alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bladen Mitchell v. Samuel Lytle.

(No. 488, Tex. L. J., vol. 2, p. 435.)

Appeal from Medina County.

Opinion by

White, J.

§ 702. *Amendment; new cause of action.*On motion, plaintiff’s amended or supplemental petition was stricken out because it was inconsistent with the allegations in the original petition. This was error. Even if the amendment had set out a new cause of action, which was not the case in this instance, it does not necessarily follow that the amendment should have been stricken out, the rule being that the character of the original cause of action may be so far changed by amendment as to make the cause a now one, provided the subject matter of the suit and the parties remain substantially the same; and so new matter, constituting a new and distinct cause of action, may be added by amendment, provided it grew *386out of or is connected with the matter originally in litigation. And under certain circumstances, on payment of costs, the amendment may set up an entirely new and distinct cause of action, not connected with the original cause of action. [Sayles’ Texas Pleading, 157; Beal v. Alexander, 6 Tex. 531; Carter v. Reynolds, 6 Tex. 561; Henderson v. Kissam, 8 Tex. 52; Bell v. McDonald, 9 Tex. 378; Williams v. Randon, 10 Tex. 74; Ayres v. Cayce, 10 Tex. 99; Hopkins v. Wright, 17 Tex. 30; Smith v. McGaughey, 13 Tex. 466.] The case at bar is, in many of its features, not unlike the case of Lee v. Boutwell, 44 Tex. 151, where it was held that a plea of limitation could not be interposed to an amended petition for damages for a breach of contract, on the ground that the amendment set up a new and different cause of action, barred after the filing of the original petition, if the facts alleged as a basis of recovery were substantially the same in the original and amended petition, though the form of the breach was different.

January 11, 1879.

Reversed and remanded.
#### H. A. Graves v. A. J. Fry.

(No. 851, Op. Book No. 3, p. 485.)

Appeal from Guadalupe County.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§134. *Jurisdiction of county court; injunction.*F. sued out an injunction before the county judge restraining G., a collector of taxes, from selling certain real estate levied upon for the amount of taxes due by F., said amount being $83.59. *Held,*that the amount of taxes *53being less than $200, was not within the jurisdiction of the county court, and that said court had no general equity jurisdiction to remove clouds upon land titles, and that the injunction granted must be dissolved and the bill dismissed. [Grant v. Quinsell, *post,*p. 401.]

February 9, 1881.

Reversed and dismissed.
Exhibit 8.1 

**Subsidiaries of Controladora Vuela Compañía de Aviación, S.A.B. de C.V.**

The following chart lists each of our subsidiaries which we owned, directly or indirectly, as of December 31, 2015, and April 28, 2016: 

1. Concesionaria Vuela Compañía de Aviación, S.A.P.I. de C.V., a variable capital investment promotion stock corporation organized underthe laws of Mexico 

2. Comercializadora Volaris, S.A. de C.V., a variable capital stock corporation organized under the laws of Mexico 

3. Servicios Administrativos Volaris, S.A. de C.V. a variable capital stock corporation organized under the laws of Mexico 

4. Servicios Corporativos Volaris, S.A. de C.V., a variable capital stock corporation organized under the laws of Mexico 

5. Servicios Operativos Terrestres Volaris, S.A. de C.V., a variable capital stock corporation organized under the laws of Mexico 

6. Vuela, S.A., a corporation organized under the laws of Guatemala 

7. Servicios Earhart, S.A., a corporation organized under the laws of Guatemala. 

8. Vuela Aviación, S.A., a corporation organized under the laws of Costa Rica.
EXHIBIT 31.1

Certification

I, Harry M. Neer, certify that:

1.     I  have  reviewed  this  Form 10-QSB of Rockport Healthcare, Group, Inc.;

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;

3.     Based  on  my  knowledge,  the  financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business
issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.     The  small  business  issuer's  other  certifying  officer(s)  and  I are
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control
over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and
15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:

a.     Designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures,  or  caused  such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;

b.     Designed  such  internal control over financial reporting, or caused such
internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision,
to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting
and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance
with generally accepted accounting principles;

c.     Evaluated  the  effectiveness  of  the small business issuer's disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

5.     The  small  business  issuer's  other  certifying  officer(s)  and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):

a.     All  significant  deficiencies  and  material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

b.     Any  fraud,  whether  or  not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: February 17, 2004


/s/ Harry M/ Neer
-----------------------
Harry M. Neer, Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
422 A.2d 1174

#### Commonwealth v. Hewitt, Appellant.

Submitted March 12,1979.

Anthony S. Federico, Jr., for appellant; Marion E. MacIntyre, Second Assistant District Attorney, for Commonwealth, appellee.

Before SPAETH, HESTER and MONTGOMERY, JJ.

Judgment of sentence affirmed.
News United States Air Force
 Boom operator soars, rises to challengePublished Nov. 18, 2014
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Danielle Conde
                        
                        
                        6th Air Mobility Wing Public Affairs
                **MACDILL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFNS) --**
                *(This feature is part of the "Through Airmen's Eyes" series on AF.mil. These stories focus on a single Airman, highlighting their Air Force story.)*
During a late-night flight over Afghanistan, then-Airman 1st Class Crystal Cash steadied her hand and readied herself to carry out what she had been training to do for the last year. 
On top of it being her very first solo flight as a boom operator, Cash was preparing to refuel a B-1 Lancer in inclement weather.
With nerves pushed aside and the pilots' support, Cash was able to successfully refuel the B-1, allowing the crew to continue their mission with a full tank. At the age of 19, she never thought she would be trusted with so much responsibility.
Now 21 years old and a senior airman, Cash, a 91st Air Refueling Squadron boom operator, continues to be proficient in her job.
"I would advise people aspiring to be a boom operator to prepare to spend a lot of time studying," said Cash, who added that boom operators must be able to recall the rules and regulations and fully understand the aircraft inside and out, because even the smallest error could cost the Air Force money and potentially someone's life.
Air refueling is vital to Air Force air operations because it allows our Airmen to fly anywhere in the world nonstop, within hours. Without refueling, the mission could not be accomplished as efficiently.
In the short time Cash has been in the service, she has accomplished more than 700 flying hours in the KC-135 Stratotanker refueling various aircraft such as the F-15 Eagle, F-22 Raptor, B- 52 Stratofortress, C-130 Hercules and C-17 Globemaster III.
"Senior Airman Cash has excelled in all duties since she has joined the Air Force," said Master Sgt. Benjamin Cobb, the operations superintendent for the 6th Operations Group.
He pointed out that her role as a ground scheduler has helped ensure that all squadron members received their upgrade training in order to be fully mission-capable, and her direct actions on multiple deployments contributed to the airstrikes against the terrorist cells in Afghanistan and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
"I am grateful for all the experiences I have had so far in the Air Force," Cash said. "I would never wish that things happened differently."
For future goals, she hopes to be accepted into an Air Force ROTC program and continue pursuing her bachelor's degree in biology.
"If I am lucky enough to have the opportunity to be commissioned as an officer in the Air Force, I would like to come back as a flight nurse," Cash said. "That way, I could continue to fly while working in the medical field."refueling 



through airmen's eyes 



 



boom operator
#### Flint, Chamberlain & Graham et al. v. McCarty & Brown.

(No. 867, Op. Book No. 2, p. 236.)

Error from Hood County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1018. *Trial of right of property; affidavit for.*This was a suit for the trial of the right of property, in which McCarty & Brown were the claimants. The claim affidavit was signed “McCarty & Brown,” and a motion to quash the affidavit because it was not signed and sworn to by any particular person was overruled in the trial court. *Held,*that the affidavit was insufficient, and should have been quashed. The proceeding to try the right of property is an extraordinary power conferred upon the courts by statute. The affidavit is the starting point of the proceeding — the active principle that brings into action the jurisdiction of the court. It is the initiatory step, and is essential to the exercise of the special jurisdiction conferred by the statute. When, therefore, no legal and sufficient affidavit is made to authorize the proceedings, it should be quashed upon the motion of the other party. An affidavit is a statement or declaration of-some particular person, reduced to writing, and sworn or affirmed to before some officer who has authority to administer an oath, and it must in itself show that it is the individual oath of the party swearing thereto. [Wade v. Roberts, 53 Ga. 26.] The affidavit in this case does not purport to be the sworn declaration of any individual, but the declaration of a firm. McCarty & Brown appear before the officer, and the affidavit is signed McCarty & Brown. We can see no valid reason why both partners might not have appeared before the officer, and each made his individual declaration under oath, provided this is shown in the affidavit. Either of them could have made the oath for the firm, as this would be the individual oath of the partner, making the same, however, for the benefit of the firm; but here it *571is not McCarty, nor is it Brown, that is shown to have made the oath; it might have been the one or the other that made it, and which, if either, the affidavit does not disclose.

February 23, 1881.

Reversed and remanded.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1019 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        H.R.1019

                       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

                                 An Act

 
   To designate the United States customhouse building located at 31 
   Gonzalez Clemente Avenue in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, as the ``Rafael 
          Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.
    The United States customhouse building located at 31 Gonzalez 
Clemente Avenue in Mayaguez, Puerto Rico, shall be known and designated 
as the ``Rafael Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building''.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES.
    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the United States customhouse building 
referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Rafael Martinez Nadal United States Customhouse Building''.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 86 (Tuesday, May 23, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5386]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          TRIBUTE TO LES ASPIN

  (Mr. ROTH asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. Speaker, America lost a real public servant this last 
weekend in the death of Les Aspin.
  Les Aspin was a young man. He was only 56 years old. He served 22 
years of those 56 years here in the Congress. He was also our Secretary 
of Defense.
  He was a summa cum laude at Yale, he attended Oxford, and MIT, so not 
only did he have a great deal of political savvy but he was also very 
much academically gifted. From his first close race against a person by 
the name of LaFollette, a magic name in Wisconsin, to the time he left 
to become Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin never lost a single political 
race.
  I remember the first time I was here on the floor with an amendment, 
Les Aspin helped me get the amendment passed. In an age when the 
Pentagon got everything it wanted, there was one person who started to 
holler, ``No, halt,'' and that was Les Aspin. ``Let's take a closer 
look,'' he would say, ``at defense spending.''
  Mr. Speaker, we in this House have not only lost a good friend but we 
have also lost a true public servant. Not only has America lost a good 
public servant and we in Congress, but also Marquette University, 
because Marquette is where he started teaching and Marquette is where 
he worked when he passed away.
  It is only appropriate that Marquette will be the place on Friday 
where we will say our last good-bye to Les Aspin. America truly has 
lost a wonderful public servant.

                          ____________________
```
**EXHIBIT
      32**


**Certification
      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**


**(Subsections
      (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States
      Code)**





Pursuant
      to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of
      section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the
      undersigned officers of Kings Road Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware corporation
      (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
      that:





The
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the fiscal quarter ended October 31, 2007
      (the "Form 10-QSB") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
      section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information
      contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the
      financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Kings Road Entertainment, Inc. and will be retained by Kings Road Entertainment,
      Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.




Dated:
      August 22, 2008





/s/
                Philip HolmesPhilip
                HolmesPresident
                and Principal Executive Officer/s/ Robert
                KainzRobert
                KainzChief
                Financial Officer
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 85 (Monday, May 22, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7118]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

          WAS CONGRESS IRRESPONSIBLE? THE VOTERS HAVE SAID YES

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, more than 3 years ago I began making daily 
reports to the Senate making a matter of record the exact Federal debt 
as of close of business the previous day.
  As of the close of business Friday, May 19, the exact Federal debt 
stood at $4,883,151,973,639.38, meaning that on a per capita basis, 
every man, woman, and child in America owes $18,536.53 as his or her 
share of the Federal debt.
  It is important to note, Mr. President, that the Senate had an 
opportunity to implement a balanced budget amendment to the 
Constitution. The Senate lost its first opportunity to control this 
debt by one vote. There will be another opportunity in the months 
ahead.

                          ____________________
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 00-4109 WILLIE E. GAYLES, Defendant-Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Richard L. Williams, Senior District Judge. (CR-99-49) Submitted: July 20, 2000 Decided: August 8, 2000 Before WILKINS and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________ Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSELAmy M. Curtis, BOWEN, BRYANT, CHAMPLIN & CARR, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Stephen W. Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Willie E. Gayles appeals from a ninety-two month sentenceimposed following his conditional guilty plea to being a felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C.A. § 922(g)(1) (West Supp. 2000). Forthe reasons set forth below, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. Although the Government does not challenge our jurisdiction to consider this appeal, we are obligated to review our jurisdiction sua sponte in all cases. See United States v. Blackwell , 900 F.2d 742, 746(4th Cir. 1990). The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Appeals in criminal cases must be brought within ten days after entry of the judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1). This appeal period may be extended for a period of time not to exceed thirty days from the expiration of the ten-day appeal period. SeeFed. R. App. P. 4(b)(4); see also United States v. Tarrant , 158 F.3d 946, 947 (6th Cir. 1998), cert. denied , 525 U.S. 1168 (1999); United States v. Schuchardt , 685 F.2d 901, 902 (4th Cir. 1982). Gayles' failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period within the applicable extension period leaves this court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of his appeal. Moreover, the record does not conclusively demonstrate that his failure to notea timely appeal was due to counsel's deficient representation. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal without prejudice to Gayles' right to seek relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2000). We dispensewith oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2
News United States Air Force
 Dempsey lauds Warrior Games competitors, familiesPublished Oct. 6, 2014
                        
                        By Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.
                        
                        
                        DOD News, Defense Media Activity
                **COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AFNS) --**
                The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff lauded wounded warriors, their families and sponsors Oct. 4, for their participation in the 2014 Warrior Games competition.
Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey praised competitors during the final live broadcast of DOD News’ “Adaptive Warrior,” just before the Air Force and Navy football game at the Air Force Academy’s Falcon Stadium.
“I’m looking out at that crowd of the warriors and their families and the support agencies, and you know, it’s not a cliché to say how proud we are of them,” he said.
“We’re humbled by the recognition of their sacrifices,” Dempsey said, “(and) what they’ve done to overcome some of the wounds that they suffered.”
The chairman said the Warrior Games are a “great example of some of public-private sponsorship or partnership.”
Dempsey said he was happy to represent the Joint Chiefs of Staff and praised the U.S. Olympic Committee and sponsors for their support and sponsorship of the Warrior Games.
“I think that’s what it’s going to take to get us through our uncertain and unpredictable (fiscal) future,” he said.
Dempsey also explained the benefit of military adaptive sport programs.
“One of the things that, maybe, the American people are not as familiar with as we are,” he said, “is ... (that) our work on prosthetics, traumatic brain injury, medical evacuation has actually had a beneficial effect, not just for our servicemen and women, and their families, the American people at large.”
Dempsey said he hopes to maintain the advances in the military health system developed during more than a decade of war.
“I think we need to keep that even, hopefully, as conflicts diminish and we’re not suffering so many wounds,” he said, “we can make sure we’re don’t lose those skill sets because at some point we’ll need them.”
Dempsey reaffirmed the Joint Chiefs’ commitment to supporting programs that benefit America’s wounded service members and their families, such as the Warrior Games. 
“As I said, I represent the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and I think what you can count on from us is continued support for these kinds of programs,” he said.
“When we ask young men and women to go into harm’s way,” Dempsey said, “and we ask their families to support us, then we owe them support for life.”
“That’s our commitment to you,” the chairman said. “I want to thank, again, those service organizations and corporations who have helped us make these games a reality.”
We’re proud not only of the athletes and their families, but the sponsors as well, Dempsey added.closing ceremony 



wounded warrior 



resiliency 



Colorado Springs 



Colorado 



Warrior Games