alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 182 (Tuesday, September 21, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23706]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION


SUNSHINE ACT; NOTICE OF AGENCY MEETING

TIME AND DATE: 10 a.m., Friday, September 24, 2010.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:
    1. Consideration of Supervisory Activities (7). Closed pursuant to 
exemptions (8), (9)(A)(ii) and 9(B).

RECESS: 11:30 a.m.

TIME AND DATE: 2:30 p.m., Friday, September 24, 2010.

PLACE: Board Room, 7th Floor, Room 7047, 1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, 
VA 22314-3428.

STATUS: Open.

Matters To Be Considered

    1. Final Rule--Part 704 of NCUA's Rules and Regulations, Corporate 
Credit Unions.
    2. Delegation of Authority, Corporate Credit Union Service 
Organizations.
    3. Board Briefing, Corporate Credit Unions' Legacy Asset Plan 
Update.
    4. Interpretive Ruling and Policy Statement (IRPS) 10-2, Corporate 
Federal Credit Union Chartering Guidelines.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Rupp, Secretary of the Board, 
Telephone: 703-518-6304.

Mary Rupp,
Board Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-23706 Filed 9-17-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE P
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1126 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1126

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
     To reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and 
                Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988.

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

SECTION 1. AMENDMENTS.

    (a) Authorization of Appropriations.--Section 9 of the Steel and 
Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988 
(15 U.S.C. 5108) is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 9. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

    ``There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary to carry 
out this Act $12,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2008 through 
2012.''.
    (b) Steel Project Priorities.--Section 4(c)(1) of the Steel and 
Aluminum Energy Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988 
(15 U.S.C. 5103(c)(1)) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (H), by striking ``coatings for sheet 
        steels'' and inserting ``sheet and bar steels''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
                    ``(K) The development of technologies which reduce 
                greenhouse gas emissions.''.
    (c) Conforming Amendments.--The Steel and Aluminum Energy 
Conservation and Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988 is further 
amended--
            (1) by striking section 7 (15 U.S.C. 5106); and
            (2) in section 8 (15 U.S.C. 5107), by inserting ``, 
        beginning with fiscal year 2008,'' after ``close of each fiscal 
        year''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 12, 2007.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
110th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 1126

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

     To reauthorize the Steel and Aluminum Energy Conservation and 
                Technology Competitiveness Act of 1988.
```
Order filed October 4, 2018 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00611-CV

____________

PATRICIA DEVERS, Appellant

V.

U.S. BANK N.A., ET AL, Appellee

On Appeal from County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1109429

ORDER

No reporter’s record has been filed in this case. Court reporter Jodi Masera

informed this court that appellant has not requested the reporter’s record. On August 

6, 2018, the clerk of this court notified appellant that we would consider and decide 

those issues that do not require a reporter’s record unless appellant, within 15 days 

of notice, provided this court with proof of the request for the reporter’s record, as 

well as proof of payment or indigence. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(c). No response has 

been received. 
Accordingly, we order appellant to file a brief in this appeal by November 5, 

2018. If appellant fails to comply with this order, the court will dismiss the appeal 

for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(b). 

PER CURIAM
#### W. A. Duffey v. G. A. Cagle.

(No. 2993.)

Appeal from Rains County.

E. W. Terhune, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 119. *Affidavit in forma pauperis; sufficiency of; case stated.*Appellant sued appellee in justice’s court to *492recover $88.41 rents and advances, the former claiming to be the landlord of the latter. Appellant suéd out a distress warrant which was levied upon certain of appellee’s property, and appellant sought a foreclosure of the landlord’s lien upon said property. In justice’s court appellant obtained judgment for $52.84 and costs, and a foreclosure of the landlord’s lien on said property. Appellee appealed to the county court *in forma pauperis,*and appellant moved to dismiss the appeal upon the ground of the insufficiency of the affidavit made in lieu of an appeal bond, which motion was overruled. On motion of appellee the distress proceeding was quashed, and appellant recovered judgment for $90.55 and costs, but without a foreclosure of the landlord’s lien. *Held,*the affidavit *in forma pauperis*is sufficient. It sufficiently and correctly describes the judgment appealed from. It was made before the justice who tried the case while his court was in session, and at the same term of said court at which the judgment was rendered. That the affidavit does not state that the affiant was unable to pay “any part of the costs” does not invalidate it. [Stewart v. Heidenheimer, 55 Tex. 544.] This court formerly held otherwise. [1 App. C. C. § 805.]

§ 420. *Bond for distress warrant; not invalid because' not signed by principal.*It did not render the bond for the distress warrant invalid because it was not signed by the principal, as his name was stated in the body of the bond. It was error to quash the distress proceeding upon this ground.

§ 421. *Foreclosure of landlord’s lien; landlord entitled to, although distress proceeding has been quashed.*It was error to reject testimony offered by appellant to prove the relation of landlord and tenant between appellee and himself, and that the sum sued for was due for rents and advances. Appellant had the right to make this proof notwithstanding the distress proceeding had been quashed, and he was entitled to have a foreclosure of his landlord’s lien on the property, if he could show *493that such lien existed. [2 App. C. C. § 462; 58 Tex. 675; 61 Tex. 50.]

December 12, 1888.

Reversed and remanded.
#### Trustees of Wichita School District v. B. F. Hickey.

(No. 5204.)

Appeal from VCichita County.

Wm. W. Flood, counsel for appellants.

R. Cobb and L. T. Miller, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 280. *Contract of employment to teach school; construction of a letter claimed as a; case stated.*Appellee sped appellants upon an alleged contract to recover $333.33-0- balance claimed to be due him for services as a school teacher. He recovered judgment for said amount and costs. The alleged contract upon which he sued was a letter written to him by one Mayfield, who was a trustee of the board of trustees of the school district in which appellee rendered services as a teacher. Said letter is as follows:

“June 5, 1885.

“Mr. B. F. Hickey, Houston, Tex.— *Dear Sir:*— I have never had a meeting of our school board, but am satisfied that a majority of the board favor you, and you *343may. rest assured of the place if you wish it. Let me know if you will take the place. *You know the salary, 83 per month, 1,000 per year.*I am just leaving this morning; will he absent one week.

“Very truly yours,

“J. S. Mayfield.”

Appellee alleged that he accepted the proposition contained in said letter, and that the board of trustees ratified said contract, etc. *Held:*Conceding that the letter evidences the terms of the contract under which Hickey rendered services, it shows his employment was by the month at $S3 per month, or if for a year, the salary was to be $1,000. At a meeting of the-board of trustees to consider of his employment, said board agreed to employ him for eight months at $S3.33-|- per month, and it was so entered and recorded in the minutes of the meeting. When he had served his first month, and demanded of the secretary of said board his warrant for his pay, the secretary delivered to him a warrant for $83.33-J-. Hickey claimed that the warrant should be for $111 — one month’s pay at the rate of $1,000 per year for a scholastic year of nine months. The secretary called his attention to the action of the board as recorded in the minutes. Hickey accepted said warrant for$83.33-J, and each month thereafter for the eight-months that he taught, he received a similar warrant, receiving in all for his services $666.66-f. Mayfield testified that he had no authority from the board to write the letter claimed by Hickey as a contract, and that in his conversations with Hickey he supposes he told him that his salary would be $S3.33-J per month. *Held:*If the evidence discloses any contract at all, it is one for $S3.33J- per month. If it was one for one year of twelve months at $1,000, it would still be at the rate of $83.33-J per mouth. This is the only reasonable construction that we can give to Mayfield’s letter. Nothing is mentioned in the letter about a scholastic year of nine months. We think the evidence shows that appellant had received full pay under the contract for his services, *344and that he has no cause of action for the amount sued for and recovered by him, or any. part thereof.

April 20, 1887.

Reversed and remanded.
582 A.2d 1003

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. PETRO RADZIWIL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Argued October 23, 1990

Decided December 11, 1990.

*528
      *William E. Norris,*Designated Counsel,' argued the cause for appellant *(Wilfredo Caraballo,*Public Defender, attorney).

*Janet Flanagan,*Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent *(.Robert J. Del Tufo,*Attorney General of New Jersey, attorney).

PER CURIAM

The judgment is affirmed, substantially for the reasons expressed in the opinion of the Appellate Division, reported at 235 *N.J.Super.*557, 563 A.2d 856 (1989).

*For affirmance*Chief Justice WILENTZ and Justices CLIFFORD, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN, GARIBALDI, and STEIN — 7.

*Opposed*— none.
News United States Air Force
 Joan Orr Air Force Spouse of the Year Award winner announcedPublished June 9, 2016
                        
                        By Kat Bailey
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Air Force officials announced Nicole R. Bridge of Ramstein Air Base, Germany, as the 2016 Joan Orr Air Force Spouse of the Year Award winner.
Bridge, the spouse of Tech. Sgt. Matthew J. Bridge assigned to the 86th Security Forces Squadron, oversaw and managed the Ramstein Enlisted Spouses' Association as its president. She devoted 1,200 volunteer hours, organized 125 events and generated $250,000 for distribution into the local community.
The award, sponsored by the Air Force Association, recognizes the significant contributions made by non-military spouses of Air Force military members.
The AFA will present the award to Bridge in September at the 2016 Air and Space Conference and Technology Exposition in Washington, D.C.
For more information about Air Force personnel programs, go to the myPers website. Individuals who do not have a myPers account can request one by following the instructions on the Air Force Retirees Services website.spouse 



award 



USAFE 



Ramstein AB 



AF family
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 4.2
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                                                        <C>               <C>

FORM OF CERTIFICATE FOR COMPANY'S COMMON STOCK

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CMC                                                                      SHARES
------                                                                   --------

COATES MOTORCYCLE COMPANY, LTD.

INCORPORATED IN THE STATE OF DELAWARE
COMMON  STOCK

This certifies that ____________________________________________ is the owner of

_______________________________________ shares.

FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK $.001 PAR VALUE OF

COATES MOTORCYCLE COMPANY, LTD.

Transferable on the books of the Corporation in person or by attorney upon
surrender of this certificate duly endorsed or assigned. This certificate and
the shares represented hereby are subject to the laws of the State of Delaware,
and to the Certificate of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Corporation, as nor or
hereafter amended. This certificate is not valid until countersigned by the
Transfer Agent.

          WITNESS:  the facsimile of the Corporation and the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized officers.

          /s/ Sharon M. Dunn                                                         /s/  Gregory G. Coates

SECRETARY                                                                                          PRESIDENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATED _______________            (SEAL)    COUNTERSIGNED   AMERICAN STOCK TRANSFER & TRUST COMPANY
                                                          AND                  NEW
YORK, NY                         TRANSFER AGENT

REGISTERED

BY:  _____________________________
                                                                                                                   Transfer

Agent-Authorized Signature

</TABLE>
AGREEMENT

Exhibit 4.10


PARTIES:

A. Richard D. Britt(Consultant)


B. ProCoreGroup Inc.
2250 Warrensville Center Road
University Hts. Ohio 44118(Company)


SUBJECT MATTER:

Consult, advise and counsel Company with respect to administrative and
logistical issues.

TERMS:

1.00
Consultant agrees to provide consulting services as indicated in the
above-referenced subject matter, and other services as requested by Company's
management.
Consultant agrees to perform and implement logistical, administrative and
operational task for company as and when requested for a 2 year period.
2.00
Consultant agrees to direct business opportunities to company whenever possible.

3.00
Company agrees to compensate Consultant with a sum of money equal to Two Hundred
Thousand Shares of free trading company stock plus other compensation as
companies management determines.

4.00
Both Company and Consultant agree to re-negotiate this agreement as Company
achieves more success.


Agreed and accepted:




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

an authorized representative for ProCoreGroup INC.


Agreed and accepted:




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

Richard D. Britt


<PAGE>
#### W. N. Barker v. E. W. Foster, County Judge, etc.

*(No. 5202.)*

Appeal from Wichita County.

W. W. Flood, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 305. *Venue of suit on county convict bond.*Appellee, as county judge, instituted this suit upon a county convict bond executed by appellant. The bond was executed in Wichita county, and made payable to E. W. Foster, county judge of said county, and his sucessors in office. The suit was instituted in Wichita county. Appellant and his sureties upon said bond were not residents of said county at the time of the institution of the suit, but were each of them residents of other counties in the state. They each pleaded in abatement their privilege to be sued in the county in which they resided. These pleas were in due form, and as to the sureties were sustained and the suit as to them was dismissed. But as *372to the principal, Barker, his plea in abatement was overruled and judgment was rendered against him upon the bond. *Held*error. The trial judge was of the opinion that Wichita county had jurisdiction of the suit under the fifth exception of article 1198, Revised Statutes, which provides that where a person has contracted in writing to perform a,n obligation in a particular county, suit may be brought in such county, etc. This exception contemplates that the instrument of writing should plainly provide that the obligation is to be performed in a county other than that in which the defendant resides. The privilege of being sued in one’s county is the rule; the denial of it is the exception. To entitle a plaintiff to sue in a county other than the residence of the defendant, the latter .must be embraced within certain named classes, or must have contracted in writing to perform an obligation in a particular county. There was no such contract in this instance.

May 18, 1887.

Reversed and remanded.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1064 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1064

   To amend title 39, United States Code, to extend for 2 years the 
  provisions under which the special postage stamp for breast cancer 
                          research is issued.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 15, 2007

Mr. Baca (for himself, Mr. Moore of Kansas, Ms. McCollum of Minnesota, 
 Mr. Van Hollen, Mr. Farr, Mrs. Maloney of New York, Mr. Fortuno, Mr. 
    Moran of Virginia, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. 
  Dingell, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mrs. McCarthy of New York, Mr. 
  Ellison, Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mrs. Jones of Ohio, Mr. Al Green of 
 Texas, Mr. Nadler, Mr. Stark, Mr. Scott of Georgia, Ms. Hooley, Mrs. 
 Boyda of Kansas, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Klein of Florida, Mr. McIntyre, Mr. 
 Kildee, Mr. George Miller of California, Mr. Shays, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. 
  Roybal-Allard, Mr. Terry, Mr. Boswell, Mr. Gene Green of Texas, Mr. 
Dent, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Hinojosa, Mr. Chandler, Mr. Weiner, Mr. Shimkus, 
Ms. Wasserman Schultz, Mr. Cooper, Mr. Honda, Mr. Holt, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. 
Young of Alaska, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mrs. Schmidt, Mr. Berman, Mr. Price 
   of North Carolina, Mr. Delahunt, Ms. Kaptur, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. 
     Patrick J. Murphy of Pennsylvania, Ms. Hirono, Mr. Engel, Mr. 
 Abercrombie, Ms. Berkley, Mr. Sherman, Mr. King of New York, and Mr. 
   Doggett) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
 Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the 
 Committees on Energy and Commerce and Armed Services, for a period to 
      be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 39, United States Code, to extend for 2 years the 
  provisions under which the special postage stamp for breast cancer 
                          research is issued.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Breast Cancer Research Stamp 
Reauthorization Act''.

SEC. 2. BREAST CANCER STAMP EXTENSION.

    Section 414(h) of title 39, United States Code, is amended by 
striking ``2007'' and inserting ``2009''.
                                 <all>
```
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7575

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus AUDLEY CASANOVA, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Winston-Salem. Frank W. Bullock, Jr., District Judge. (CR-95-108, CA-01-1059-1) Submitted: December 19, 2002 Decided: January 9, 2003 Before WILKINS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Audley Casanova, Appellant Pro Se. Clifton Thomas Barrett, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Audley Casanova was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to distribute crack cocaine and received a 210-month sentence. Casanova seeks to appeal the criminal judgment entered against him on January 9, 1996. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the notice of appeal was not timely filed. In criminal cases, the defendant must file his notice of appeal within ten days of the entry of judgment. Fed. R. App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). The criminal judgment in this case was entered on January 9, 1996. The earliest Casanova’s notice of appeal could be deemed filed is October 2, 2002, the date written on his notice of appeal. Clearly, the notice of appeal was filed well beyond the ten-day appeal period. We therefore dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We further note that this is Casanova’s second appeal of the same judgment. This Court previously affirmed the judgment on the merits. See United States v. Casanova , No. 96-4051, 1999 WL 2522 (4th Cir. Jan. 5, 1999) (unpublished). 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.

DISMISSED