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


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                                       0001031258
<NAME>                          HomeSide Lending, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1
<CURRENCY>                                U.S. Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   8-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-11-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                          35,008
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  272,005
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,115,581
<PP&E>                                          45,657
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,720,155
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,985,940
<BONDS>                                      1,185,926
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,355,508
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,720,155
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               250,277
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               169,731
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 80,546
<INCOME-TAX>                                    40,101
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             40,445
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,445
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### S. H. Bacon v. J. E. Lloyd.

(No. 2457, R. Book No. 4, p. 250.)

Error from Johnson County.

November 1, 1882.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 284. *Depositions.*A motion to suppress depositions should be sustained, where the certificate of the officer taking them fails to show that the answers of the witness were subscribed and sworn to before him. [Rev. Stats. art. 2229; Chapman v. Allen, 15 Tex. 282; Patton v. King, 26 Tex. 685.]

§ 285. *Beconvention.*The note, as pleaded, was a matter arising out of, incident to and connected with plaintiff’s cause of action, and if the allegations of the answer are true (and, for the purpose of determining the legal sufficiency of the answer upon demurrer, they must be taken as true), defendant is entitled to recover the amount of the note in this action. [Rev. Stats, art. 650; Coleman v. Bunce, 37 Tex. 171; Sayles & Bassett’s Plead. & Prac. sec. 43; Green’s Plead. & Prac. 816, 817.]

§ 286. *Partnership property.*Where a question involved in the suit is as to whether property is partnership property, the court should instruct the jury as to the nature of and facts which would constitute property partnership property.

Reversed and remanded.
#### T. C. & Abe Rhine v. Blake, Jenkins & Boals.

(No. 768, Op. Book No. 2, p. —.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 1066. *Principal and agent; rule as to authority of agent under written instrument.*The rule is well established that where authority is conferred upon an agent by a written instrument, the nature and extent of the authority must be ascertained from the instrument itself, and it must be followed strictly. [1 Pars. Con. 61-112; Reese v. Medlock, 27 Tex. 120.] In this case a power of attorney recited'as follows: “I hereby authorize J. A. Leonard, of Dallas, Texas, to act as agent in the leasing out and making contracts for lease, and to receive lease notes or lease moneys, and signing leases and making the necessary repairs to, and, in short, give him full authority as agent of, my two-story brick store-house,” etc. This power conferred upon Leonard no authority to receive anything but money for the rents and notes for the rents, and certainly did not authorize him to anticipate the period for a long time when the rents should become due, and discount the lease notes at a heavy or any rate of interest. It did not authorize him to receive *603merchandise for the rents. Formal instruments of this sort are ordinarily subject to a strict interpretation, and the authority is never extended beyond that which is given in terms or which is necessary and proper for carrying the authority so given into full effect. [Story on Agency, 87.] There can be no pretense that, to carry out the purposes of Leonard’s agency, it was proper, or could have been contemplated, that he should lease the store-house at a monthly rent payable in advance, and then discount the rent for the whole period of two years, for which he assumed to rent it, and receive goods and merchandise in exchange for it. His acts in this respect were clearly beyond his powers, and did not bind his principals. [Harrington v. Moore, 21 Tex. 546.] His power of attorney authorized him to “receive money and lease notes,” and nothing else, for the rents. [Story on Agency, 121.] And a payment of the rents to him by appellees in anything else but money was not binding upon appellants, his principals, and did not operate to discharge the debt due them for the rent. [Robson v. Watts, 11 Tex. 764; McAlpin v. Cassidy, 17 Tex. 450.]

March 23, 1881.

§ 1067. *Ratification of act of agent by principal.*To make a ratification of the agent’s act binding upon the principal, there must be evidence of previous knowledge on the part of the principal of all the material facts. There must be full knowledge of all the facts and circumstances. [Story on Agency, 307.]

Reversed and rendered.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6470]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   APPOINTMENT BY THE VICE PRESIDENT

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, on behalf of the Vice President, 
pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 276h-276k, as amended, appoints the following 
Senators as members of the Senate delegation to the Mexico-United 
States Interparliamentary Group during the first session of the 104th 
Congress, to be held in Tucson, AZ, May 12-14, 1995: the Senator from 
Iowa [Mr. Grassley]; the Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski]; and the 
Senator from Washington [Mr. Gorton].

                          ____________________
```
News United States Air Force
 AFICC awards large-scale architect and engineering services contractPublished Feb. 25, 2021
                        
                        By Mila Cisneros
                        
                        
                        AFIMSC Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-LACKLAND, Texas (AFNS) --**
                The**Air Force Installation Contracting Center** awarded a suite of architect and engineering services contracts Feb. 19, to support the Air Force’s sustainment, restoration and modernization program. The contracts, awarded by the 772nd Enterprise Sourcing Squadron, are part of the $2 billion Architect-Engineer Next program consisting of four contractor pools.

The “Pool 4” contracts, a joint partnership between the 772nd ESS, the **Air Force Civil Engineer Center**, Air Force Foreign Material Sales and the **U.S. Army Installation Management Command**, will replace the expired full and open portion of the AE13 design and construction services contract.

Under the Pool 4 contract, 17 contracting firms will provide the Air Force with services for traditional design, construction inspection and other engineering work supporting mission-ready infrastructure.

“We’re excited about the award as it is the large business portion of the AE Next contract vehicle,” said Dr. Tim Sullivan, technical services division chief. “ It’s the result of over two years of collaborative effort between AFCEC and our partners. We’ll continue to work together as we move to award the remaining three contract pools.”

The contract suite is available to the Air Force enterprise as well as the U.S. Army IMCOM. Specific to AFCEC, the contracts will support design for construction efforts at installations in the continental U.S., contingency construction and **Defense Logistics Agency** work.

“The Air Force depends on the technical expertise and innovative solutions of the professionals from AFCEC to deliver resilient infrastructure installation-wide,” said Col. David Norton, director of **AFCEC’s Facility Engineering Directorate**.

AFCEC, which oversees the Air Force military construction program, is working with AFICC to award the remaining three contracts in the AE Next program later this year. The work includes airfield infrastructure worldwide (Pool 1), facilities across installations in the United States (Pool 2) and general infrastructure installation-wide across the United States (Pool 3).

AFCEC’s Facility Engineering Directorate will oversee the awards and work with contractors on execution of services to ensure they are delivered on time and within budget.LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Air Force Civil Engineer Center 



Air Force Installation Contracting Center 



772nd Enterprise Sourcing Squadron 



Air Force Foreign Material Sales 



U.S. Army Installation Management Command 



Architect-Engineer Next program 



sustainment 



restoration 



modernization 



Defense Logistics Agency
EXHIBIT 32.1




CERTIFICATIONS PURSUANT TO
 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In connection with the Annual Report of Exeo Entertainment, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended November 30, 2013, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert S. Amaral, as Chief Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
  1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
  2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
  By:
/s/ Robert S. Amaral
Dated:
March 13, 2014Robert S. AmaralTitle:
Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
 
  This certification is being furnished to the SEC as an exhibit to the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
  A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided by the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Sharpleigh & Co. v. Stanley Cooper.

(No. 346, Op. Book No. 1, p. 422.)

Appeal from Jack Comity.

May 21, 1877.

Opinion by

Ector, P. J.

§ 55. *Jurisdiction of county court.*Suit was originally brought 21st January, 1816, in the district court on a note for $806.11. On motion of plaintiff, on the 6th of November, 1816 (after the jurisdiction of the two courts had been changed by law), the cause was transferred to the county court. In the county court the case was, on motion of defendant, dismissed for want of jurisdiction. *Held*error; the county court had jurisdiction in amounts from $200 to $1,000.

§ 56. *Judgments; presumptions in favor of.*In the absence of proof to show otherwise, there always arises a presumption of law in favor of the validity of a judgment rendered by a court in a case within its jurisdiction. The presumption is that the court has done no wrong.

§ 51. *Presumptions*are only indulged in the absence of, .and not against proof. .

Reversed and remanded.
News United States Air Force
 Al Udeid AB drives largest sustainment airdrop in CENTCOM historyPublished July 17, 2019
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Ashley L. Gardner
                        
                        
                        379th Air Expeditionary Wing Public Affairs
                **AL UDEID AB, Qatar (AFNS) --**
                Airmen from the 746th and 816th Expeditionary Airlift Squadrons conducted the largest sustainment airdrop in U.S. Central Command’s history July 10-11.
The drop delivered more than 166,000 pounds of food, supplies and fuel to U.S. and coalition forces throughout the region in support of Operation Inherent Resolve.
“The troops on the ground in the drop zone are separated from the main operating base,” said Lt. Col. Andy Allen, 816th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron commander.
The airdrop sustains them with the supplies needed to live and perform the mission in these remote locations, Allen explained. Additionally, when supplies are delivered by air, it avoids hindering operations on the ground.
“[The crew] was so excited to be a part of history,” said Maj. Cathryn Yerage, 816th EAS operations officer. “Our team executed a flawless and successful airdrop.”
Al Udeid AB’s strategic location enables the delivery of approximately 4,000 tons of supplies to support OIR and Operation Freedom’s Sentinel on a monthly basis, bringing aeromedical evacuation support and cargo transportation capabilities to the region.
“Our personnel have trained for years to get to the airdrop qualification,” Allen said. “For them to be able to execute and know that they are making a direct impact...it was an outstanding opportunity and one that they won’t forget anytime soon.”Air Force 



history 



centcom 



AF 



Qatar 



coalition forces 



USAF 



Al Udeid Air Base 



U.S. Central Command 



AUAB 



Operation Inherent Resolve 



Operation Freedom’s Sentinel 



Historical 



816th Expeditionary Airlift Squadron 



746th Expeditionary Airlift Squadrons 



FS
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 478 

To clarify that the revocation of an alien’s visa or other documentation 

is not subject to judicial review. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 6, 2013 

Mr. GRASSLEY (for himself, Mr. CHAMBLISS, and Mr. ROBERTS) introduced 

the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 

on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To clarify that the revocation of an alien’s visa or other 

documentation is not subject to judicial review. 

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

3 SECTION 1. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF VISA REVOCATION. 

4 Section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality 

5 Act (8 U.S.C. 1201(i)) is amended by striking ‘‘There 

6 shall be no means of judicial review’’ and all that follows 

7 and inserting the following: ‘‘Notwithstanding any other 

8 provision of law, including section 2241 of title 28, United 

9 States Code, any other habeas corpus provision, and sec10 tions 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court has jurisdicmstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS

2 

•S 478 IS

1 tion to review a revocation under this subsection or to hear 

2 any claim arising from such a revocation.’’. 

3 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

4 The amendment made by section 1 shall— 

5 (1) take effect on the date of the enactment of 

6 this Act; 

7 (2) apply to all visas issued before, on, or after 

8 such date; and 

9 (3) apply to any claim pending on, or filed 

10 after, the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### PASQUALE PEZZUTO v. STEELCO, DIVISION OF METROPOLITAN STEEL INDUSTRIES, INC.

April 18, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-QSB
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED JANUARY 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                         285,443
<SECURITIES>                                 2,486,765
<RECEIVABLES>                                  354,573
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (10,000)
<INVENTORY>                                    380,273
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,497,054
<PP&E>                                         230,344
<DEPRECIATION>                               (216,440)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,583,276
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          269,411
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    21,136,318
<OTHER-SE>                                (17,901,271)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,583,276
<SALES>                                        668,513
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               701,070
<CGS>                                          186,161
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  503,206
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                197,864
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,452
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            193,412
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   193,412
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.03
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.1
  Certification of Senior Officer in Charge of the Servicing Function
 of the Servicer Pursuant to Rule 15d-14(d)




SERVICER CERTIFICATION






I, Mark Kaczynski, certify that:




1.           I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of Nissan Auto Lease Trust 2011-B (the “Exchange Act Periodic Reports”);




2.           Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, taken as a whole, do 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;




3.           Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided under Form 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports;




4.           I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer and based on my knowledge and the compliance review conducted in preparing the servicer compliance statement required in this report under Item 1123 of Regulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under the servicing agreement (as defined in the related indenture), as amended, in all material respects; and




5.           All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and their related attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report.  Any material instances of noncompliance described in such reports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.




In giving the certifications above, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated party:  U.S. Bank National Association




Date:      June 15, 2012




By:    /s/ Mark Kaczynski


Mark Kaczynski


President and Chief Executive Officer of


Nissan Motor Acceptance Corporation


(senior officer in charge of the


servicing function)
#### Lynch & Lewis v. Markowitz Bros. & Strauss.

(No. 1178, Op. Book No. 3, p, 340.)

Appeal from Hopkins County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§1312. *Garnishment; requisites of affidavit for.*Appellees recovered judgment against appellants, as garnishees, for an indebtedness due appellees by one Cannon. In their affidavit for garnishment they did not state the amount Cannon was indebted to them, and did not state that they believed appellants were indebted, etc., to Cannon. A motion to quash the proceedings because of these omissions in the affidavit was overruled. *Held,*the affidavit should have stated the amount of the debt claimed to be due and owing by Cannon, and should also have stated that the affiant “ does believe ” that the garnishees were indebted to Cannon. In proceeding by garnishment, the statute should be followed with reasonable strictness. To authorize the writ the affiant is not only required to swear that he has reason to believe that the *764garnishee is indebted to the debtor, but also that he does believe it. Nor is it intended that reference should be made to any other matter or proceeding to ascertain and determine the amount of the indebtedness claimed to be due and owing by the defendant in the original suit; but the amount of such indebtedness should be shown by the affidavit made to obtain the writ. The affidavit must state the facts upon which the statute authorizes the writ to issue, and where this is not done, upon proper motion the affidavit will • be quashed and the proceedings dismissed. [Willis v. Lyman, 22 Tex. 268.]

December 14, 1881.

Reversed and dismissed.