alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 STRATCOM deputy commander receives fourth starPublished July 25, 2016
                        
                        By U.S. Strategic Command Public Affairs
                **OFFUTT AIR FORCE BASE, Neb.(AFNS) --**
                Air Force Gen. Stephen W. Wilson, the U.S. Strategic Command deputy commander, received his fourth star July 22 during a promotion ceremony at the parade field here.
Navy Adm. Cecil D. Haney, the STRATCOM commander, hosted the ceremony over which Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David L. Goldfein presided.
During his remarks, Haney congratulated Wilson on his promotion to the rank of general and appointment as the 39th Air Force vice chief of staff.
“The four stars Gen. Wilson will wear today will not only represent the trust and confidence of our nation but also the trust and confidence of his comrades in arms,” Haney said. “It comes as no surprise to me that the Air Force nominated Steve for his fourth star given his tremendous career and especially the incredible impact he has had as my deputy. His determination and visionary leadership have been instrumental in redefining and operationalizing the roles, responsibilities and missions of the U.S. Strategic Command.”
Goldfein, who also provided remarks, talked about the significance of the event.
“This is a historic moment; we have 10 four-star generals in the entire U.S. Air Force to lead a force of 660,000, and you’re about to become the 39th vice chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force in our history,” Goldfein said. “That’s a big deal.”
Goldfein stated there are two attributes that go into deciding who will be promoted to general.
“The reality is, we look for two things: competence and character in equal measure,” Goldfein said, adding that Wilson has both.
Wilson said he was honored and humbled by his promotion to general and appointment to vice chief of staff, and that he and his wife were looking forward to the challenges associated with each. He also took a moment to thank leaders, friends and family, and the men and women of STRATCOM.
“Thank you all for being here for this milestone event in our life,” Wilson said. “We are truly going to try ... and be great representatives of our Airmen and their families and all our joint service partners as we help the chief lead our Air Force in the 21st century.”
Wilson, a command pilot with more than 4,500 flying hours and 680 combat hours, has been at STRATCOM since July 2015. He previously served as the Air Force Global Strike Command commander.
Since earning his commission from Texas A&M University’s Reserve Officer Training Corps program in 1981, Wilson has led bomber; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance; mobility; aeromedical evacuation; and airborne command and control operations supporting Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, and Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa.CSAF 



VCSAF 



general 



promotion 



Offutt AFB 



STRATCOM
# Painting squadron pride

        By Airman 1st Class Randahl J. Jenson,   49th Wing Public Affairs / Published February 23, 2016

**HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. (AFNS) -- **

PHOTO DETAILS /  DOWNLOAD HI-RES

Senior Airman Paul Gatlin, an aircraft structural maintenance technician with the 49th Maintenance Squadron, finishes taping off the vertical stabilizer of the 54th Fighter Squadron’s F-16 Fighting Falcon flagship at Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., Nov. 10, 2015. Corrosion control specialists have the unique task of ensuring every aircraft on base is able to withstand deterioration caused by the weather. (U.S. Air Force photo/Airman 1st Class Randahl J. Jenson)

PHOTO DETAILS /  DOWNLOAD HI-RES

Airmen 1st Class Robert Rocha (left) and Ryan Magusiak, aircraft structural maintenance technicians with the 49th Maintenance Squadron, tape off the tail of the 54th Fighter Squadron’s F-16 Fighting Falcon flagship in preparation for painting at Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., Nov. 10, 2015. Corrosion control specialists stripped, primed and painted every flagship tail, replacing the Luke AFB symbol “LF” with Holloman’s symbol “HO.” (U.S. Air Force photo/Airman 1st Class Randahl J. Jenson)

Holloman AFBACCF-16 Fighting Falconf-16tail number
**OFFICE OF**  **THE ATTORNEY**  **GENERAL OF**  **TEXAS AUSTIN** **G-c A--** 
Miss Hazel B. Beckham executive Secretarg-DLrector State Commlsslan for the Blind Aaatln, Texas
Deer-t

of this depsrtmentugont

less t&n the l4tllm for 4 8

T&q &.&al z-ider appended to &mate Bill 427,Acts of the Forty-S&&h Leglslatme, the DepartmentalApproprlstlcm Eull, provides In part aa follwar

~I " * * * Frovlded,hwaver, thatnothlng herein shall prevent any departmenthead frompaying less than the maximum axnomt set forth

hereFn for any salariedposition." This is specific authority to the various department heads to pay partluular employees less than the maximum amount itemized for the particular salariedposition.

An eseeutfal function of an appropriatlcmis to set apart a oertain sum of money to be used for a aertain purposeand for no other purpose. It follows that the salary sppropriated for one purpose~mag not be used for another puypose In the absence of exprem authorlty from the Leglslature so to do. There Is no author*ltg caaferredupon the departmentheads by the Leglalature in &U%t8 Bill 427 to transferapproprlaticma,consequentlyany saving effected in payfng less t&an the m3ximum amowt of salary appropriated for a particularpositionmay not be transferredto auother appropMation or used for another purpose than that for which it vas appropriated. see ow ophni~nrI?O.0-3068, COPY, of which is enclosed herewith.

It was held in our opinionHo. O-1006 that 8 8alaPy item Usted $n Senate Bill 427, Acts of the Foptg-SixthLegislature, cannot be broken down into cozupcment parts and oonve&ed into an appropriation fos part-time or half-tinemuploylwlt. A copy of thle oplnloa La enclosedherewith. Slnae 'Yefind no ex@reas authmlty conferredupon the~Oommlssion far the Blind by Senate Bill 427 to break dam a salary Item listed for a partioularposition and use **a** portion of such item of appropriation for part-time or half-time entployment, you are 8dvieed that any ssvlngs effectedby paying .$ess thtm themaxImum amount itepclzed for a particularposltion cannotbe used by your department to pay a part-time employee for like work.
Yours very truly ATTORMEYOEUERAL OF 'l'~xA.8

R. W. Falrchlld Assistant RWF:ej Encls.
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 Quarterly Report of GlobeTel Communications Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended September 30, 2005 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Thomas Y. Jimenez, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

1. The Report fully complies with the requirement 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 result of operations of the Company.


Thomas Y. Jimenez
Chief Financial Officer
November 11, 2005
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF 

ARIZONA, LLC,

Appellant,

v.

LILIA FAVELA,

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-23-00158-CV

Appeal from the

41st Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2018-DCV4882)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before this Court is the parties’ first amended joint motion to dismiss this appeal pursuant 

to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(2). In the motion, the parties state that they have 

“satisfactorily compromised and settled all matters in dispute between them.”

Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1 provides the actions a court may take to dispose 

of an appeal on the motion of the appellant or by agreement of the parties. On the motion of 

appellant, the court may dismiss the appeal or affirm the appealed judgment or order. TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a)(1). When parties file an agreement signed by all parties or their attorneys, the court may: 

“(A) render judgment effectuating the parties’ agreement; (B) set aside the trial court’s judgment 

without regard to the merits and remand the case to the trial court for rendition of judgment in 
2

accordance with the agreement; or (C) abate the appeal and permit proceedings in the trial court 

to effectuate the agreement.” TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(a)(2)(A)–(C). 

After reviewing the motion and attached agreement, which has been signed by both parties 

and their attorneys, we conclude that the substance of the agreement seeks a voluntary dismissal 

under Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1). Therefore, the motion is granted and the 

appeal is dismissed. Each party shall bear the costs of this appeal pursuant to their agreement and 

joint motion. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d). 

GINA M. PALAFOX, Justice

July 28, 2023

Before Rodriguez, C.J., Palafox, and Soto, J.J.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 110 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to impose limitations 

on wetlands mitigation activities carried out through the condemnation 

of private property. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 4, 2007 

Mrs. JO ANN DAVIS of Virginia introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to impose 

limitations on wetlands mitigation activities carried out 

through the condemnation of private property. 

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 ‘‘Rural America Protec5 tion Act of 2007’’. 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
2 

•HR 110 IH

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATIONS ON WETLANDS MITIGATION 

2 THROUGH CONDEMNATION. 

3 Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control 

4 Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) is amended by adding at the end 

5 the following: 

6 ‘‘(u) LIMITATIONS ON WETLANDS MITIGATION

7 THROUGH CONDEMNATION.— 

8 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary or the State 

9 (in the case of a State administering a permit pro10 gram approved under this section) may not issue a 

11 permit under this section to a Federal, State, or 

12 local entity where compliance with this section is 

13 based on a permit condition requiring mitigation of 

14 adverse impacts to wetlands through the acquisition 

15 of private property for the creation, restoration, or 

16 protection of wetlands if— 

17 ‘‘(A) the property is being acquired by con18 demnation; and 

19 ‘‘(B) the property is located outside the 

20 United States Geological Survey 8-digit code 

21 cataloging unit (as defined by the Hydrologic 

22 Unit Map of the United States (U.S.G.S. 

23 1980)) in which the wetland to be impacted by 

24 the permitted activity is located. 

25 ‘‘(2) COMPENSATION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

26 OWNERS.—Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the SecVerDate Aug 31 2005 00:42 Jan 10, 2007 Jkt 059200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H110.IH H110

ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
3 

•HR 110 IH

1 retary or the State may issue a permit under this 

2 section in the circumstance described in paragraph 

3 (1) if the Federal, State, or local entity acquiring 

4 the property by condemnation provides to the owner 

5 of the property compensation in an amount that 

6 equals or exceeds the greater of— 

7 ‘‘(A) the fair market value of the property; 

8 or 

9 ‘‘(B) the average fair market value of a 

10 parcel of property of the size of the property 

11 being acquired in the United States Geological 

12 Survey cataloging unit in which the wetland to 

13 be impacted by the permitted activity is lo14 cated.’’. 

Æ 


ccoleman on PRODPC75 with BILLS
422 A.2d 1177

#### Rosenthal, Appellant, v. Bank of King of Prussia et al.

Argued March 20, 1979.

Wilbur Greenberg, for appellant; Philip D. Weiss, for Bank of Prussia, appellee. Andrew B. Cantor, will not file a brief on behalf of Barclay Brothers, appellees.

Before VAN der VOORT, HESTER and WIEAND, JJ.

Decree affirmed.
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-21-00049-CV

HOLCOMB RESOURCES, INC., Appellant

V.

OAKHOLLOW GROUP, LTD., Appellee

On Appeal from the 348th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 348-300454-18

Before Morriss, C.J., Burgess and Stevens, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Holcomb Resources, Inc., filed a notice of appeal in this matter on April 20, 2021. The 

appellate record was due to be filed with this Court on or before May 21, 2021. Both the Tarrant 

County District Clerk1and the court reporter who recorded the trial court proceedings in this 

matter informed our clerk’s office that no payment and no arrangement for payment for the 

record’s preparation had been made by Holcomb.

Holcomb is not indigent and is, therefore, responsible for payment of the fees related to 

preparation of the appellate record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 20.1; 35.3(a)(2), (b)(3); 37.3(b), (c). By 

letter dated June 1, 2021, and pursuant to Rules 37.3 and 42.3 of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, we notified Holcomb of this defect and provided it an opportunity to cure it. Further, 

we warned Holcomb that, if we did not receive an adequate response to our defect letter within 

ten days of the date of the letter, this appeal would be subject to dismissal for want of 

prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), (c); 42.3(b).

1Originally appealed to the Second Court of Appeals, this case was transferred to this Court by the Texas Supreme 

Court pursuant to its docket equalization efforts. See TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 73.001.
3

We have received no communication from Holcomb responsive to our June 1

correspondence. Consequently, this appeal is ripe for dismissal. Pursuant to Rule 37.3, 

subsections (b) and (c), and Rule 42.3(b), we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b), (c); 42.3(b).

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: July 1, 2021

Date Decided: July 2, 2021
#### DR. ROBERT EDELMAN v. JOHN F. KENNEDY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL.

February 28, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
1 Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by

designation.

2 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FIFTH CIRCUIT

____________ No. 96-30933

____________

METAL SALES MANUFACTURING CORP, USA, for the use and benefit of Plaintiff - Counter-Defendant - Appellee

VERSUS

ACADIAN BUILDERS OF GONZALES INC Defendant

- Counter- Claimant - CrossDefendant - Appellant AMERICAN BONDING COMPANY Defendant - Cross-Claimant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(94-CV-614)

September 25, 1997

Before GIBSON 1 , JOLLY and, EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 2
We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on
appeal and fin d that the magistrate judge did not clearly err in
allocating damages stemming from the Fort Polk Project.

Acadian Builders seeks additional damages alleging that Metal-2-

Sales’ fa ilure to timely deliver materials it was contractually
obligated to deliver to the Fort Polk Project caused it damage far

greater tha n that allotted by the magistrate judge. Acadian
contends that the magistrate judge imposed too strenuous a burden

upon Acadian Builders. S ee Austin v. Par ker , 672 F.2d 508, 521

(5th Cir. 1982). We disagree. The magistrate judge merely made
credibility choices on conflicting evidence. “Our reading of the

L ouisiana cases convinced us that [Acadian Builders could have]

recover[ed] for [additional] amounts spent to complete the work in
excess of the contract price so long as [it had] prove[d] them to

the court’s satisfaction.” Id. at 522. It did not.
Accordingly, we AFFIRM.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 88 (Thursday, May 25, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5591]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Indiana [Mr. Burton] is recognized for 5 minutes.

  [Mr. BURTON of Indiana addressed the House. His remarks will appear 
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   AUG-02-1997
<CASH>                                                 258
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        3,130
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                         46,981
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    58,247
<PP&E>                                              48,827
<DEPRECIATION>                                      25,592
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                      86,025
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                               20,688
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                                70
<OTHER-SE>                                          36,207
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                        86,025
<SALES>                                             39,530
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    39,530
<CGS>                                               21,372
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                       17,143
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     667
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                        348
<INCOME-TAX>                                           152
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    196
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                           196
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                         0.03
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         0.03
        


</TABLE>
v391552_ex10-2 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing

 


Exhibit 10.2
exh4.8 Amendmt to Rights Agmt




	













 


 

Exhibit 4.8 




AMENDMENT NO. 1 

TO RIGHTS AGREEMENT 




This Amendment No. 1 to that certain Rights Agreement (the "Rights Agreement"), dated as of April 1, 1998, between ICO, Inc., a Texas corporation (the "Company"), and Harris Trust & Savings Bank, a national banking association, as Rights Agent (acting at the direction of the Company), is dated as of October 31, 2003. 




RECITALS OF THE COMPANY 




WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Rights Agreement in order to accelerate the Final Expiration Date (as defined therein), and Section 29 of the Rights Agreement permits such amendments without the approval of any holders of the Right Certificates (as defined therein); and 




WHEREAS , on October 31, 2003, the Board of Directors of the Company resolved to adopt this Amendment No. 1. 




NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the mutual agreements herein set forth, the parties hereto agree as follows: 




1.    The definition of Final Expiration Date contained in Section 1, Certain Definitions , of the Rights Agreement is hereby amended to read as follows: 




"Final Expiration Date" shall mean the Close of Business on November 3, 2003. 




2.    All of the remaining terms and provisions of the Rights Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 




IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to the Rights Agreement to be duly executed, as of the day and year first above written. 

 


 


	
ICO, Inc. 

	
 
	
 

		
	
By: 
	
/s/ Jon C. Biro 

		



	
Name: 
	
Jon C. Biro 

	
Title: 
	
Interim Chief Executive Officer and 

	
 
	
Chief Financial Officer 

		
		
	
 
	
 

		
	
Harris Trust and Savings Bank 

	
	
As Rights Agent 

	
 
	
 

		
	
By: 
	
/s/ Martin J. McHale 

		



	
Name: 
	
Martin J. McHale 

	
Title: 
	
Vice President
#### HAYES *v.*CONGER.

Appeal and Error; Interlocutory Orders; Attachment.

1. An order overruling a motion to quash a writ of attachment is interlocutory, and not appealable, unless a special appeal is allowed by this court. (Construing sec. 226, D. C. Code, 31 Stat. at L. 1225, chap. *854.)*

2. Jurisdiction over property seized under a writ of attachment is acquired by the court, although the affidavits in support of the writ are defective. .

No. 2217.

Submitted December 5, 1910.

Decided January 3, 1911.

Hearing on an appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia overruling a motion to quash a writ of attachment.

*Appeal dismissed.*

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Mr. Levi H. David*and *Mr. R. B. Behrend*for the appellant.

*Mr. Webster Ballinger*for the appellee.

Mr. Justice Robb

delivered the opinion of the Court:

This is an appeal [by Narcissa Hayes] from an order of the supreme court of the District of Columbia overruling appellant’s motion to quash a writ of attachment, an application for special appeal having been denied by this court.

*203The motion to dismiss the appeal must be granted, since the order from which the appeal is prosecuted is interlocutory, and does not change or affect the possession of property, within the meaning of sec. 226 of the Code [31 Stat. at L. 1225, chap. 851], providing for appeals to this court. Appellant contends that the affidavits accompanying the application for the writ are defective, and hence that the municipal court was without jurisdiction to issue the writ. Upon that premise he insists that the action of the court below in refusing to quash the attachment is open to review upon general appeal. This position is not tenable, for “if the writ of attachment is the lawful writ of the court, issued in proper form under the seal of the court, and if it is by the proper officer levied upon property liable to the attachment, when such writ is returned into court, the power of the court over the *res*is established.” The affidavit may be so defective as to demand a reversal of the judgment, but this does not “deprive the court of the jurisdiction acquired by the writ levied upon defendant’s property.” *Cooper*v. *Reynolds,*10 Wall. 308, 19 L. ed. 931.

The appeal must be dismissed, with costs, and it is so ordered.

*Appeal dismissed.*