alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 481 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 481

    To require the Federal Communications Commission to direct that 
       wireless providers permit the unlocking of mobile devices.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 2013

Ms. Klobuchar (for herself, Mr. Lee, and Mr. Blumenthal) introduced the 
 following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 
                 Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To require the Federal Communications Commission to direct that 
       wireless providers permit the unlocking of mobile devices.

    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 ``Wireless Consumer Choice Act''.

SEC. 2. FCC DIRECTION TO WIRELESS PROVIDERS.

    Pursuant to its authorities under title III of the Communications 
Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 301 et seq.), the Federal Communications 
Commission, not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
Act, shall direct providers of commercial mobile services and 
commercial mobile data services to permit the subscribers of such 
services, or the agent of such subscribers, to unlock any type of 
wireless device used to access such services. Nothing in this Act 
alters, or shall be construed to alter, the terms of any valid contract 
between a provider and a subscriber.
                                 <all>
```
#### M. H. Shandy v. Conrales & Logeman.

(No. 1294, R. Book No. 4, p. 197.)

Appeal from Hill County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 235. *Suit on sworn account; affidavit.*An affidavit to an account which fails to state “that such account is, within the knowledge of affiant, just and true,” etc., is not in compliance with the statute, and, if objected to as evidence to prove the account, should be excluded. [Eev. Stats, art. 2266.]

§ 236. *Jurisdiction; demurrer.*It is provided that where the residence of a defendant is unknown, suit may be instituted in the county where the plaintiff resides. [Eev. Stats, art. 1198, subd. 3.] But a petition which fails to show that either the plaintiff or the defendant is within the jurisdiction of the court, *e. g.,*as where it alleges the plaintiff to be a non-resident, and that the residence of the defendant is unknown, and does not allege that the defendant owns any property within the jurisdiction of the court, is fatally defective in failing to show any jurisdictional fact; and it was error to overrule a general demurrer to such petition. [Ward v. Lathrop, 4 Tex. 180; McMullen v. Guest, 6 Tex. 279; Campbell v. Wilson, 6 Tex. 391; Ward v. Lathrop, 11 Tex. 287; Tulane v. McKee, 10 Tex. 336.]

§ 237. *Plea to jurisdiction.*Where defendant pleaded to the jurisdiction, setting forth that his residence at the *94time of the institution of the suit was in Erath county, and the evidence established that fact, no belief otherwise of plaintiff’s attorney, when the suit was brought, though induced by a conversation with defendant had a short time before, would be sufficient to defeat the plea. [Brown v. Read, 33 Tex. 629; Blucher v. Milsted, 31 Tex. 622.]

October 25, 1882.

§ 238. *County court; its jurisdiction to foreclose an attachment lien upon land.*In determining the jurisdiction of county courts to enforce attachment liens upon land, arts. *179,*180, Rev. Stats., should be construed in connection with the constitution and statutes, which prescribe the jurisdiction of the courts. Art. V, sec. 8, of the constitution confers upon the district court jurisdiction of all suits for the trial of title to land, *and for the enforcement of liens thereon.*Section 16 of the same article expressly denies to the county court jurisdiction of suits for the recoverjr of land, but says nothing about the enforcement of liens thereon. The jurisdiction to enforce liens is therefore not conferred upon the county court by the organic law, but is expressly conferred upon another tribunal. Art. 1161, Rev. Stats., which prescribes the jurisdiction of the county court, expressly excludes from its jurisdiction suits for the enforcement of liens upon land. Is a suit by attachment levied upon, a suit to enforce a lien upon land? We think it is, and, if so, then the county court has no jurisdiction to enforce an attachment lien upon land. [T. & P. R. R. Co. v. McMullen, *ante,*p. 64.]

Reversed and remanded.

' Note.— Since this opinion was delivered, the supreme court, in Hildebrand v. McMahon & Golson [Austin Term, 1883], have held a different doctrine to that enunciated in § 238. [See Tex. L. Review, Vol. I, No. 20, June 7, 1883.]
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICING COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Santander Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2011-3 for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2014 (the Report), the undersigned, a duly authorized officer of Santander Consumer USA Inc. (the Servicer), does hereby certify and represent that:



| | 1. | A review of the activities and performance of the Servicer under the Sale and Servicing Agreement, dated as of September 15, 2011, among Santander Drive Auto Receivables LLC, Santander Consumer USA Inc., Santander
Drive Auto Receivables Trust 2011-3 and U.S. Bank National Association (the Agreement) during the period that is the subject of the Report has been made under my supervision.
| | -- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout the period that is the subject of the Report.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



SANTANDER CONSUMER USA INC./s/ Jason KulasName:

Jason KulasTitle:

President and Chief Financial OfficerDate:

March 23, 2015/s/ Jennifer M. PoppName:

Jennifer M. PoppTitle:

Chief Accounting OfficerDate:

March 23, 2015
#### E. H. Carter & Co. v. Flint & Chamberlain.

(No. 1197, Op. Book No. 2, p. 599.)

Appeal from McLennan. County.

March 30, 1881.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 1250. *Assignment of errors must be specific.*The assignment of errors was as follows: “And now come the defendants and assign for error the action of the court in sustaining the demurrer of plaintiff to the special answer of the defendants.” This assignment of error is manifestly insufficient. It does not put the finger upon the error committed. There is no “special answer” in the case. There is an amended answer with seven special pleas. Which of them is the court called upon to notice and revise ? What special error is indicated ? The pleadings in the case are voluminous. The supreme court has very often called attention to the necessity of more specific indications of the points in which it is alleged that error has been committed, and announced its unwillingness to revise the judgment of the lower court upon such loose and indefinite allegations of error. We do not feel called upon to fish for errors in this record.

Affirmed.
News United States Air Force
 Airmen come together for Combat Archer exercisePublished May 17, 2019
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Monica Roybal
                        
                        
                        325th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFNS) --**
                The 325th Fighter Wing is approaching the conclusion of Combat Archer 19-8 that was conducted in conjunction with the on-going Checkered Flag 19-1 exercise at Tyndall Air Force Base, May 6-17.
The Combat Archer exercise, also known as the Weapons Systems Evaluation Program, is the Department of Defense’s largest air-to-air live-fire evaluation exercise. Squadron leaders monitor the lifespan of a missile to assess execution performance by maintenance crew members, aircraft armament systems members and aircrew members.
“Combat Archer is readiness,” said Lt. Col. Vaimana Conner, 83rd Fighter Weapons Squadron commander. “In addition to providing confidence to senior leaders, it also ensures both the operations and maintenance crews are ready to employ in combat in an air-to-air environment.”
Exercise participants from across the Air Force, to include members from the 494th Fighter Squadron, 67th FS and the 94th FS, employed variations of live air-intercept missiles against unmanned aerial targets that were remotely operated by the 82nd Aerial Target Squadron. The aircrew battled against the simulated threats over the Gulf of Mexico.
While Combat Archer 19-8 is an extensive exercise on its own, Tyndall AFB leaders combined the operation with Checkered Flag 19-1 because of their complementary objectives that focus on air-to-air conflict.
“There is a lot of synergy with the two exercises, but they are two separate exercises with their own objectives,” Conner explained. “In addition to evaluating the systems during Combat Archer, this was also an opportunity for the squadrons to practice and train for something they can’t do anywhere else.”
According to Conner, more than 40 aircraft and 800 personnel participated in the exercises, making it the largest training operation since Hurricane Michael.
“This exercise is all about readiness,” Conner said. “(The Airmen) were definitely well-prepared, especially in this austere environment currently at Tyndall and the challenges that come with operating in a state of recovery. They were able to outstandingly execute their mission.”LR 



Combat Archer 19-8 



325th Fighter Wing 



325th FW 



67th Fighter Squadron 



67th FS 



94th Fighter Squadron 



94th FS 



Weapons Systems Evaluation Program 



air-to-air live-fire 



82nd Aerial Target Squadron 



82nd ATS 



AF 



Air Force 



Tyndall AFB 



Air Force Base 



83rd Fighter Weapons Squadron 



83rd FWS
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 20-12834

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 8:19-cr-00191-VMC-SPF-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

NICHOLAS RENEE ROGERS, 

 Defendant-Appellant.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Florida

________________________

(April 1, 2021)

Before ROSENBAUM, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Meghan Ann Collins, appointed counsel for Nicholas Rogers in this direct 

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant 

USCA11 Case: 20-12834 Date Filed: 04/01/2021 Page: 1 of 2
2

and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our 

independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the 

relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the entire 

record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion to withdraw is 

GRANTED, and Rogers’s conviction and total sentence are AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 20-12834 Date Filed: 04/01/2021 Page: 2 of 2
<PAGE>   1


11--STATEMENT RE: COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

EDAC TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                          For the quarter ended
                                                          ---------------------
                                                        April 4,       March 31,
                                                          1998           1997  
                                                     --------------   ----------
<S>                                                      <C>           <C>
Basic:
  Weighted average
    shares outstanding                                    3,834,550    3,762,208

         Net income                                      $  665,686   $  255,961
                                                         ==========   ==========

         Basic earnings per common share                 $     0.17   $     0.07
                                                         ==========   ==========



Diluted:
  Weighted average
    shares outstanding                                    3,834,550    3,762,208
  Net effect of dilutive stock
    options based on the
    treasury stock method using
    average market price                                    236,108      130,207
                                                         ----------   ----------

                                            TOTALS        4,070,658    3,892,415
                                                         ==========   ==========

         Net income                                      $  665,686   $  255,961
                                                         ==========   ==========

         Diluted earnings per common share               $     0.16   $     0.07
                                                         ==========   ==========


</TABLE>
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 Education

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

                        Amy Wilson, International Education Programs Service, U.S. Department of Education, 1990 K Street, NW., Room 6082, Washington, DC 20006-8521. Telephone: (202) 502-7700 or by e-mail:                         *amy.wilson@ed.gov.*

If you use a TDD, call the FRS, toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

## VIII. Other Information

*Accessible Format:*                         Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format (                        *e.g.*                         braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact person listed under                         **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT**                         in section VII of this notice.                    

*Electronic Access to This Document:*                         You can view this document, as well as all other documents of this Department published in the                         **Federal Register**                        , in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:                         *http://www.ed.gov/​news/​fedregister.*                         To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at this site.                    

# Note:

                            The official version of this document is the document published in the                             **Federal Register**                            . Free Internet access to the official edition of the                             **Federal Register**                             and the Code of Federal Regulations is available on GPO Access at:                             *http://www.gpoaccess.gov/​nara/​index.html.*

Dated: September 14, 2010.

Eduardo M. Ochoa,

Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education.

[FR Doc. 2010-23314 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
#### L. B. Harris v. W. D. Credille.

(No. 1114, Op. Book No. 3, p. 144.)

Appeal from Camp County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 562. *Appeal from justice’s court; notice of.*It has been universally held in this state that a notice of appeal in open court was a prerequisite to the appeal, and that such notice must appear of record. [Battle v. Howard, 13 Tex. 345; Fairchild v. State, 23 Tex. 176; Morris v. Gordon, 36 Tex. 71; Solari v. State, 3 Ct. App. 482.] In this case, there did not appear in the record on appeal *285from the justice’s to the county court any notice of appeal, and the county court erred in overruling appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal. [Note. — The law does not now require any notice of appeal to be given in justice’s court. Article 1639 of the Eevised Statutes was materially amended by act of the 18th legislature, which see. Gen. Laws, 18th Leg. p. 91.]

November 23, 1881.

Eeversed and remanded.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 99

                         CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         The undersigned officers, Wayne M. Fortun, Chief Executive Officer of
Hutchinson Technology Incorporated, a Minnesota corporation (the "Company"), and
John A. Ingleman, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

                  (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
         quarterly period ended March 30, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies
         with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
         Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Date: May 12, 2003                         /s/ Wayne M. Fortun
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           Wayne M. Fortun
                                           Chief Executive Officer

Date: May 12, 2003                         /s/ John A. Ingleman
                                           -------------------------------------
                                           John A. Ingleman
                                           Chief Financial Officer
- 399 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 309 Nebraska Reports STATE v . MALONE Cite as 309 Neb. 399

State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Kevin W. Malone, appellant. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed June 4, 2021. Nos. S-20-118, S-20-460.

supplemental opinion Appeals from the District Court for Douglas County: Shelly R. Stratman , Judge. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled. Richard L. Boucher and Bradley H. Supernaw, of Boucher Law Firm, for appellant. Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Melissa R. Vincent for appellee.
Heavican , C.J., Miller

- Lerman , Cassel , Stacy , Funke , Papik , and Freudenberg , JJ.
Per Curiam

. This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the appellant, Kevin W. Malone, concerning our opinion in State v. Malone , 308 Neb. 929, 957 N.W.2d 892 (2021). We find no substantive merit to Malone’s motion and overrule it, but modify the opinion as follows: In the analysis section, under the heading “2. Postconvic tion Relief ” and the subheading “(b) Claim of Prosecutorial Mis conduct,” id. at 962, 957 N.W.2d at 920, we withdraw the second paragraph and substitute the following: Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 07/30/2021 09:10 AM CDT- 400 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 309 Nebraska Reports STATE v . MALONE Cite as 309 Neb. 399 The district court first rejected this argument as pro

cedurally barred. However, Malone had amended his motion to add an allegation that his appellate counsel had been ineffective for failing to raise the claims of pros

ecutorial misconduct on direct appeal. The district court alternatively rejected Malone’s claim, reasoning that even if not procedurally barred, the claim failed to “set forth the facts and applicable law to establish an objection based on any of these prosecutorial [misconduct] claims would . . . have been successful.” We agree. The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified. Former opinion modified. Motion for rehearing overruled.
**EXHIBIT 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Wayne M. Fortun, Chief Executive Officer of Hutchinson Technology Incorporated, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Hutchinson TechnologyIncorporated;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:     a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;     b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and     c) disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter inthe case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 4, 2005               /s/ Wayne M. Fortun   Wayne M. Fortun   President and Chief Executive Officer