alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Texas & Pacific R. R. Co. v. David Lennox.

(No. —, Op. Book No. 2, p. 21.)

Error from Eed Eiver County.

Opinion by

Ector, P. J.

§ 530. *Motion to affirm on certificate.*The motion should be overruled, for the reason that there was neither service of the citation in error on the defendant in error, nor acceptance of service by him in time to file the trans-script, and proceed with the case at the present term of this court. [Gen. Laws 1874, pp. 51, 52.]

*267December 7, 1878.

§531. *Writ of error; when perfected.*A writ of error is not perfected until the citation in error is served on the defendant in error, or service of the same has been accepted by him twenty days before the first day of the term designated for the hearing of causes from the county where the judgment was rendered.

§ 532. *Certificate for affirmance.*The clerk’s certificate sent to this court for affirmance of the j udgment must show when the writ of error was perfected.

Motion overruled.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00375-CR

Gregorio BARRERA,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017CR9166

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

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

AFFIRMED. 

SIGNED June 12, 2019.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
#### R. P. Dicks v. Austin College.

(No. 1502, Op. Book No. 2, p. 317.)

Appeal from Grayson County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1068. *Disqualification of judge from interest.*This action was founded upon a written subscription contract, whereby the subscribers bound themselves, upon certain conditions, to pay certain sums subscribed by them, re*604spectively, to Austin College. Appellant was sued to recover his subscription. The county judge who tried the case was also a subscriber upon said instrument, and owed a balance on his subscription. Appellant objected to the judge sitting in the case, upon the ground that he was disqualified by reason of interest. *Held,*the constitution provides that “no judge shall sit in any case wherein he may be interested,” etc. [Art. Y, sec. 11.] The interest sufficient to disqualify a judge under the constitution is a direct interest in the subject matter of the litigation. And it matters not how slight, if he has any direct interest in the case he would be disqualified, and any judgment rendered by him in the case would he void. [Taylor v. Williams, 26 Tex. 585; Chambers v. Hodges, 23 Tex. 112.] The county judge was not jointly or severally bound with appellant for any part of the money sued for; in other words, he had no interest whatever in the payment or non-payment of the same. A decision in respect to that matter would neither increase or diminish his liability to the appellee for the balance he still owed on his subscription. There was no privity whatever between appellant and the judge, with reference to their respective liabilities for the separate amounts subscribed by them. One was in no way bound for the payment of the subscription of the other. In this respect they were strangers. The county judge had no such direct or pecuniary interest in the subject matter of this suit as would disqualify him from sitting in the case. [Glavecke v. Tijirina, 24 Tex. 663.]

June 18, 1881.

§ 1069. *Mutilated instrument; evidence.*Where an instrument declared upon is mutilated, and such mutilation is averred and explained in the pleadings, there is no necessity for an affidavit in regard thereto, to render it admissible in evidence, where proof other than that of the party himself is offered to explain the mutilation and establish the facts in regard to the execution and validity of such instrument. [Withee v. Fearing, 23 Tex. 506.]

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 176 (Monday, September 13, 2010)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 55661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-22988]



[[Page 55659]]

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

Part III





The President





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



Notice of September 10, 2010--Continuation of the National Emergency 
With Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks


                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 75 , No. 176 / Monday, September 13, 2010 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 55661]]

                Notice of September 10, 2010

                
Continuation of the National Emergency With 
                Respect to Certain Terrorist Attacks

                Consistent with section 202(d) of the National 
                Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1622(d), I am continuing for 
                1 year the national emergency previously declared on 
                September 14, 2001, in Proclamation 7463, with respect 
                to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and the 
                continuing and immediate threat of further attacks on 
                the United States.

                Because the terrorist threat continues, the national 
                emergency declared on September 14, 2001, and the 
                powers and authorities adopted to deal with that 
                emergency must continue in effect beyond September 14, 
                2010. Therefore, I am continuing in effect for an 
                additional year the national emergency that was 
                declared on September 14, 2001, with respect to the 
                terrorist threat.

                This notice shall be published in the Federal Register 
                and transmitted to the Congress. 
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    September 10, 2010.

[FR Doc. 2010-22988
Filed 9-10-10; 1:30 pm]
Billing code 3195-W0-P
#### RONALD H. MISHKIN v. BOROUGH OF FRANKLIN.

February 16, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
News United States Air Force
 ISR official urges looking to history to face future challengesPublished Sept. 18, 2013
                        
                        By Senior Airman Tabitha N. Haynes
                        
                        
                        Air Force District of Washington Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                At the Air Force Association Air & Space Conference and Technology Exposition here Sept. 17, Lt. Gen. Robert P. Otto discussed the current state and way ahead for Air Force intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, or ISR, and the role Airmen play in its planning and impact.
 
As the Air Force’s deputy chief of staff for ISR, Otto urged taking lessons from history to help navigate future challenges.
 
“While some things change in ISR, some things stay the same,” Otto said. “Lost in some of these stories is the in-depth work that goes on in order to bring them to reality.”
 
Otto cited Thaddeus S.C. Lowe, an airborne ISR pioneer who used aero balloons, a technique mirrored during Operation Enduring Freedom with the Aerostats.
 
“History is a conversation with the past about the future,” the general said, adding that ISR will focus on three things: full spectrum awareness, world-class expertise, and delivery of decision advantage. “Our vision for 2023 is an Air Force enterprise that seamlessly digests the data from an even wider expanse of sensors and sources, and swiftly conducts analysis so that we can deliver that decision advantage.”
 
The Air Force will collaborate with other services to strengthen its capabilities, Otto said, but ultimately, Airmen are the power behind Air Force ISR. 
“We can have the most exquisite and technologically advanced sensors and platforms, but if we can’t interpret the data (by an Airman), or make sense of what they are providing in a time frame that is responsive, the joint warfighter is not effective,” Otto explained.
Otto leads more than 20,000 officers, enlisted personnel and civilian who are responsible for the intelligence and security of the Air Force. Otto is a 1982 distinguished graduate of the Air Force Academy and pilot with more than 2,800 hours in several aircraft.intelligence 



surveillance and reconnaissance 



ISR Related Links
        LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT P. "BOB" OTTO
                                Jan. 30, 2015
                                Lt. Gen. Robert P. "Bob" Otto is the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. He is responsible to the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air Force for policy formulation, planning, evaluation, oversight, and leadership
            
            Air Force ISR Agency
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 Quintiles Transnational Corp. and Subsidiaries
Certification Pursuant To
Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, James L. Bierman, certify that:  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Quintiles
Transnational Corp.;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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
this report;4.
    
    The registrant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))
for the registrant 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 registrant, 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)
    
    [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238
and 34-47986.](c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant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(d)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect,
the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and  5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit
committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent functions):




---



##### 



(a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in
the design or operation of internal controls over financial
reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the
registrant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
registrants internal control over financial reporting. Date: April 30, 2004 
 /s/ James L. BiermanJames L. BiermanExecutive Vice President andChief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Davidson
Diversified Real Estate III, L.P. 1999 Second Quarter 10-QSB and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such 10-QSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000773679
<NAME> DAVIDSON DIVERSIFIED REAL ESTATE III, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                             352
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                          34,642
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,194
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  18,690
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                         23,686
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     (5,823)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    18,690
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,901
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 3,213
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,079
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (312)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   302.52<F2>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
<F2>Multiplier is 1.
</FN>


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-2796

YVONNE L. MURPHY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY, Commanding General

INSCOM,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA96-1184-CCB)

Submitted: February 13, 1997 Decided: February 25, 1997

Before WIDENER and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Yvonne L. Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. Lynne Ann Battaglia, Unites

States Attorney, Charles Joseph Peters, Sr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED

STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss in Appellant's employment discrimination

suit. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially

on the reasoning of the district court. Murphy v. Department of the

Army, No. CA-96-1184-CCB (D. Md. Nov. 4, 1996). In addition, we

have considered Appellant's allegations of error and find them to

be without merit. We dispense with 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.

AFFIRMED
News United States Air Force
 Air Force puts spotlight on fall protectionPublished May 13, 2015
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Jeff Andrejcik
                        
                        
                        U.S. Air Forces Central Command Public Affairs
                **SOUTHWEST ASIA (AFNS) --**
                Air Force Ground Safety sponsored Fall Protection Focus weeks from May 4-15 to raise awareness of fall hazards as well as how to mitigate fall-related accidents.
Safety officials here organized a fall protection demonstration to educate base personnel on proper preclimb procedures.
“This demonstration shows (everyone) how to use the equipment, as well as the safety and rescue procedures involved in a situation like this,” said Tech. Sgt. Russell, the radio frequency systems NCO in charge. 
The annual fall protection initiative is partnered with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's campaign, "National Safety Stand-Down."
Air Force safety statistics indicated falls were responsible for 7,671 ground mishaps with injuries, including three fatalities, between fiscal years 2010 and 2014. These incidents resulted in 44,000 lost work days at a cost of more than $30 million. 
“With the high operations tempo (here) something that’s seemingly basic, like climbing a tower, could easily cause complacency and you tend to forget little things,” Russell said. “It’s really important to pay attention to detail especially in this fast pace environment.”
Bill Parsons, the Air Force chief of ground safety, noted that falls shouldn’t just be thought of as situations involving heights.
“Fall protection or prevention is not only for activities related to heights that are encountered every day on the job, but also includes, for example, falls that can happen because of wet floors or obstacles on a walkway,” Parsons said. 
The two weeks dedicated to fall protection is an opportunity to create awareness of fall hazards and according to the Air Force Safety Center, to further the cause, installations and major commands can execute this focus awareness whenever it is deemed appropriate.    
“We want everyone to remember that preventable falls are inexcusable and that we must continue to do all we can to protect ourselves and each other,” Parsons said.*(Editor’s note: Due to safety and security reasons, last names and unit designators were removed.)*safety 



prevention 



AFCENT 



southwest asia 



Fall Protection Focus
763 A.2d 358

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Jay Logan TROUT, Respondent.

No. 499 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Nov. 13, 2000.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 13th day of November, 2000, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated September 20, 2000, it is hereby

*531ORDERED that JAY LOGAN TROUT be and he is SUSPENDED from the Bar of this Commonwealth for a period of three (3) years retroactive to April 12, 1999, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E.

It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CARLO MARAMONTE.

January 17, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
SOLITARIO RESOURCES CORPORATION



Exhibit 10.10



SOLITARIO RESOURCES CORPORATION



1994 STOCK OPTION PLAN



FOURTH AMENDMENT



 
Pursuant to a consent resolution unanimously passed by the Board of Directors on June 8, 1999, and subsequently approved by appropriate regulatory authorities and an affirmative vote of the shareholders, the Company's 1994 Stock Option Plan, as amended, is modified as follows:



The second sentence in Section 2 shall be amended from: 



"The number of shares of Common Stock that may be subject to options granted under this Plan shall not exceed 1,536,000 shares of Common Stock, as such Common Stock was constituted on the effective date of this Plan, or such greater number as may be approved from time to time by the shareholders of the Company."



To the Following:



"The number of shares of Common Stock that may be subject to options granted under this Plan shall not exceed 1,936,000 shares of Common Stock, as such Common Stock was constituted on the effective date of this Plan, or such greater number as may be approved from time to time by the shareholders of the Company."



No other changes to the 1994 Stock Option Plan are made as a result of this Fourth Amendment to the Plan.
<PAGE>   1

                                                                    EXHIBIT 12.1

                     CKE RESTAURANTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                             (Dollars in thousands)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Sixteen Weeks Ended
                                                  -------------------------
                                                   May 22,         May 17,
                                                    2000             1999
                                                  --------         --------
<S>                                               <C>              <C>
Earnings before fixed charges:
    Income (loss) before income taxes and
       extraordinary item                         $ (3,961)        $31,661
    Fixed charges                                   30,402          25,267
                                                  --------         -------
                                                  $ 26,441         $56,928
                                                  ========         =======

Fixed charges:
    Interest expense                              $ 20,695         $15,678
    Interest component of rent expense(1)            9,707           9,589
                                                  --------         -------
                                                  $ 30,402         $25,267
                                                  ========         =======

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                     0.9x            2.3x
</TABLE>


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

(1) Calculated as one-third of total rent expense
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 96 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 96

  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
          permit the penalty of death for the rape of a child.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 26, 2008

  Mr. Chabot (for himself, Mr. Keller of Florida, Mr. Feeney, and Mr. 
 Smith of Texas) introduced the following joint resolution; which was 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
  Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to 
          permit the penalty of death for the rape of a child.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``The penalty of death for the forcible rape of a child who has not 
attained the age of 12 years does not constitute cruel and unusual 
punishment.''.
                                 <all>
```