare increase from $178 to $258 billion. Let me 
repeat that. Medicare will go up under the Republican plan. And what is 
the Democrat Medicare plan? Are they working tirelessly to save a 
system that their own leaders maintain is going bankrupt? Not a chance.
  What they are doing is running, one after another, to the camera, the 
nearest camera, to proclaim that Republicans are cutting Medicare. It 
is not true.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my Democrat friends that the American 
people are not going to fall for their distortions. But they might 
help. I think the American people are going to wonder why the Democrats 
are not helping to save Medicare. Let us work together to save 
Medicare.

                          ____________________
```
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 Health and Human Services

###### Food and Drug Administration

          - 21 CFR Part 2
          - [Docket No. FDA-2006-N-0304] (formerly Docket No. 2006N-0262)
          - RIN 0910-AF93

# AGENCY:

Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

# ACTION:

Final rule; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is correcting a final rule that appeared in the                         **Federal Register**                         of April 14, 2010 (75 FR 19213). The document amended FDA's regulation on the use of ozone-depleting substances (ODSs) in self-pressurized containers to remove the essential-use designations for flunisolide, triamcinolone, metaproterenol, pirbuterol, albuterol and ipratropium in combination, cromolyn, and nedocromil used in oral pressurized metered-dose inhalers (MDIs). The document was published with an inadvertent error. This document corrects that error.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

 Diane Sullivan, Office of Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, rm. 3210, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-9171.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    In FR Doc. 2010-8467, appearing on page 19213, in the                     **Federal Register**                     of Wednesday, April 14, 2010, the following correction is made:                 

1. On page 19213, in the third column, the heading “RIN 0910-AF92” is corrected to read “RIN 0910-AF93”.

Dated: September 13, 2010.

David Dorsey,

Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Budget.

[FR Doc. 2010-23195 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S
EX-10.4



 Exhibit 10.4 

DIREXION SHARES ETF TRUST II 

FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE FUND ACCOUNTING SERVICING AGREEMENT 

THIS FIRST AMENDMENT, dated as of July 7, 2014, to the Fund Accounting Servicing Agreement dated as of January 28, 2014 (the
“Agreement”), is entered into by and among DIREXION SHARES ETF TRUST II, a Delaware statutory trust (the “Trust”), DIREXION ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC (the “Sponsor”) and U.S. BANCORP FUND SERVICES, LLC,
a Wisconsin limited liability company (“Fund Services”). 
 RECITALS 

WHEREAS, the parties have entered into the Agreement; and 

WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the preamble of the Agreement to delete the listing of each series under the Trust and to delete
Exhibit A; and 
 WHEREAS, Section 15 of the Agreement allows for its amendment by a written instrument executed by all parties.

 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree that Exhibit A, the listing of the Funds, is hereby deleted from the Agreement and the
first and fourth paragraphs of the preamble of the Agreement are hereby superseded and replaced by the following: 
 THIS AGREEMENT is
made and entered into as of this 28th day of January, 2014, by and among DIREXION SHARES ETF TRUST II, a Delaware statutory trust (the “Trust”) acting for and on behalf of each
series as are currently authorized and issued by the Trust or may be authorized and issued by the Trust subsequent to the date of this Agreement (each a “Fund” and collectively the “Funds”), DIREXION ASSET MANAGEMENT, LLC,
the sponsor of the Funds (“Sponsor”) and U.S. BANCORP FUND SERVICES, LLC, a Wisconsin limited liability company (“Fund Services”). 

WHEREAS, the Trust and Sponsor desire to retain Fund Services to provide fund accounting services to each Fund; 

Except to the extent amended hereby, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this First Amendment to be executed by a duly authorized officer on one or more
counterparts as of the day and year first written above. 
  

									
	DIREXION SHARES ETF TRUST II	 		 	U.S. BANCORP FUND SERVICES, LLC
					
	By:	 	 /s/ Patrick Rudnick
	 		 	By:	 	 /s/ Michael R. McVoy

	Name: Patrick Rudnick	 		 	Name: Michael R. McVoy
	Title: Chief Financial Officer	 		 	Title: Executive Vice President

 (signatures continued on the following page) 

  

					
	7/2014 – Direxion Shares ETF Trust II	  	1	  	










			
	DIREXION ASSET MANAGEMENT LLC
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Patrick Rudnick

	Name:	 	Patrick Rudnick
	Title:	 	Chief Financial Officer


  

					
	7/2014 – Direxion Shares ETF Trust II	  	2
[No. 18401-3-III.

Division Three.

April 13, 2000.]

#### Catherine Ann Ralston, et al., *Appellants,*v. Wells and Company, et al., *Respondents.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 97-2-06575-0, Kathleen M. O’Connor, J., entered April 7, 1999. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Sweeney, J., concurred in by Kurtz, C.J., and Kato, J.
Exhibit
32.2





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF


THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In
connection with the Quarterly Report of Document Security Systems, inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ending September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Philip Jones,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectfully certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:





The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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





Date:
November 15, 2010





/s/Philip JonesPhilip
      JonesChief
      Financial Officer





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Document Security Systems, Inc and will be retained by Document Security
Systems, Inc and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff upon request.
#### JAMES C. KOTZIAN v. DONALD E. BARR, JR.

April 18, 1978.

Cross-petition for certification denied. (See 152 *N. J. Super.*561).
#### IRENE ROMEO v. IRENE ROMEO, T/A CLUB 37.

Jan. 14, 1980.

Petition for certification granted.
#### PAUL T. ONDERDONK v. THE PRESBYTERIAN HOMES OF NEW JERSEY, INC.

Feb. 11, 1980.

Petition for certification granted. (See 171 *N.J.Super.*529)
#### G. L. Giersa v. J. D. Yocum.

(No. 2597, R. Book No. *4,*p. 282.)

Appeal from Grayson County.

April 14, 1883.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 310. *Judgment injustice's court final, when.*Where the judgment in the justice’s court was as follows: “ This cause came on for trial, and the plaintiff and defendant appeared by counsel. The court, after hearing the evidence in this case, gave judgment against the plaintiff for all costs of this suit, for which let execution issue,”— *held,*that the judgment was not a final judgment, and the county court did not err in dismissing the appeal.

In support of the finality of the judgment, counsel for appellant cite Clay v. Clay, 7 Tex. 250; Wahrenberger v. Horan, 18 Tex. 57, and Aycock v. Williams, 18 Tex. 392. It is to be remembered, however, that those decisions were upon the law as it aforetime was. There are new provisions in the Revised Statutes which provide the rule of practice. Art. 1613 provides that “the judgment shall be recorded at length in the justice’s docket, and shall be signed by the justice. It shall clearly state the determination of the rights of the parties in the subject matter of controversy and the party who shall pay the costs, and shall direct the issuance of such process as may be necesi sary to carry the judgment into execution.” Art. 1620 provides that “the rules governing the district and county courts in relation to judgments shall apply also to the justices’ courts in so far as they may not be in conflict with some provision of this title.” Applying these rules to the above judgment, and it is clear that it is not a final judgment. To have been a final judgment, it should have-clearly stated that the plaintiff should taire nothing by his suit against the defendant, and that the defendant should have and recover of the plaintiff the costs of the suit, etc. [Green v. Banks, 24 Tex. 525; Holt v. Wood, 23 Tex. 474; Martin v. Wade, 22 Tex. 224; McAlpin v. Bennett, 21 Tex. 535; Herndon v. Rice. 21 Tex. 456.]

Affirmed.
Exhibit 10.14

                             [LOGO OF CHAMPIONLYTE]

2999 NE 191st Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (561) 394-8881 Fax: (561) 394-8288

Mr. Andre Dawson
6770 SW 101st Street
Miami, FL 33156

Dear Mr. Dawson:

This  agreement,  dated May 20, 2003, is to serve as a letter of intent  between
ChampionLyte Beverages,  Inc. ("ChampionLyte" or "the Company") and Andre Dawson
("Dawson"), with respect to the personal service of Dawson.

Whereas  ChampionLyte wishes to retain Dawson, a retired  Professional  Baseball
Player,  to represent the  ChampionLyte  products,  the  following  outlines the
agreed terms of that agreement:

1.       SERVICES-  Dawson agrees to provide his  endorsement to  ChampionLyte's
         products  whereby  the  Company  may use  Dawson's  likeness,  voice or
         performance,  and  biographical  material  solely  for the  purpose  of
         advertising and promoting ChampionLyte's products. Any use of National
         Baseball League logos or trademarks, are strictly prohibited.

         Dawson   will  be   available  for  print,   radio,   and   television
         photography/video  sessions twice per year. Additionally,  ChampionLyte
         shall be entitled to a minimum of 6  promotional  days each year.  This
         would  include press  conferences,  major trade show  appearances,  and
         business  trips  to  promote  a major  sale,  as  well as any  consumer
         appearances. (This would include any autograph sessions, and time spent
         with winners of promotional events.)

         All scheduling of said appearances will be considerate of Dawson's time
         and  availability.  All advertising  material/media  and press releases
         will be cleared with Dawson or his agent prior to release. ChampionLyte
         will provide all  transportation  and lodging costs associated with any
         such travel.

2.       TERM- The duration of this agreement shall be a period of one year from
         the date  hereof.  It is also  understood  that for the duration of the
         said period,  Dawson will not engage in a similar arrangement involving
         any  parties,  companies  or products  considered  to be of a competing
         nature.

<Page>

3.       COMPENSATION-   In  consideration  of  the  obligations  set  forth  in
         paragraph 1,  ChampionLyte  agrees to pay Dawson  100,000  unrestricted
         common shares of ChampionLyte. The first payment of 50,OOO will be made
         within  seven days of the date of this  agreement.  The  second  50,000
         shall be issued on the six-month anniversary of the agreement.

If the following accurately sets forth your understanding, please sign below and
return.

CHAMPIONLYTE BEVERAGES, INC.

BY: /s/ David Goldberg
    -----------------------------------
PRINT:  DAVID GOLDBERG
      ---------------------------------
DATE:   5/20/03
      ---------------------------------


ANDRE DAWSON

BY: /s/ Andre Dawson
    -----------------------------------
PRINT:  ANDRE DAWSON
      ---------------------------------
DATE:   5/29/03
      ---------------------------------
#### GERALDINE HARDY v. OFFICE OF THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR, COUNTY OF BERGEN.

Dec. 20, 1979.

Petition for certification denied.
EXHIBIT 31.1





EUROSITE POWER INC.


CERTIFICATION





I, Elias Samaras, certify that:





|   |                                                                              
|-- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|1. | I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of EuroSite Power Inc.; and




|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;




Date: April 29, 2016





/s/ Elias Samaras


Elias Samaras


Chief Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

EX PARTE:

GERMAN DE JESUS RODRIGUEZ

DELGADO

,

Appellant. §

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 23

- 00200

- C R

Appeal from the

County Court

o f Kinney County, Texas

(TC# 11903CR )

J U D G M E N T

The Court, considering this cause as a petition for a writ of mandamus, remand s to the trial

court for it to consider German De Jesus Rodriguez

- Delgado ’s application for a pretrial writ of

habeas corpus on the merits in light of the Fourth Court of Appeals’ holding in Aparicio and its

progeny, and determine whether

— at the time Rodriguez

- Delgado was arrested and charged with

criminal trespass

— the State was applying the criminal trespass statute under Opera tion Lone Star

in an unconstitutional manner by selectively prosecuting males only, without justification.

We deny the petition for writ of mandamus without prejudice to Rodriguez

- Delgado ’s

ability to seek relief, if necessary, after the trial court has ha d an opportunity to reconsider its

ruling.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 30 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 20 2 3

.

L ISA J. SOTO , Justice

Before Palafox, and Soto, JJ., and Marion, C.J. (Ret.)

Marion, C.J., (Ret.) sitting by assignment
Order entered December 20, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00343-CV

COMMERCE STREET CAPITAL, LLC, Appellant

V.

DURANT BANCORP,INC., NAB ACQUISITION CORP., FIRST UNITED BANK &

TRUST COMPANY; NORTH AMERICAN BANCSHARES, INC. & AMERICAN BANK 

OF TEXAS, Appellees

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-16-14703

ORDER

On November 12, 2019, this Court, among other things, granted appellant’s October 31, 

2019 unopposed motion to withdraw its motion to increase security as prematurely filed. The 

Court ordered the premature motion withdrawn without prejudice to refiling. 

Now before the Court is appellant’s unopposed motion for clarification of the Court’s 

November 12, 2019 order in which appellant asks the Court to set a deadline for its brief and 

motion to increase security now that the Court has received the reporter’s and clerk’s record 

from the August 12, 2019 hearing. 

The proper method to seek review of a trial court’s ruling on a motion to increase security

is to file a motion under rule 24. See TEX. R. APP. P. 24.4(a). To the extent appellant asks the 
Court to clarify its November 12, 2019 order by setting a deadline to file a motion and brief

challenging the trial court’s order, we DENY its motion. 

/s/ DAVID L. BRIDGES 

PRESIDING JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 181 (Monday, September 20, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57274-57275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23374]


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

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE


Financial Management and Assurance; Government Auditing Standards

AGENCY: Government Accountability Office.

ACTION: Notice of document availability.

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

SUMMARY: On August 23, 2010, the U.S. Government Accountability Office 
(GAO) issued an exposure draft of

[[Page 57275]]

proposed revisions to Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS) (also known 
as the Yellow Book). To help ensure that the standards continue to meet 
the needs of the audit community and the public it serves, the Acting 
Comptroller General of the United States appointed the Advisory Council 
on Government Auditing Standards to review the standards and recommend 
necessary changes. The Advisory Council includes experts in financial 
and performance auditing drawn from all levels of government, private 
enterprise, public accounting, and academia. This exposure draft of the 
standards includes the Advisory Council's suggestions for proposed 
changes. We are currently requesting public comments on the proposed 
revisions in the exposure draft.
    The proposed 2010 revision to GAGAS will be the sixth revision 
since the standards were first issued in 1972. The 2010 Yellow Book 
exposure draft seeks to emphasize the critical role of high quality 
government audits in achieving credibility and accountability in 
government. The proposed changes contained in the 2010 Exposure Draft 
update GAGAS to reflect major developments in the accountability and 
audit profession and emphasize specific considerations applicable to 
the government environment. In addition, this proposed revision 
modernizes GAGAS, with updates to reflect major developments in the 
accountability and audit environment, including a conceptual framework 
approach for independence. Clarifications have also been made 
throughout the standards.

DATES: Comments will be accepted through November 22, 2010.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the exposure draft (GAO-1O-853G) can be obtained 
on the GAO Internet page http://www.gao.gov/govaud/vbkOl.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Hrapsky, Specialist, Auditing 
Standards at (202) 512-9535.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: To ensure that your comments are considered 
by GAO and the Advisory Council in their deliberations, please submit 
them by November 22, 2010. Please send your comments electronically to 
yeJlowbookgao.gov.
    Public Law 67-13, 42 Stat. 20.

James R. Dalkin,
Director, Financial Management and Assurance.
[FR Doc. 2010-23374 Filed 9-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1610-02-M
News United States Air Force
 Air Force to phase out 13O career field, strengthen all Airmen joint capabilitiesPublished Feb. 17, 2022
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                The Department of the Air Force announced Feb. 17, the Multi-Domain Warfare Officer (13O) career field will be phased out while emphasizing that multi-domain capabilities will become fundamental across the Air Force.This phase out impacts 136currently-assigned Total Force Airmen in the active component, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve.“We must be prepared to face future conflicts with our joint and combined partners, and the knowledge Multi-Domain Warfare Officers bring to the fight is too critical to confine to a single career field,” said Air Force Chief of Staff**Gen. CQ Brown, Jr.**“To continue outpacing near-peer adversaries, we must reinforce all Air Force members’ multi-domain expertise.”The Air Force will continue to evolve its professional education and force structure to ensure all Airmen can apply operational concepts and contribute to Joint All-Domain Operations, versus limiting it to one core AFSC.The transition will begin after eligible officers meet the LAF-X Colonel central selection board March 29 - April 14, 2022. Commanders will guide Multi-Domain Warfare Officers through the reassignment process. Officers trained inmulti-domain warfare gained valuable experience in all-domain and joint planning capabilities which will be leveraged at all levels of training and professional military education to strengthen enterprise-wide capabilities.“We want to utilize the depth of knowledge and experience that our Multi-Domain Warfare Officers bring to the fight and to the maximum extent possible need their help to train and educate Airmen to fight and win against a peer threat in all domains,” said**Maj. Gen. Albert G. Miller**, director of Training and Readiness, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations at Headquarters U.S. Air Force.**Air Education and Training Command**, the lead for Professional Military Education, plans to implement principles of the current Multi-Domain Warfare Initial Skills Training into Air Force-wide developmental education. This will increase the operational knowledge and expertise required to produce joint-capable and credible Airmen.The Multi-Domain Warfare Officer (13O) career field was established June 25, 2018,as a result of the Multi-Domain Command and Control Implementation Plan to train operational-level C2 personnel specialized in executing command and control of multi-domain operations.LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



phase out 



Multi-Domain Warfare Officer 



130 



transition 



LAF-X 



career field 



Change 



One Air Force 



reinforcement 



reassignment process 



total force