alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Jerome Johnson v. Brunson & Slutter.

(No, 1457, Op. Book No. 2, p. 752.)

Appeal from Colorado County.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 842. *Attachment bond; must be conditioned to pay costs.*The attachment bond in this case omitted the-words “and costs” in the conditional part of it. Held. *483that the bond was fatalty defective, and the appellant’s motion to quash it should have been sustained. The statute plainly requires that one of the conditions of the bond shall be that the obligors will pay the *costs*that may be adjudged against them, etc. [R. S. 156-158.] This being the case, the bond must literally follow the language of the statute, or it must use words which fully and clearly embrace the conditions prescribed by it. [Reid v. Fernandez, 52 Tex. 379.]

February 28, 1883.

Reversed and remanded.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1


                          Commemorative Brands, Inc.

                Statement Re: Computation of Per Share Earnings



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                             Fiscal Year Ended            Fourth Quarter Ended
                                       -----------------------------   --------------------------
                                       August 29,      August 30,      August 29,      August 30,
                                         1998            1997            1998            1997
                                       ----------      ----------      ----------      ----------
                                                    (In thousands, except share data)
<S>                                    <C>             <C>             <C>             <C>
Net income (loss) to common
stockholders                            $ (5,837)       $ (9,717)       $ (8,290)       $ (4,432)
                                       ----------      ----------      ----------      ----------
Weighted average common shares
outstanding                              375,323         375,000         376,294         375,000
                                       ----------      ----------      ----------      ----------
Weighted average common and common
equivalent shares outstanding            375,323         375,000         376,294         375,000
                                       ----------      ----------      ----------      ----------
Basic earnings (loss) per share         $ (15.55)       $ (25.91)       $ (22.03)       $ (11.82)
                                       ----------      ----------      ----------      ----------
Diluted earnings (loss) per share       $ (15.55)       $ (25.91)       $ (22.03)       $ (11.82)
                                       ----------      ----------      ----------      ----------
</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 33 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 33

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
  respecting the right to a clean, safe, and sustainable environment.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2007

  Mr. Jackson of Illinois 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 
  respecting the right to a clean, safe, and sustainable environment.

    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:

                              ``Article --

    ``Section 1.  All persons shall have a right to a clean, safe, and 
sustainable environment, which right shall not be denied or abridged by 
the United States or any State.
    ``Section 2.  The Congress shall have power to enforce and 
implement this article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 19

- 00282

- CV

H AROLD M ILLER , Appellant

V

.

C ONFORMIS , I NC

. AND J OSEPH B ERMAN
, Appellees §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 348th District Court

of Tarrant County ( 348

- 298642

- 18 )

July 30, 2020

Opi nion by Justice Birdwell

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial

court is reversed and the case is remanded to the t rial court for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion

.

It is further ordered that Conformis, Inc. and Joseph Berman shall pay all of

the costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Wade Bird well Justice Wade Birdwell
EXHIBIT 99.2





CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350





The undersigned hereby certifies that he is the duly appointed and acting Chief Financial Officer of CKE Restaurants, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), and hereby further
certifies as follows.





1.  The periodic report containing financial statements to which
this certificate is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.





2.  The information contained in the periodic report to which this certificate is an exhibit fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.





In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed and delivered this certificate as of the date set
forth opposite his signature below.





Date: 9/20/02



/s/    DENNIS J.
LACEYDennis J. LaceyChief Financial Officer
EX-34.2


(logo) pwc




Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm




To the Board of Directors of CoreLogic, Inc.:




We have examined management’s assertion, included in the accompanying Report on Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc. (the “Company”), an indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s Regulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider (the “Platform”), as of December 31, 2011 and for the year then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi), 1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which the Company has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsib1e for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on management’s assertion based on our examination.




Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States) and, accordingly, included examining, on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria.




In our opinion, management’s assertion that the Company complied with the aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended December 31, 2011 for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider is fairly stated, in all material respects.




/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


February 8, 2012




PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, TX 75201-2997 T: (214) 999 1400, F: (214) 754 7991, www.pwc.com/us
News United States Air Force
 BLUE: Air Force TV releases new documentary on F-22 RaptorsPublished Jan. 13, 2015
                        
                        By Air Force News Service
                
                
**FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** -- Air Force TV here released the latest episode of the Air Force's flagship television program, BLUE.
This edition features the Airmen who work together to fix, fuel and fly America's most advanced fighter jet, the F-22 Raptor.
Showcasing everyone from Air Traffic Controllers to Air Battle Managers, Maintenance Technicians to Fuels Specialists, viewers will see that it takes a lot more than just the pilot to get a jet from ground to air. This episode of BLUE was shot on location at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida.Air Force TV 



episode 



F-22 Raptor 



BLUE
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1450

___________________________

Streambend Properties III, LLC; Streambend Properties IV, LLC

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants

v.

Sexton Lofts, LLC; JJT LLC; JJT Development LLC; Heather Enterprises II, LP;

Medved LP; MRM Management Corp.; Regency Commercial Services of

Minnesota LLC; Regency Commercial Services LC; Sexton I, LLC; Brett A.

Thielen, (address unknown); Nedal Abdul-Hajj; Burnet Realty, LLC; John Doe;

Mary Rowe; XYZ, Corp.; Robert T. Myers; James M. Myers, as managing trustee

for the Michael R. Myers Trust

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Minnesota - Minneapolis

____________

 Submitted: October 9, 2014

 Filed: December 30, 2014 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BRIGHT, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
Appellants Streambend Properties III, LLC, and Streambend Properties IV,

LLC (collectively “Streambend”), appeal the district court’s1

 dismissal of claims

brought against various defendants that invested in Sexton Lofts, LLC, a real estate

development located in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The claims arise out of

Streambend’s attempt to purchase two condominium units in Sexton Lofts. On

appeal, Streambend argues that the district court erred in the following respects:

(1) by dismissing Streambend’s Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure

Act claims on the ground that they are barred by the Act’s three-year

statute of limitations under 15 U.S.C § 1711(a)(2);

(2) by dismissing Streambend’s Minnesota Common Interest Ownership

Act claim on the ground that Streambend was not a “purchaser” within

the meaning of the Act;

(3) by dismissing Streambend’s fraud and negligent misrepresentation

claims on the ground that Streambend cannot show that it acted in

reliance on any alleged representations;

(4) and by dismissing Streambend’s state law claims on res judicata grounds.

Upon de novo review, see Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544,

549 (8th Cir. 2008), we agree with the rationale set forth by the district court in

dismissing Streambend’s claims. Seeing no error in the district court’s thorough,

well-reasoned opinion, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B (stating that an affirmance

1

The Honorable Michael J. Davis, Chief Judge, United States District Court for

the District of Minnesota.

-2-
without opinion is appropriate if the opinion would have no precedential value and no

error of law appears).

_____________________________

-3-
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

June 12, 2019

No. 04

- 19

- 00154

- CR

Marilynn Meade MEDINA

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 437th Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016CR11281

Honorable Lori I. Valenzuela , Judge Presiding

ORDER

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED FOR LACK

OF JURISDICTION.

It is so ORDERED on June 12, 2019

.

_____________________________ Irene Rios , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 12th da y of June, 2019

.

_____________________________ Keith E. Hottle, Clerk of Court
# News

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

# Air Force rebuts report due to outdated data 

              - Published  Oct. 2, 2014

**WASHINGTON (AFNS) --  **
The Air Force believes a recent Department of Defense Inspector General report that critiqued Air Force MQ-9 procurement plans to buy 401 Reaper aircraft, stating that 46 aircraft may not be needed, is based on data that is out of date.

 

"The data in the report is a year old," said Lt Gen Robert Otto, Air Force deputy chief of staff for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. "The Air Force is only buying 346 aircraft, 55 fewer than the 401 figure contained in the report and we've only received about half that number.  The projected total Reaper fleet of 346 is far less the service had originally estimated prior to sequestration."

 

The Air Force was acting expeditiously upon direction from the Secretary of Defense to procure enough aircraft to meet the increasing number of combat air patrols the Service was being tasked to provide.     

 

The Air Force requested funds to procure 83 more of the ISR workhorse in its fiscal year 2015 President's Budget Request.  

 

With its significant loiter time, wide-range sensors, multi-mode communications suite and precision weapons, the MQ-9 provides a unique capability to perform strike, coordination and reconnaissance against high-value, fleeting and time-sensitive targets. 

 

"There isn't a Combatant Commander that doesn't want more of this capability," said Col. Ed Thomas, spokesman for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  "The need for ISR remains a top requirement for our theater commanders and our national leaders."

 

A dynamic and volatile threat environment created a demand for the platform.

 

"The MQ-9 has played a vital role in combat operations and has resulted in saving American and coalition lives overseas," said Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence Michael Vickers.  "This is a capability that is in high demand."

 

"The MQ-9 Reaper is a success story," said Otto. "The soldiers and Marines love it. Combatant Commanders want more of it. We’re working hard to make more, as directed by the Secretary of Defense.”

 

The aircraft has made significant contributions to mission success. 

 

“The MQ-9 has made tremendous contributions in combat operations, which has saved countless American and coalition lives, said Otto. “Over its lifetime, the Reaper has flown nearly 700,000 hours, most of those in combat operations, and continues to prove its worth daily in operations over Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Horn of Africa."

ReaperDODIGreportMQ-9
#### William W. Hannan v. Amadeus T. Moran.

*Factors and brokers*— Seal *estate agent*— Sight *to commission.*

Where a plaintiff who sues for commissions for bringing about bargains for the sale of real estate is shown to have done all that he could do in that direction, and that it was defendant’s fault, and not his, that no sale was made, he makes out a good cause •of action.

Error to Wayne. (Gartner, J.)

Argued June 31, 1888.

Decided July 11, 1888.

*Assumpsit.*Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*’Charles W. Casgrain,*for appellant, contended:

1. Plaintiff is not entitled to commissions unless he procured a purchaser ready and willing to. enter into the contract on the employer’s terms; citing *McGavock v. Woodlief,*20 How. 221; *Koch v. Emmerling,*22 Id. 69; *Wylie v. Bank,*61 N. Y. 415; *Walker v. Tirrell,*101 Mass. 257; *Middleton v. Findla,*25 Cal. 76; *Williams v. McGraw,*52 Mich. 481; Cent. L. J. No. 4, Vol. 26, p. 75; Am. Law. Reg. Vol. 35 (26 N. S.), p. 545; *Sibbald v. Iron Co.,*83 N. Y. 378; *Mooney v. Elder,*58 Id. 238.

*James U. Pound,*for plaintiff, contended for the rule •stated in the opinion.

Campbell, J.

Plaintiff sued for commissions for bringing about bargains for the purchase of certain property in Detroit at defendant’s request. The bargains were not ■carried out by defendant. Plaintiff recovered commissions for a single sale. Defendant brings error.

The errors assigned all go to the claim that there was no such service shown to be rendered as would entitle plaintiff to recover. If there was any Such case made out, we *262do not see but that all of defendant’s assignments must fall. The court below did not differ materially with him on the law, and no error that he could complain of was committed. The plaintiff claims that he should have recovered more; but he has not brought error.

The testimony tended to show that plaintiff procured a purchaser first in the person of Mr. Canfield, who failed to buy only because a sewer privilege did not exist which Moran represented to exist. Without going into details, we think that plaintiff brought buyer and seller together on Moran’s terms, and the bargain fell through by Moran’s fault or inability to complete it.

He next procured a purchaser in Mr. Slocum. This-gentleman took a written proposal from Mr. Moran, which he was ready to accept; but Mr. Moran himself backed out of his offer. It turned out that his wife had an interest which he had not mentioned, and did not care to sell. But he had made an offer which Slocum had a, right to consider, and did consider, as final.

Plaintiff did all that he could do, and it was defendant’s fault, and not his, that no sale was made. On the undisputed facts he had a good cause of action. The court left the facts to the jury, and they came to that conclusion. The judgment must be afprmed, with costs-

The other Justices concurred.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           3,383
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   10,695
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     23,600
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                40,521
<PP&E>                                           9,035
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,954
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,837
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           14,044
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        31,467
<OTHER-SE>                                     (1,179)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,837
<SALES>                                         13,110
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,241
<CGS>                                            7,837
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    7,972
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                    72
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 106
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                       528
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,510
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       982
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .24
        

</TABLE>
#### S. R. Outler et al. v. Elam et al.

(No. 953, Op. Book No. 2, p. 216.)

Appeal from Falls County.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 1003. *Administrator; proof of fiduciary capacity; letters not the only evidence of.*Letters of administration are a legal and convenient mode of proving the authority of an administrator, but are not the only mode of proving such authority. This proof may be made by the records of the court that made the appointment, or by certified copies thereof, and such evidence is not secondary. [Abbott’s Trial Ev. 56; 1 Greenl. Ev. 519; Farnsworth v. Briggs, 6 N. H. 562.] The case of Werbiskie v. McManus, 31 Tex. 116, was decided under the probate law of 1848, and the fact seems to have been overlooked that though letters may be sufficient evidence of administration granted, they are not made the only or exclusive *563evidence. That case, however, seems to have been decided chiefly on the ground of an assumed necessity of protecting the federal revenue by enforcing the prepayment of the stamp tax, without which letters could not be read in evidence. In the case at bar appellant S. E. Outler offered to prove by the records of the probate court of Falls county that her deceased husband had left a will, in and of which she was appointed executrix, which will had been duly probated, and that she ha,d been appointed by said probate court, and had duly qualified as executrix of said will. Upon objection, this evidence was rejected, upon the ground that she must prove her fiduciary character by the production of letters of executorship. For this error of the trial court the judgment was reversed.

February 23, 1881.

Eeversed and remanded.
#### ROBERT OWENS v. COLONIAL WATERPROOFING CO. AND SECOND INJURY FUND.

January 23, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                    MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                         SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                 1,009
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                         28,944
<ALLOWANCES>                           2,244
<INVENTORY>                            3,254
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                      36,362
<PP&E>                                80,710
<DEPRECIATION>                        20,454
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       103,021
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 26,035
<BONDS>                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                 390
<OTHER-SE>                            48,299
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         103,021
<SALES>                               60,590
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                      60,590
<CGS>                                 43,237
<TOTAL-COSTS>                         43,237
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       7,579
<LOSS-PROVISION>                         429
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                     1,271
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        8,693
<INCOME-TAX>                           3,137
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                    5,556
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                           5,556
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.24
        

</TABLE>