alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### E. M. York v. L. Le Gierse & Co.

(No. —, Op. Book No. 2, p. 457.)

Error from Coryell County.

Opinion by

Walker, A. S., J.

§ 1327. *Trial of the right of property; assessed value of the goods.*The court was authorized, in the absence of other testimony as to the value of the goods in controversy, to take the appraisement made by the sheriff. [Gillian v. Henderson, 12 Tex. 48.]

§ 1328. *Remittitur; effect of.*The gaming party is authorized to enter a *remittitur.*If done in the court below before appeal or error taken, it cures the judgment to that extent. It was not error in the court to notice and formally allow such *remittitur.*The right exists without action of the court thereon or notice to the adverse party. [Chrisman v. Davenport, 21 Tex. 483; Foster v. Van Norman, 1 Tex. 638; Pas. Dig. 52.]

§ 1329. *Assignment to hinder and delay creditors.*Watkins, who executed the deed of assignment, stated on the witness stand: “I would not have made the deed of assignment at the time I did had it not been for said writ of attachment. I wanted to delay and hinder the execution of said writ of attachment in order to secure P. J. Willis & Bro. and League & Lufkin and others, as *776preferred creditors.” Of such a similar state of facts our own court has declared the legal effect. It is said, *“*the bare intention to hinder and delay creditors being present in the mind of the debtor in making the deed, is-not sufficient to avoid it, . . . . If such intention, however, not only be present in the mind, but if it be the object and constitute a part of the cause for the execution of the deed, it will render it void.” [Baldwin v. Peet, 22 Tex. 715.] There ivas the avowed object to hinder and delay creditors suing, and that known to the trustee to whom the assignment was made. [Pas. Dig. art. 3876.] Besides, where there is evidence to support the finding, the appellate court will not revise, the action of the-court being entitled to the same presumption in its favor as a verdict. [Mathis v. Oberthier, 50 Tex. 329; Jordan v. Brophy, 41 Tex. 284.]

October 25, 1880.

§ 1330. *Judgment; form of, in trials for right of property.*The form of the judgment is not in compliance with the statute. [Pas. Dig', art. 5316.] Instead of the legal consequences of failure to return the property within teii days, as declared in the judgment, that “ the clerk shall forthwith issue execution against all of the obligors in said bond for the full penalty thereof,” the statute prescribes merely that the bond shall have the forc'e and effect of a judgment against all the obligors for the value of such property and interest. This result is declared by the statute; no re-enactment was necessary in the judgment. There can be but one satisfaction of the debt, to enforce the collection of which the proceedings exist; so that the-limit in amopnt to be collected would be the original judgment, interest and costs, and the damages adjudged in the trial of the right of property proceedings and costs within the limits of the amount of the bond. The judgment directing the extent of the liability of the sureties was erroneous.

Reformed and rendered.
#### F. L. Lowery v. James Dickson.

(No. —, Op. Book No. 1, p. 163.)

Appeal from Smith County.

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

§ 497. *Payments; rules governing application of.*A debtor who owes his creditor money on distinct accounts may direct his payments to be applied to either, as he pleases. If the debtor makes no such appropriation, the creditor may apply the money as he pleases. If neither party makes a specific appropriation of the money, the *246law will appropriate it as the justice and equity of the case may require. The debtor must make the appropriation at the time he makes the payment. When the debtor does not make any specific appropriation at the time of payment, the creditor may make the appropriation at any time before bringing suit upon the debt. When the creditor has made the appropriation he is not allowed to change it as his interest or convenience may suggest. [2 Greenl. Ev. § 529; 2 Parsons on Con. 629; Taylor v. Coleman, 20 Tex. 777; Stanley v. Westrop, 16 Tex. 205; 14 Cal. 446; Matossy v. Frosh, 9 Tex. 612.] These rules apply, although one of the debts be due on specialty and the other on simple contract. [2 Parsons on Con. 629.] And where A. owes B. a debt secured by mortgage, and another for which there is no security, and A. makes a payment to Bi without directing its application, B. may well apply it to the debt for which'he has no collateral security. [Burks v. Albert, 4 J. J. Marshall, 97.] But the creditor cannot prefer a debt not due to one due or overdue. [36 Ala. 482; 29 Ill. 308; 34 Mo. 370.] This case was not decided in the court below in accordance with the above stated principles involved in it.

November 13, 1876.

Reversed and remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE CONDENSED
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) FOR COMMERCE NATIONAL CORPORATION
AND SUBSIDIARY DATED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 AND DECEMBER 31, 1998.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       8,314,417
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             7,200,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 18,804,531
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      18,804,531
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        18,804,531
<LOANS>                                    137,103,259
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,662,276
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             179,444,398
<DEPOSITS>                                 155,152,248
<SHORT-TERM>                                 7,116,334
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            837,364
<LONG-TERM>                                  2,527,016
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        74,282
<OTHER-SE>                                  13,737,154
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             179,444,398
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              8,658,768
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              719,451
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               193,917
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             9,572,136
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           4,014,157
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           4,333,518
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        5,238,618
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  387,643
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              3,728,794
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,806,914
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   1,806,914
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,146,931
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.59
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.59
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                   0.043
<LOANS-NON>                                  1,982,198
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                28,379
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                              2,030,609
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,323,143
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                   51,489
<RECOVERIES>                                     2,979
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            1,662,276
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         1,662,276
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        414,562


</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 Jones steps down as Air Force under secretaryPublished Feb. 13, 2023
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --**
                Under Secretary of the Air Force **Gina Ortiz Jones** will step down and Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Financial Management and Comptroller **Kristyn E. Jones**, will perform the duties of under secretary of the Air Force, effective March 6.USecAFUnder Secretary of the Air Force Gina Ortiz Jones discusses global competition at the 2022 Air and Space Force Association’s Air, Space and Cyber Conference at National Harbor, Md., Sept. 19, 2022. As the nation increases its focus on strategic competition, Jones highlighted the imperative for the Department of the Air Force to stay ahead of the pacing challenges. (U.S. Air Force photo by Andy Morataya)
            
            
            Photo Details /
                Download Hi-Res

    










**Guardians**, and their families to serve to their full potential and providing the resources they need has enhanced the readiness of the Air and Space Force for years to come. The department is grateful for her dedicated service," Secretary of the Air Force **Frank Kendall** said. “Kristyn Jones will do a fantastic job keeping the momentum going."

Since May 4, 2022, Kristyn Jones provided financial management and analytical services necessary for the effective and efficient use of Air Force resources, to include nearly 700,000 military and civilian personnel and a budget of more than $194 billion.LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Gina Ortiz Jones 



Under Secretary of the Air Force 



stepping down 



Kristyn E. Jones 



Frank Kendall 



One Team One Fight 



Senior Leaders 



people 



readiness
* After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that

oral argument is unnecessary. Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record. See

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit Chicago, Illinois 60604 Submitted August 11, 2005 * Decided August 11, 2005 Before Hon. FRANK H. EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge Hon. MICHAEL S. KANNE, Circuit Judge Hon. DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge

No. 04-1264 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee ,

v. KEVIN T. ROMEZ, Defendant-Appellant

. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Western Division No. 02 CR 50052 Philip G. Reinhard, Judge. O R D E R Kevin Romez was arrested while carrying a gun and transporting over three kilograms of marijuana in his girlfriend’s car. He was indicted for possession with intent to distribute the marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), carrying a firearm in UNPUBLISHED ORDER Not to be cited per Circuit Rule 53No. 04-1264 Page 2

relation to a drug trafficking crime, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A), and possession of a firearm by a felon, id. § 922(g)(1). He pleaded guilty to all three counts after entering into a written plea agreement that includes a waiver of his right to appeal his convictions or sentences in return for concessions by the government. Appealing nonetheless, Romez maintains that the sentencing court erred by applying the formerly mandatory guidelines regime, see United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), and contends that a limited remand underUnited States v. Paladino

, 401 F.3d 471 (7th Cir. 2005), is necessary. For its part the government asserts that this appeal should be dismissed without reaching the Booker issue, and we agree. Romez’s plea agreement included no “escape hatch” to permit him an appeal should the guidelines be invalidated, and the law implies none, Booker notwithstanding. See United States v. Bownes , 405 F.3d 634, 636–37 (7th Cir. 2005); see also United States v. Lockwood , No. 04-2511, 2005 WL 1743745, at *4 (7th Cir. July 26, 2005); United States v. Roche , No. 04-1475, 2005 WL 1618816, at *2 (7th Cir. July 11, 2005); United States v. Cieslowski , 410 F.3d 353, 362 (7th Cir. 2005). Therefore, this appeal is DISMISSED

.
#### Embree & Keys v. Joseph Strickland et al.

(No. 1694, Op. Book No. 3, p. 752.)

Appeal from Bell County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1299. *Surety; rights of; discharged, when.*IT. became surety upon a note for S. payable to V. At the time of executing the note, S. also executed to V. a mortgage upon his cotton crop to secure the payment of the note. After the maturity of the note, E. & IT. purchased the same, and the mortgage securing it, from V., and sued upon the note. S. was indebted to E. & K. upon account, and under the mortgage they had purchased from V. they secured the cotton crop of S. and applied the same to the payment of his indebtedness by account to them. Y. knew at the time of the execution of the note that H. was merely a surety thereon, and that he was induced to sign the same because of the mortgage which S. gave to secure its payment. In defense, H. pleaded and proved his suretyship, the execution of the mortgage, and that he was thereby induced to sign the note; that Y. knew the fact of his. suretyship, and the inducement which caused it; that E. & IT. had received from S. the cotton crop upon which the mortgage was given, and had appropriated the same on other alleged indebtedness, etc. E. & K. claimed that the other indebtedness upon which they had credited the proceeds of the cotton crop was for advances and supplies furnished by them as landlords to S. as their tenant, to enable him to make a crop, etc., and that the same constituted a lien upon the. cotton superior to the mortgage lien. S. was insolvent, and the mortgage had been recorded, and H. at *754the time he *signed*the note had no notice, actual or constructive, that any landlord’s lien existed upon the crop which was mortgaged to secure the note. *Held,*1. The mortgage, from the time it was filed for record, took precedence of any advances made after that time. If there had been a written agreement between the parties as to the advances to be made, and the same had been recorded before the execution of the mortgage, it might be that advances subsequently under the agreement would constitute the superior lien. But, in a case like this, the mortgage would certainly take priority, and would be first entitled to satisfaction out of the cotton. 2. H., the surety, was discharged from liability on the note to the extent of the proceeds of the cotton received from S: [Murrell v. Scott, 51 Tex. 520.] The judgment of the court below discharged H., the surety, from liability, and was

Affirmed.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-16-00491-CV

Sam LAJZEROWICZ,

Appellant

v.

Estelita LAJZEROWICZ,

Appellee

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006-CI-16638

Honorable Stephani A. Walsh, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE BARNARD, JUSTICE MARTINEZ, AND JUSTICE RIOS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment order is 

AFFIRMED. 

We order that appellee Estelita Lajzerowicz recover her appellate costs, if any, from 

appellant Sam Lajzerowicz. 

SIGNED January 31, 2018.

_____________________________

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 435 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.Con.Res.435
                                             Agreed to November 20, 2008

                       One Hundred Tenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Thursday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and eight

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), 
That Emancipation Hall may be used on December 2, 2008, for ceremonies 
and activities held in connection with the opening of the Capitol 
Visitor Center to the public. Physical preparations for such ceremonies 
and activities shall be carried out in accordance with such conditions 
as the Architect of the Capitol may prescribe.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 80 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4934]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                              {time}  1700
                              AFTER RECESS

  The recess having expired, the House was called to order by the 
Speaker pro tempore [Mr. Weller] at 5 o'clock p.m.

                          ____________________
```
Exhibit 10.5

JOINDER AND RELEASE AGREEMENT

 

Date:  September 2, 2014

 

To: JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent

 

Ladies and Gentlemen

 

This Joinder and Release Agreement is made and delivered pursuant to Section 2.12 of that certain Credit Agreement, dated as of  December 17, 2013 (as amended, restated, extended, supplemented or otherwise modified in writing from time to time, the “Credit Agreement”), among TECO ENERGY, INC. (the “Company”), the Lenders from time to time party thereto, and JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., as Administrative Agent, and reference is made thereto for full particulars of the matters described therein.  All capitalized terms used in this Joinder and Release Agreement and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings assigned to them in the Credit Agreement.

 

The Company hereby confirms, represents and warrants to the Administrative Agent and the Lenders that New Mexico Gas Company, Inc. (“NMG”) is a Subsidiary of the Company.

 

The Company hereby designates NMG as a Borrower under the Credit Agreement in accordance with Section 2.12 of the Credit Agreement.  In connection therewith, NMG confirms that the representations and warranties set forth in Article IV of the Credit Agreement are true and correct as of the date hereof.  From the date of this Joinder and Release Agreement and subject to the satisfaction of the requirements set forth in Section 2.12 and Section 3.2 of the Credit Agreement, (i) NMG shall be the sole “Borrower” for all purposes under the Credit Agreement, and NMG agrees to perform all of the obligations of a Borrower under, and be bound in all respects by the terms of, the Credit Agreement as if it were a signatory party thereto as Borrower; and (ii) the Company shall no longer be a party to the Credit Agreement and shall have no further rights or obligations thereunder.

 

NMG REQUESTS AND THIS JOINDER AND RELEASE AGREEMENT SHALL BE GOVERNED BY, AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

 

[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]



 

 




 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Joinder and Release Agreement to be duly executed and delivered by their proper and duly authorized officers as of the day and year first above written.



TECO ENERGY, INC. 

 

By /s/ Kim M. Caruso

     Name: Kim M. Caruso

     Title:   Treasurer

NEW MEXICO GAS COMPANY, INC. 

By /s/ Kim M. Caruso

     Name: Kim M. Caruso

     Title:   Treasurer

Accepted:

 

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.,
  as Administrative Agent

 

By /s/ Peter Christensen
      Name: Peter Christensen

      Title:   Vice President
# News

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

# 380th ESFS brings proficiency firing to the AOR

              - Published  Oct. 14, 2019
              -                             By Tech. Sgt. Jocelyn A. Ford                                                    
              - 380th Air Refueling Wing Public Affairs

**AL DHAFRA AIR BASE, United Arab Emirates (AFNS) --  **
The 380th Expeditionary Security Forces Squadron has worked diligently this year to bolster their training program and bring increased lethality to Al Dhafra Air Base.After months of relationship building, planning and paperwork, the 380th ESFS conducted the first proficiency firing course in the U.S. Air Forces Central Command area of responsibility on an Emirati firing range.“Regardless whether we’re in the AOR or at home station, opportunities to apply our skills in order to remain proficient in our core tasks must be seized,” Maj. Kevin Collett, 380th ESFS commander said.Proficiency firing courses are designed to divide Airmen into fire teams and prepare them for stressful situations that may occur during live fire situations.“The purpose is to increase proficiency of small unit tactics with specific regard to movement and communication, as well as immediate action drills,” Collett said.On average a security forces Airmen may fire their weapon on a range four to five times a year. However, that is not always an option in a deployed location according to Staff Sgt. Adam Triplett, 380th ESFS training noncommissioned officer. Implementing this training ensures Defenders maintain readiness and lethality, even when deployed.With any new program or training, there are always challenges, but the successful initial courses serve as a stepping-stone to future opportunities.“Without question, there is more work to be done. Climate, resources and manpower availability all serve as challenges to full implementation,” Collett said. “However, so many of the ‘big rocks,’ such as range availability, access to sim munitions and host nation approval by the Emiratis create a sense of excitement about where we can go from here.”The training is set to continue though oncoming rotations to Al Dhafra AB and will continue to progress.“Eventually we would like to move from sim rounds to live rounds,” Tripplett said. “If we can come out here and actually use live rounds, they get the full fog of war type of training with the sound, the live rounds, the feeling of actually shooting and engaging targets.”Live rounds are not something in the immediate future for this particular training. However, the Airmen use live-firing for zeroing their M4 carbine rifles according to Collett.“The course is a first in the AOR, and a strong nod to the initiatives started over the past year as part of the chief of staff of the Air Force’s ‘Year of the Defender’ under the line of effort to increase lethality,” Collett said.

LRUSAFAFAir ForceAFCENTUS Air Forces Central Command380th ESFSproficiency firingAl Dhafra ABsecurity forcesrangetrainingRelationshipslive fire