alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Thomas Lackie v. M. H. Bramlett.

(No. 1570, Op. Book No. 2, p. 397.)

Error from Frio County.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§1129. *Jurisdiction, of county court; injunction.*Bramlett obtained an injunction restraining the collection of a judgment rendered against him in favor of Lackie by a justice of the peace for a sum less than $200. The county judge who granted the injunction upon a hearing *640of the case made the injunction perpetual. *Held,*1. The judgment is fundamentally erroneous. The county judge had no jurisdiction to issue the writ of injunction in this case. The amount in controversy is below the original jurisdiction of the county court. The county court can issue the writ of injunction only to enforce its own jurisdiction, or as an auxiliary to some proceeding within its jurisdiction. [Fendick v. Shea, *ante,*p. 515; Grant v. Quinsell, *ante,*p. 401.] But the county court has no control over the proceedings in the justice’s court, except such as is acquired by appeal or *certiorari.*

May 25, 1881.

§ 1130. *Remedy against void judgment of justice of the peace.*Where a judgment of a justice of the peace is void, and the time has elapsed for appeal therefrom, or for *certiorari*thereof, the proper remedy of the party affected by the judgment is to move in the justice’s court that rendered it to set aside any execution that may have been issued on it, and from the judgment of the justice upon that motion an appeal would lie. Injunction in such case is not the proper remedy, because of a want of jurisdiction in the county court to grant it.

Reversed and dismissed.
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: June 3Published June 3, 2016
                        
                        By Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** – On this look around the Air Force, the Air Force releases its 2030 Air Superiority Plan; an update on the KC-46A Pegasus; and Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force James A. Cody talks about the new enlisted performance reports. Hosted by Staff Sgt. Nicholas Alder.
For previous episodes, click here.
Related links:
- AF releases Air Superiority 2030 Flight Plan
- KC-46s set to arrive at first basing locations by late 2017
- CHIEFchat: EPRs heading in the right direction2030 Air Superiority Plan 



KC-46A 



CMSAF 



EPR 



ATAF
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CURRENCY> U.S.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                              APR-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       1,064,806
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,320,115
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,402,971
<PP&E>                                     109,908,072
<DEPRECIATION>                              20,253,334
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              94,666,992
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        8,491,203
<BONDS>                                     49,971,452
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        48,404
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,071,388
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                94,666,992
<SALES>                                     13,537,368
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            13,537,368
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                7,181,121
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,522,580
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,050,186
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,787,892
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,115,160
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,672,732
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,672,732
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .35
        

</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 Kadena Airmen in full force at Cope Tiger 15Published March 20, 2015
                        
                        By Capt. George Tobias
                        
                        
                        Pacific Air Forces Public Affairs
                **KORAT ROYAL THAI AIR FORCE BASE, Thailand (AFNS) --**
                Airmen from Kadena Air Base were out in full force at exercise Cope Tiger 15 (CT15) held in Thailand, March 9-20.Airmen with the 44th Fighter Squadron, the 961st Airborne Air Control Squadron and the 909th Air Refueling Squadron brought F-15 Eagles, an E-3 Sentry (AWACS) and a KC-135 Stratotanker in support of CT15.This year's exercise marks the first time in six years an E-3 from Kadena AB was part of the annual multilateral exercise between the U.S. Air Force, the Royal Thai air force and the Republic of Singapore air force."Cope Tiger brings all three air forces together, so we can become interoperable," said Col. Paul Johnson, the exercise director for the U.S. Air Force.According to Johnson, the humanitarian disaster relief applications of this year's exercise were integral to its execution."If we need to (aid) of any of our Southeast Asian partners with the assistance of the Thais and the Singaporeans, we are just that much better off to get the job done, because we know our strengths and weaknesses through the exercise we have done here at Cope Tiger," he said.With a focus on multinational interoperability and regional partnerships, CT15 is aimed at increasing readiness, cooperation and interoperability among security forces, contributing to maritime security, counterterrorism, search and rescue and humanitarian disaster relief efforts in the Asia-Pacific region."The important thing for these exercises is really learning the different cultural ways of going about the business of air power," said Lt. Col. Frederick Coleman, the commander of the 961st AACS. "When we train with the Thais and we train with the Singaporean air forces, we are learning from each other, both linguistically and tacitly."As Coleman explained, reacting to a real world event is, "not the time to be learning our language differences, our cultural differences and our tactical differences. We need to learn those differences now."For all the Airmen taking part in the exercise, Johnson said he hopes they will take away the aspects of coming to Thailand and working with their Thai and Singaporean counterparts."I hope they are able to take away the expeditionary aspect of coming to a foreign base, operating somewhere where you don't have all the comforts of home, especially all the spare parts -- mom and dad, or wife and kids back at home," he said.He added that he also hopes that these Airmen will be able to learn from this experience, learn the limiting factors of working far from home and, "build upon their strengths, so when they come to do it for real in the future, they are just that much better off for it."Cope Tiger 15 



Korat Royal Thai air force base 



Thailand 



Kadena
**Exhibit
        (23.1)**
  **CONSENT
        OF** **INDEPENDENT
        REGISTERED CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**
  We
        hereby
        consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement on
        Form
        S-3 (File No. 333-125803) of Trustreet Properties, Inc. of our report dated
        March 16, 2006 , relating to the financial statements , financial statement
        schedules, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over
        financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial
        reporting of Trustreet Properties, Inc., which appear in this Form
        10-K.
  
  /s/
        PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
  PricewaterhouseCoopers
        LLP
 Orlando,
        Florida
 March
        16,
        2006
583 A.2d 299

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LAWRENCE BRUNSON.

January 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### John Acres v. Wm. Tate et al.

(No. 1559, Op. Book No. 2, p. 546.)

Appeal from Olay County.

Opinion by

Walker, R. S., P. J.

§ 1222. *Bes adjudicata.*A judgment upon the merits is conclusive against the same parties, and those claiming under them, and interposes a complete bar to further litigation, so long as it remains in full force, not set aside or reversed, and precludes any inquiry into matters therein adjudicated or which might have been therein adjudicated. [Weathered v. Mays, 4 Tex. 387; Foster v. Wells, id. 101.]

*702November 7, 1881.

§ 1223. *Judgment of court; presumptions in favor of validity of.*This suit was brought by appellant against appellees upon a cbrinant judgment rendered in justice’s court in favor of appellant and against appellees. Appellees pleaded and proved in defense that upon appeal taken by them from said -judgment to the county court, a trial *de novo*was had, which resulted in a judgment in their favor and against the appellant. Appellant replied to this defense that the judgment of the county court was erroneous; that said court had no jurisdiction of the case, because the appeal bond was insufficient. The county court sustained appellees’ defense, and rendered judgment in their favor. *Held,*the evidence supports the judgment of the court. The question before the county judge was not whether the action of the court on the former appeal was erroneous, but whether there was sufficient competent evidence before him to rebut the ordinary legal presumptions that attach to the validity of judgments. Where the parties and the subject matter are within the jurisdiction of a court, it will be presumed that the court has exercised jurisdiction over them rightfully. It will also be presumed, when the jurisdiction is collaterally brought in question, that the prerequisites to confer it had been complied with. It was not made to appear on the trial of this case that any essential jurisdictional element was wanting to entitle the judgment of the county court on the former appeal to have accorded to it full respect and validity. There was, therefore, sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that there existed a valid judgment of the county court which reversed the judgment of the justice of the peace which is sued upon, and this view is decisive of this appeal.

Affirmed.
583 A.2d 312

#### NEW JERSEY SPORTS AND EXPOSITION AUTHORITY, ETC. v. DANIEL J. DEL TUFO.

January 23, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 230 *N.J.Super.*616, 554 A.2d 878)
### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION ONE

) ) ) G.A., ) ) ) ) ) ) ) In the Matter ofthe Detention of

Appellant,
SWEDISH HOSPITAL,

Respondent. No.77636-3-1

UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: 

### AUG 2 7 2018 PER CURIAM -

G.A.appeals from the trial court order authorizing involuntary commitment and treatment. We accept the respondent's concession that the trial court's findings offact are inadequate for appellate review and that the evidence was insufficient to establish that G.A.was "gravely disabled" as a result of a mental disorder. See In re Det. of LaBelle, 107 Wn.2d 196,220,728 P.2d 138 (1986); former RCW 71.05.020(17). Accordingly,we reverse the commitment order and remand for further proceedings. In light of our decision,we decline to address the remaining issues in appellant's brief. Reversed and remanded.

FOR THE COURT: r r l

- n
2:r• Prj

-•1' 1 CA) cp--1
#### G., C. & S. F. R’y Co. v. Otto Holtcamp.

(No. 2682.)

Appeal from Austin County.

J. W. Terry, counsel for appellant.

Bell & Shelburne and Da vis & Davidson, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 437. *Obstruction on public rocicl where it crosses a railway; liability of railroad company for injuries caused by; case stated.*This is a suit by appellee to recover of appellant the value of two horses killed by appellant’s engine. Appellee recovered judgment for said value and costs. It sufficiently appears from the evidence that the horses were killed by the engine, and were of the value found by the jury. The horses were killed at a point where a public road crossed the line of railway. A crossing for said public road over said railway had been constructed by appellant ten or twelve feet in width; but said public road was sixty feet in width. On the sides of the railroad track, extending from the public road crossing as constructed by appellant, for a distance of thirty feet to a cattle-guard, were embankments some four feet high, which had been placed there in making the road-bed, and which appellant had permitted to remain there. These embankments were so close to the railroad track that a horse could not pass between them and a train on the track, and were of such character that a horse could not jump or climb over them so as to escape an approaching train. The horses were killed in this *cid de sac,*which one of the witnesses characterized as “a trap for stock.” In his charge to the jury the trial judge instructed that “leaving obstructions along the railway track by a railway company, on a public road, across which the railway track passes, by which the danger to loose stock is unnecessarily increased, is such a want of care on the part of the railway company *528as will render it liable for damages caused by reason thereof.” *Held:*By statute it is made the duty of a railroad company in constructing a line of railway to restore a public road which said line crosses to its former state, or to such state as to not unnecessarily impair its usefulness. [R. S. art. 4170.] A failure to perform this duty is negligence *per se.*When a statute requires an act to be done, a failure to do it is negligence *per se,*and will be so declared as matter of law. [R’y Co. v. Wilson, 60 Tex. 142; 1 App. C. C. § 860; 2 App. C. C. § 205.] It was conclusively proved that appellant failed to perform said statutory duty with respect to said public road crossing, and it was not error for the court to instruct the jury that such failure was negligence, and rendered appellant liable for damages resulting therefrom. The embankments not only impaired the use of the public road at said crossing, but rendered it dangerous for horses to pass over, except the narrow place constructed by appellant for a crossing.

February 20, 1889.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                   Exhibit 10.19

           SECOND AMENDMENT TO SERIES A SUBORDINATED CONVERTIBLE NOTE

         THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO SERIES A SUBORDINATED CONVERTIBLE NOTE
("Amendment") is made this 25th day of March 2003, by and between SpaceDev,
Inc., a Colorado corporation (the "Company") and James W. Benson (the "Holder").

                                     PREFACE

         WHEREAS, Holder invested in those certain Series A Subordinated
Convertible Notes of the Company pursuant to a Note Purchase Agreement and
Series A Subordinated Convertible Note (the "Note") dated October 28, 2002 in
the principal amount of Seventy Five Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00); and

         WHEREAS, Holder and the Company desire the extend the repayment period
of the Note by an additional six (6) months as provided in this Amendment;

         NOW THEREFORE, the Note is amended as provided in this Amendment.

                                    ARTICLE I

         Section 1.1 of the Note is stricken in its entirety and amended to read
as follows:

         "1.1 PAYMENT. Subject to the provisions of Section 2 hereof relating to
the conversion of this Note, principal and accrued interest hereof shall be
payable on the twelve-month anniversary hereof (the "MATURITY DATE").

         Payments hereunder shall be made by the Company to the Holder, at the
address as provided to the Company by the Holder in writing, in lawful money of
the United States of America. Interest shall accrue with respect to the unpaid
principal amount of the loan from the date of this Note until such principal is
paid or converted as provided in Section 2 hereof at a rate of 2.03% per annum
(computed on the basis of a 365-day year)."

                                   ARTICLE II

         This Amendment to the Note may be executed in any number of
counterparts, each of which, when taken together, shall be deemed the fully
executed agreement between the parties.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment effective
March 25, 2003.

HOLDER                               THE COMPANY

/s/ James W. Benson                  By: /s/ Richard B. Slansky
-----------------------------        -------------------------------------------
James W. Benson                      Richard B. Slansky, Chief Financial Officer
# News

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

# Acting SecAF visits Installation of the Future

              - Published  May 11, 2021
              -                             By Airman 1st Class Tiffany Price                                                    
              - 325th Fighter Wing Public Affairs

**TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFNS) --  **
Acting Secretary of the Air Force **John P. Roth** visited **Tyndall Air Force Base** May 10 to view the base’s rebuild progress firsthand and meet some of Tyndall AFB’s combat-ready Airmen.Roth explored the “**Installation of the Future**'' with an introduction to the **325th Security Forces Squadron**’s cutting-edge **robotic dogs** and a close-up look at the newest technologies Tyndall AFB has to offer including plans for a digital twin virtual mapping program.”The plans showcased here are fabulous,” Roth said. “Tyndall (AFB) is leading the types of initiatives that will be the cornerstone for the Department’s use of resilient, technological capabilities going forward.”Roth witnessed Tyndall AFB’s rebuilding progress during a tour of the installation – viewing demolitions to buildings that were left uninhabitable by Hurricane Michael, such as a section of base housing, and current construction projects like a new child development center and the **337th Air Control Squadron**’s new air battle management simulator. Concluding on the flightline, Roth saw Tyndall AFB’s enduring air dominance mission through 71 aircraft currently operating out of Tyndall AFB for **Checkered Flag 21-2**, one of the Department of Defense’s largest air-to-air exercises.”There has certainly been a lot of progress,” Roth said. “It’s great to see so many aircraft out on the flightline, and ultimately with three new **F-35** (Lightning II) squadrons Tyndall (AFB) will [continue to be] a key part in our air superiority.”As Tyndall AFB rises to the challenge of projecting unrivaled combat power and modeling the DoD’s first-ever 21st century military installation, Roth expressed that the source of airpower comes from the Airmen. Several of Tyndall AFB’s Airmen were recognized for their outstanding performance and dedication to the installation’s mission.“The Airmen who have been here and have endured the challenges put forward by not only Hurricane Michael but also a **COVID-19** pandemic are terrific,” Roth said. “These Airmen have performed under extraordinary circumstances and are to be admired.”

FSUSAFAFAir ForceActing SecAFAir Combat CommandACCTyndall AFB325th Fighter Wing337th Air Control SquadronInstallation of the Futurerobotic dogvirtual mapping programair battle management simulatorF-35 Lightning II
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, the President of PHL Variable Insurance Company (the registrant), certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the registrant;



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 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)

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



(c)

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 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 the 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 control 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: | March 30, 2009 | /s/ Philip K. Polkinghorn
|      | Name:          | Philip K. Polkinghorn    
|      | Title:         | President
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Mid-Con Energy Partners, LP (the Partnership) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jeffrey R. Olmstead, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to18 U.S.C § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:



| | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | -- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: March 9, 2012



/s/ Jeffrey R. OlmsteadJeffrey R. OlmsteadPresident and Chief Financial Officer