alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### J. P. Davie v. Lynch & Blakeley.

(No. 211, Tex. L. J., vol. 1, p. 323.)

Appeal from Galveston County.

Opinion by

Ector, P. J.

§ 695. *Auctioneers; liability on warranty of title.*Lynch & Blakeley, as auctioneers, sold two mules at *382public auction to Davie, and at the time of sale did not disclose the name of the person to whom the mules belonged, and Davie did not know by whom they were claimed nor on whose account sold. Afterwards one Hubbard sued and recovered judgment against Davie for the value of said mules, which judgment Davie paid, and then brought this suit against Lynch & Blakeley on their implied warranty of title. *Held,*that auctioneers in possession of personal property, who sell and. deliver the same without disclosing the name of the principal, are liable on an implied warranty of title. In Mills v. Hunt, 20 Wend. 434, it is said: *“*At this day it must be considered as well settled that a vendor or purchaser dealing in his own name, without disclosing the name of his principal, is personally bound by his contract; and it makes no difference that he is known to be an auctioneer or broker who is usually employed in selling property as the agent for others. Even where he discloses the name of his principal, if he signs a written contract in his own name merely, which contract does not upon its face show that he was acting as the agent of another, or in an official capacity in behalf of the government, he will be personally bound thereby.” Judge Story, in his work on Agency, § 27, recognizes the same principle. Parol evidence will not be admitted to contradict a bill of sale signed by them, and show that they did not sell as principals or intend to hold themselves responsible as such. [Story on Agency, §§ 269, 270; Sydnor v. Hurd, 8 Tex. 101.] The liability of agents who contract in their own name, or who do not disclose the name of their principal, is fixed by law, and cannot be altered by local custom.

§ 696. *Usage of trade.*Evidence of usage is never admissible to oppose or alter a general principle or rule of law, so as, upon a given state of facts, to make the legal rights and liabilities of the parties other than they are by law. [2 Tenn. 327; 19 Wend. 252; 6 Met. (Mass.) 393; 6 Pick. 131; 6 Binn. (Pa.) 416.] With respect to a usage of trade, however, it is sufficient if it appears to be *383known, certain, uniform, reasonable, and not contrary to law. [3 Wash. C. C. 150; 8 Pick. 360.] With respect to usage of trade which is not contrary to law, if not directly known to the parties to the transaction, it will be binding upon them if it appear to be so general and well established that knowledge of it may be presumed. [1 Caines (N. Y.), 43; 4 Stark. 452.]

March 27, 1878.

Reversed and remanded.
News United States Air Force
 Airmen shift from exercise to real-world relief effortsPublished Nov. 18, 2013
                        
                        By Capt. Raymond Geoffroy
                        
                        
                        374th Airlift Wing Public Affairs
                **CLARK AIR BASE, the Republic of the Philippines --**
                Airmen from Yokota Air Base, Japan, shifted gears from exercise to real-world humanitarian relief operations as they arrived at Clark Air Base, Republic of the Philippines, to provide tactical airlift support for Operation Damayan, Nov. 16.
The team of approximately 80 Airmen and three C-130 Hercules were returning to Japan from Exercise Cope South, a Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief exercise in Bangladesh, when new orders arrived to join the joint, multinational effort to assist the Philippine government's response to Super Typhoon Haiyan/Yolanda. 
"This is exactly the kind off mission we train for," said Lt. Col. Jeff Menasco, 36th Airlift Squadron commander. "We can provide versatile humanitarian airlift operations in some of the most austere locations within hours of a mission tasking."
The team is joined by two more Yokota C-130s as well as additional aircrews and support personnel who will augment the airlift mission. In total, five C-130s and more than 90 Yokota personnel will join efforts at Clark, supported by Airmen operating back in Japan.
Yokota Airmen regularly train in local and regional exercises designed to developed and improve their airlift expertise to better respond to contingency situations.
According to the crews joining Operation Damayan, all the rehearsals have led up to this moment and they are eager to put their skills to use.
"We're ready go out there and do our job and help people in need," said 1st Lt. Jon Van Pinxteren, 36th Airlift Squadron navigator. "All the training we've received so far has been for this purpose. It's pretty exciting to say this is what I do."
The C-130 Hercules primarily performs the tactical portion of the airlift mission. The aircraft is capable of operating from rough, dirt strips and is the prime transport for airdropping supplies in remote locations.
"In times of crisis, the C-130 have become an icon of hope to those in need," Menasco said. "No matter what the mission, we deliver in the toughest conditions. We are ready to do whatever we can to help the people of the Philippines as they recover from this disaster."Operation Damayan 



Yokota 



374th Airlift Wing 



relief efforts
SMH Varitek Note Extension and Amendment Agreement



  
 Exhibit 10.38

  
 EXTENSION AND AMENDMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 WITNESSETH: 
  
 WHEREAS, the secured promissory note of Varitek Industries, Inc. (n/k/a
Remote Knowledge, Inc.) payable to SMH Varitek, LLC dated November 27, 2002 (the “Promissory Note”) and the related Security Agreement, Guaranty, Stock Pledge Agreement and Stockholders’ Agreement dated even date therewith require the
repayment of the principal of said note to the holder, SMH Varitek, LLC on or about November 27, 2003 (“Maturity Date”); and 
  
 WHEREAS, the Promissory Note is convertible under certain circumstances in accordance with this terms on or before the Maturity Date; and 
  
 WHEREAS, the events that would result in a conversion of the principal of the
Promissory Note have not yet closed but are expected to close within a reasonably short period of time subsequent to the Maturity Date and the parties hereto would prefer to permit the conversion of the principal amount of the Promissory Note.

  
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows: 
  
 1. Extension of the Maturity Date. The Maturity Date of the above referenced Promissory Note shall be extended until January 27, 2004 or to such
other subsequent date that may be agreed to by all of the parties in writing. 
  
 2. Universal Amendment. This new definition of the Maturity Date shall apply to all of the constituent documents regarding the Promissory Note and no default shall result under the Promissory Note or any of the
other constituent documents so long as payment or conversion of the Promissory Note is made in accordance with the terms of the Note as amended hereby. 
  
 3. All Other Terms. All other terms of the Promissory Note and the constituent documents shall remain as is except as amended by necessity to
comport with the revised definition of the Maturity Date set forth herein. 
  
 Dated this 29th day of November 2003. 
  

	 SMH VARITEK LLC, a Delaware
 limited liability company

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Richard C. Webb


	 	 	 
	 Richard C. Webb, Manager


	 Print Name and Authority



  

 1 









	 Remote Knowledge, Inc., a
 Delaware corporation

		
	By:	 	 /s/ Randy S. Bayne


	 	 	     Randy S. Bayne, President and
         Chief Executive Officer
         (f/ka Varitek Industries, Inc.)



  

 2
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5186]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED

  By unanimous consent, permission to address the House, following the 
legislative program and any special orders heretofore entered, was 
granted to:
  (The following Members (at the request of Ms. Pelosi) to revise and 
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
  Mr. Stupak, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Lipinski, for 5 minutes, today.
  Ms. Kaptur, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Owens, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. DeFazio, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Becerra, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Montgomery, for 5 minutes, today.
  (The following Members (at the request of Mr. Solomon) to revise and 
extend their remarks and include extraneous material:)
  Mr. Norwood, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Brownback, for 5 minutes, today.
  Mr. Bryant of Tennessee, for 5 minutes, today.

                          ____________________
```
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1130

AN ACT

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to extend 

the authority to withhold from public availability a financial disclosure report filed by an individual who is a 

judicial officer or judicial employee, to the extent necessary to protect the safety of that individual or a family 

member of that individual, and for other purposes.
2

•HR 1130 EH

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Judicial Disclosure Re5 sponsibility Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROTECTION OF FAMILY MEMBERS. 

7 Section 105(b)(3) of the Ethics in Government Act 

8 of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended—

9 (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘or a 

10 family member of that individual’’ after ‘‘that indi11 vidual’’; and 

12 (2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by inserting ‘‘or a 

13 family member of that individual’’ after ‘‘the re14 port’’. 

15 SEC. 3. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE REPORTS. 

16 (a) EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY.—Section 105(b)(3) 

17 of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) 

18 is amended by striking ‘‘2005’’ each place that term ap19 pears and inserting ‘‘2009’’. 

20 (b) REPORT CONTENTS.—Section 105(b)(3)(C) of 

21 the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. App.) 

22 is amended—

23 (1) in clause (ii), by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end; 

24 (2) in clause (iii), by striking the period at the 

25 end and inserting a semicolon; and 
3

•HR 1130 EH

1 (3) by adding at the end the following: 

2 ‘‘(iv) the nature or type of information re3 dacted; 

4 ‘‘(v) what steps or procedures are in place to 

5 ensure that sufficient information is available to liti6 gants to determine if there is a conflict of interest; 

7 ‘‘(vi) principles used to guide implementation of 

8 redaction authority; and 

9 ‘‘(vii) any public complaints received relating to 

10 redaction.’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 21, 

2007. 

Attest:

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1130

AN ACT

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 

that individual, and for other purposes.safety of that individual or a family member of employee, to the extent necessary to protect the an individual who is a judicial officer or judicial availability a financial disclosure report filed by to extend the authority to withhold from public
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               FEB-28-1998
<CASH>                                         128,777
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,880
<ALLOWANCES>                                       296
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               196,599
<PP&E>                                          42,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 323,375
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          886,657
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     12,768
<COMMON>                                        15,673
<OTHER-SE>                                  (1,019,150)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   323,375
<SALES>                                        729,094
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               729,094
<CGS>                                          610,268
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  936,601
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              31,077
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (238,584)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (238,584)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (238,584)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.05)
        

</TABLE>
#### Texas *&*St. Louis R’y Co. v. R. Ballouf & Co.

(No. 860, Op. Book No. 2, p. 663.)

Appeal from Smith County.

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

§ 551. *Certiorari; sufficient cause for.*The writ of *certiorari*will not be granted “unless the party applying for the same, or some person for him having knowledge of the facts, shall make affidavit in writing, setting forth sufficient cause to entitle him thereto. [Rev. Stats, art. 802.] What will constitute sufficient cause for the issuance of this writ is set forth in art. 303, Rev. Stats., in the following language: “ In order to constitute sufficient cause, the facts stated must show either that the justice of the peace had no jurisdiction or that injustice was done to the appellant by the final determination of the suit or proceeding, and that such injustice was not caused by his own neglect.”

§ 552. *Citation; return on, not sufficient.*The true name of defendant as shown by the *certiorari*and citation from the justice of the peace was “The Texas & St. *278Louis Railway Company.” The return of the officer on the citation was “ executed by delivering a true copy of the within citation to E. O. Williams, treasurer of the St. Louis & Texas R. R. Co.” *Held,*that the service was insufficient to warrant a judgment by default, and a petition for *certiorari*was properly granted on that state of facts.

December 15, 1880.

§ 553. *Judgment not supported by evidence.*Judgment should not have been rendered upon the drafts without proof of their acceptance; the indorsement by the auditor of the company *“registered*” did not show-sufficient liability.

Reversed and remanded.
News United States Air Force
 Bombers receive warm welcome for Cold ResponsePublished Feb. 29, 2016
                        
                        By Senior Airman Joseph Raatz
                        
                        
                        2nd Expeditionary Bomb Group Public Affairs
                **MORÓN AIR BASE, Spain (AFNS) --**
                B-52 Stratofortresses from Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, arrived in Europe Feb. 27, in preparation for their participation in a large-scale NATO training exercise.This year's iteration of the biennial Cold Response will be held in the central Trøndelag region of Norway and feature air, ground and maritime operations. Approximately 16,000 troops from a dozen nations will participate in the exercise, working together to collectively develop tactics, techniques and procedures for combat operations in an extreme cold-weather environment."We appreciate the opportunity to take part in such a large multinational exercise at the invitation of our Norwegian allies, and we are especially thankful for the opportunity to test our skills in such unique cold weather conditions," said Lt. Col. Dennis Cummings, the 2nd Expeditionary Bomb Group commander. "The ability to train bomber aircrews in different geographic combatant commands is essential to maintaining a strong, credible bomber force that enhances the security and stability of our allies and partners."The B-52s will conduct multiple sorties over the course of the exercise, engaging in simulated strikes against ground targets inside the training area. As the Air Force's premier nuclear-capable, strategic heavy bomber, the B-52 is capable of delivering a large payload of precision nuclear or conventional ordnance over long distances while also providing decision makers the ability to rapidly project military power."Bomber participation in joint military exercises like this one are an expression of the U.S. commitment to supporting our allies and partners, demonstrating our shared dedication to promoting global security and stability," said Maj. Matt Spinelli, the 2nd EBG assistant director of operations.The B-52s will join with KC-135 Stratotankers and F-16 Fighting Falcons to serve as the American air component for the duration of Cold Response 16. A number of C-130 Hercules will also be on hand to provide support to ground forces."This exercise provides a great opportunity for allies to train together and better understand how we each operate and communicate," Cummings said. "The increased understanding and cooperative efforts between our countries enable us to work together effectively, while also addressing any and all security challenges that may arise in the region or other parts of the world."Cold Response 16 is scheduled to run through March 9.Barksdale AFB 



AFGSC 



B-52 Stratofortresses 



B-52 



Spain 



NATO 



joint 



training
IA 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 79 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission 

with respect to broadcast media ownership. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 13, 2008 

Mr. INSLEE (for himself, Mr. REICHERT, Ms. BALDWIN, Mr. PRICE of North 

Carolina, Mr. HINCHEY, and Ms. SLAUGHTER) introduced the following 

joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 

Commerce 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Disapproving the rule submitted by the Federal Communications Commission with respect to broadcast media ownership. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the Fed4 eral Communications Commission relating to broadcast 

5 media ownership (Report and Order FCC 07–216), re6 ceived by Congress on February 22, 2008, and such rule 

7 shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


smartinez on PRODPC61 with BILLS
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001031425
<NAME>                        East Coast Beverage Corporation
<MULTIPLIER>                                  1
<CURRENCY>                                     US

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         115,364
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  109,689
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    2,018,573
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,516,671
<PP&E>                                         801,866
<DEPRECIATION>                                 122,545
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3,195,992
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          3,245,764
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       635
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,450,407)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3,195,992
<SALES>                                        4,403,499
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               4,403,499
<CGS>                                          3,218,516
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,624,943
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             820,333
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,260,293)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (5,260,293)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,260,293)
<EPS-BASIC>                                  (1.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.21)



</TABLE>
#### T. E. Johnson v. Anderson Ranca.

(No. 503, Op. Book No. 2, p. 23.)

Appeal from Harrison County.

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

The opinion in this case being a construction of the rights of parties, under the act of April 2, 1874, with re-, gard to suits upon sworn accounts [Gen. Laws 1874, p. 52], and the law having been materially changed hy recent legislation [Acts 18th Leg. p. 110], we deem it unnecessary to report the opinion,, which may be found published in full in vol. 2, Tex. Law J., p. 276.
N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
In re : AYDIN T. ONER ,

De btor.

______________________________ AYDIN T. ONER ,

Pla i ntiff-Appe lla

nt,
v. FEDER AL NATIONAL M O R TGAGE ASSOC IATION; e t a l.,

De fe nda n ts-Appe lle e s. No. 15-15506 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-01604-JC M
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ne v a da Jam e s C . M aha

n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d De c e m

be r 14, 2016 ** B e fore : W ALLAC E, LEAVY, a nd FISHER , C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED
DEC 21 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.

* * The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se e Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).Ay din T. One r a ppe a ls pro se from

the distric t

c ourt’ s orde r dism issing his ba nkruptc y a ppe a l for fa ilure to file an ope ning brie f. W e have jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C . §§ 158(d), 1291. W e re vie w for a b use of disc re tion a

distric t c ourt’ s dism issa l for fa ilure to prose c ute . Mone y m ak e r v . C oBe n (In reEise n) , 31 F.3d 1447, 1451 (9th C ir. 1994). W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion in dism issing One r’ s a

ppe a l
a fte r granting One r two e xte nsions of time to file an ope n ing brie f and wa rning tha t
a fa i lure to c om

ply m ay re sult in dism

issa l. The distric t c ourt prope rly e xe rc ise d its disc re t ion in de te rm ining tha t the de la y pre judic e d de fe nda

nts a n d inte rfe re d with thedistric t c ourt’ s a

bility to m ana ge its doc ke t. Se e id. (“ Are vie wing c ourt will givede fe re nc e to the distric t c ourt to de c ide what is unre a sona

ble be c a u se it is in the be st position to de

te rm ine what pe riod of de la y c an be e ndure d be fore its doc ke t be c om e s unm ana ge a ble ” (c ita tion a n d inte rna l quota

tion m arks om itte d)). B e c a use we a ffirm

the distric t c ourt’ s dismi ssa l for fa ilure to prose c ute , we do not c o nside r One r’ s c ha lle nge s to the ba nkruptc y c ourt’ s de c isions or the distric t c o urt’ s inte rloc utory orde rs. Se e Morrisse

y v . Stute v i lle(In reMorrisse y ) , 349 F.3d 1187, 1190 (9th C ir. 2003); Al-Tork i v . K a e mpe n , 78 F.3d 1381, 1386 (9th C ir. 1996). AFFIRM E D.

1 5
- 1 5 5 0 6 2