alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 Retired general talks issues facing females in militaryPublished Nov. 4, 2015
                        
                        By Senior Airman Rose Gudex
                        
                        
                        21st Space Wing Public Affairs
                **PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. (AFNS) --**
                Retired Lt. Gen. Susan Helms, a former 14th Air Force commander, spoke to servicewomen from Peterson Air Force Base, Schriever AFB and Cheyenne Mountain Air Force Station about issues facing females in the military during a women's brunch Oct. 29.The goal of the event was to create an environment where men and women discuss women's issues, network with female leaders and receive advice from a general officer with a vast amount of career achievements, said 1st Lt. Sarah Berheide, one of the event coordinators. The idea evolved from the idea of a "girl's night" and was adapted to become a military social and professional development event.Helms was chosen because of her background in the space field and because she paved the way for women in the military as she was part of the Air Force Academy's first graduating class of females and the first U.S. military female to go to space with NASA where she holds the world record for the longest spacewalk.The experiences of traveling to space five times, spanning a total of 211 days, gave Helms plenty to discuss about working with a predominately male work force. This included her time working with Russian cosmonauts and spanning back to her Academy days when some were not very accepting of women becoming officers.A few points Helms made for attendees were to remain true to oneself despite the pressure to do otherwise, become competent and gain credibility by being a subject matter expert and support one other."If you are really good at what you do, no one can argue that you shouldn't be there," Helms said. "If you really know your stuff and you take the time to be as good as you can possibly be on the mission you've been assigned, that goes a long way toward your credibility and your reputation."A point she emphasized was the importance for women to be proud of their role in the military and not to try to blend in."Don't worry about what can make you stand out as a woman," Helms said. "That's your strength from a diversity standpoint. The Air Force is a much stronger place today because they brought women in at a very fast pace."Peterson AFB 



Schriever AFB 



Cheyenne Mountain AFS 



women Related Links
        LIEUTENANT GENERAL SUSAN J. HELMS
                                June 29, 2006
                                Lt. Gen. Susan J. Helms is Commander, 14th Air Force (Air Forces Strategic), Air Force Space Command; and Commander, Joint Functional Component Command for Space, U.S. Strategic Command, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. As the U.S. Air Force's operational space component to USSTRATCOM, General
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 93 (Thursday, June 8, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H5737-H5738]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

     EXPRESSING THANKS FOR THE HEROIC RESCUE OF CAPT. SCOTT O'GRADY

  (Mr. LaTOURETTE asked and was given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. LaTOURETTE. Mr. Speaker, this morning at 5:50 a.m., two CH-53 Sea 
Stallion assault helicopters, two AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters and two 
AV-8 Harrier jump jets were launched from the U.S.S. Kearsarge to 
travel into war-torn Bosnia and rescue Capt. Scott F. O'Grady whose F-
16 jet was shot down over hostile Serb territory 6 days ago.
  It was a daring, risky daytime rescue. Less than 1 hour after the 
launch, Capt. Scott F. O'Grady ran out of the woods, pistol in hand, 
and safely boarded one of the massive CH-53 Sea Stallion helicopters.
  As the chopper took off to flee Bosnia in these most dangerous and 
harrowing of circumstances, its fuselage was hit by two shots and its 
blades were clipped by small fire. A missile was fired but missed. 
Still, the pilot of that 53 Echo chopper was able to safely exit Bosnia 
over the Adriatic Sea and return Captian O'Grady to safety aboard the 
U.S.S. Kearsarge.
  The pilot of that chopper in that extraordinarily courageous rescue 
mission was U.S. Marine Capt. Paul A. Fortunato, 30, the son of Paul 
and Gayle Fortunato of Concord Township in Northeast Ohio.
  Captian Fortunato's mother, Gayle, said, ``This is what they train 
for.'' But I would disagree. You cannot train for acts of heroism. They 
come from within the heart and soul. They are the products of a deep 
and abiding love of country. Capt. Paul A. Fortunato is the embodiment 
of a hero.
  For that, on behalf of citizens of the 19th District of Ohio and all 
of the [[Page H5738]] United States of America, we thank you Capt. Paul 
A. Fortunato, and the rest of the brave participants in this heroic and 
spectacular rescue mission.
  America is infinitely proud of you, and forever grateful.
  

                          ____________________
```
#### Casey & Swasey v. Y. T. Douglass et al.

(No. 6269.)

Appeal from Wilbarger County.

W. W. Flood and Britt & Easton, counsel for appellants.

T. O. Beckett, O. O. Wills and-F. P. MoGehee, counsel for appellees.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

*196June 16, 1890.

§ 135. *Pleading; petition held sufficient to show liability of sheriff for neglect*to. *execute process.*Appellants alleged in their petition, in substance, that they sued one Kinsey, and had certain property of said Kinsey attached, obtained judgment against said Kinsey for their debt, with a foreclosure of the attachment lien upon the property attached; that an order of sale was issued upon said judgment, and placed in the hands of *Q.*T. Douglass, sheriff, in whose custody was said attached property; that said sheriff failed to execute said order of sale, but negligently permitted said property to be wasted, etc.; that said property was of more than sufficient value to satisfy their judgment against Kinsey; that, by reason of the said failure and negligence of said sheriff, they had been unable to collect their said judgment, etc. The suit was against the sheriff and the sureties on his official bond. A special exception to the petition was sustained, *and,*the appellants declining to amend, the suit was dismissed. Said special exception is that the petition does not aver that the property attached was in fact the property of Kinsey, and subject to said attachment. We are of opinion that the said averment was not necessary, and that the petition is sufficient. It is alleged in the petition that the property had been attached as the property of Kinsey; that the attachment lien had been foreclosed upon it as Kinsey’s property, by a court of competent jurisdiction; and that an order for the sale of said property had issued from said court. These allegations show conclusively that the property was Kinsey’s, and subject to attachment..

Reversed and remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       5,030,331
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  436,905
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (19,314)
<INVENTORY>                                  1,095,578
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,029
<PP&E>                                         113,739
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,710,611
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,246,114
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,547
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,460,950
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,710,611
<SALES>                                      3,735,773
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             3,735,773
<CGS>                                        2,760,380
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,760,380
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             2,045,577
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             199,133
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,252,556)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,252,556)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                130,354
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,382,910)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (2.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-20-00160-CR

DERRICK CAVITT, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

§

§

§

§

§

On Appeal from the 396th District 

Court

of Tarrant County (1194940D)

December 31, 2020

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

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

appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
Orion Acquisition Corp. II







FOR  IMMEDIATE   RELEASE:   December  12,  2003.  Orion   Acquisition  Corp.  II
(OTCBB/MTMR)  today announced that it has entered into negotiations for a merger
with Citadel  Media,  Inc.  The two  companies  have entered into a  non-binding
letter of  intent  with  final  terms to be  reflected  in a  definitive  merger
agreement and subject to a number of conditions,  including  approval by Citadel
stockholders and certain regulatory filings. There is no assurance that a merger
will be successfully concluded.

In addition,  Orion has advanced  Citadel $500,000 in anticipation of finalizing
the merger,  the loan is secured by assets of Citadel and its  subsidiaries  and
will be extinguished without payment in the event of the closing of the proposed
merger.  In the event the merger is not consummated,  the principal and interest
is convertible into securities of Citadel under certain circumstances.

Citadel  operates a  subscription-based  sports media  network,  which  provides
exclusive content through its affiliate websites,  which are targeted to fans of
approximately  100 Division 1A universities and NFL, NBA and NHL teams.  Citadel
also publishes 27 magazines targeted to the same audience.  Citadel is a private
company operating out of Washington State.

Orion is a development stage company, the business purpose of which is to seek a
target company to acquire by combination,  consolidation or merger. Orion is not
limited to any  industry in its search and  negotiations  for a target  company.
Orion operates under certain  restrictions  as a result of its business  purpose
and size.

The above statements  include forward looking  statements that involve risks and
uncertainties,  which are  described  herein and may be  otherwise  described in
Orion's SEC reports,  including  Orion's Form 1-KSC for the year ended  December
31, 2002 and From 10-QSB for the quarter ended September 30, 2003.

For further  information,  contact Dyana Marlett,  Secretary,  Orion Acquisition
Corp. II, 401 Wilshire  Boulevard,  Suite 1020, Santa Monica,  California 90401,
phone 310-526-5000.

         401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1020 o Santa Monica, California 90401
                           310-526-5000 o 310-526-5020
#### C. W. Batsel v. J. M. Blaine.

(No. 2992.)

Appeal from Grayson County.

*{Transferred from Austin.)*

Turner & Bryant, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 195. *Appeal bond from justice’s court is governed by article 1639 of Revised Statutes; case stated.*Appellant sued appellee for the possession of two cows of the alleged value of $150. The suit commenced in justice’s court, where appellant recovered judgment. On appeal to the county court by appellee judgment was rendered in favor of appellee, and appellant prosecutes this appeal. In appealing from the judgment rendered in justice’s court appellee executed an appeal bond in accordance with article 1639 of the Revised Statutes. Such appeal bond was sufficient and conferred jurisdiction of the cause upon the county court. Article 1405 of the Revised Statutes is not applicable to an appeal prosecuted from the judgment of a justice’s court, such appeal being governed by article 1639.

§ 196. *Ordinance forbidding cattle' to run at large, etc.; constitutionality of such ordinance; case stated.*It appears from the evidence that appellee was the city marshal of the city of Sherman, Texas, and, as such, took up the cows in dispute by virtue of an ordinance of said city forbidding cattle to run at large in said city. Appellant contends that said ordinance is unconstitu*296tional because it comes within the meaning of section 23, article 16, of the constitution, and was not submitted to and approved by the freeholders of said city. We are of the opinion that said section of the constitution has no reference whatever to such an ordinance. That section relates to laws for the regulation of live-stock and the protection of stock raisers in the stock-raising portions of the state. It was not intended to operate in cities and to restrict the powers of municipal corporations in the enactment police regulations. Cities and towns are chartered by the legislature under express authority conferred by the constitution. [Const., art. 11, §§ 4, 5.] And under the general law the power to establish public pounds, and to regulate, restrain and prohibit the running at large of cattle, etc., is expressly granted to cities and towns. [R. S., art. 400.] We are clearly of the opinion that the ordinance in question is not unconstitutional because not submitted to and approved by the freeholders of the municipality. Nor is the ordinance invalid because it directed and enforced the marshal to establish public pounds. This was not a delegation to him of such authority as would invalidate the ordinance.

January 14, 1891.

Affirmed.
No. 11,933.

#### Pixley et al. *v.*VanNostern.

Promissory *Note.*— Party *in Interest.*— Plea *in Bar.*— In an action on a promissory note by the endorsee, a verified answer by the makers, admitting the execution of the note, but alleging that the payee was still the owner thereof, and that the plaintiff had no interest in it other than as the agent and trustee of the payee, who was the real party in interest, and that the note was assigned to the plaintiff only for the purpose of collection, is a plea, not in abatement, but in bar.

From the Delaware Circuit Court.

*R. S. Gregory*and *A. C. Silverburg,*for appellants.

*G. H. Koons,*for appellee.

Black, C.

Action by the appellee against the appellants upon a promissory note executed by the latter to one Mary E. "Warner, and by her endorsed to the appellee. The appellants answered, admitting the execution of the note to the payee named therein, but alleging that she was then, and ever since the execution of the note had been, the owner thereof in her own right; that the plaintiff had not, and never did have, any right, title or interest in or to said note other than as the agent and trustee of said payee; that the note was assigned to the plaintiff for the purposes of collection and not otherwise; and that said payee was the real party in interest. This answer was verified by the affidavit of one of the defendants.

The plaintiff replied by general denial. The court tried *35the cause and found for the plaintiff, assessing his damages, and rendered judgment accordingly.

Filed Jan. 22, 1885.

All the questions that the appellants have sought to present for our decision resolve themselves into one, which is whether the answer was in bar or in abatement, it being contended on behalf of the appellants that it was the latter. This position of the appellants can not be sustained. *Swift*v. *Ellsworth,*10 Ind. 205; *Wilson*v. *Clark,*11 Ind. 385; *Lewis*v. *Sheaman,*28 Ind. 427; *Hereth*v. *Smith,*33 Ind. 514. We find no error.

Per Curiam. — It is ordered, upon the foregoing opinion, that the judgment be affirmed at the costs of the , appellants.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Commodity Futures Trading Commission

# TIME AND DATE: 

11 a.m., Friday, October 8, 2010. 

# PLACE: 

1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Floor Commission Conference Room. 

# STATUS: 

Closed. 

# MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

Surveillance and Enforcement Matters. 

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

Sauntia S. Warfield, 202-418-5084. 

Sauntia S. Warfield, 

Assistant Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 2010-23647 Filed 9-17-10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6351-01-P
```

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

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1126

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 2007

  Mr. Lipinski (for himself and Mr. Ehlers) introduced the following 
  bill; which was referred to the Committee on Science and Technology

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     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''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Anson E. Chadwick v. Margaret Walsh.

*Attorney and client*— Agreement *as to compensation*— Percentage *on alimony allowed*— Appeal—Record— *Unnecessary matter*— Costs.

1. In this case the agreement of the defendant to allow plaintiff a percentage for his services on the excess over $15,000, awarded to her in a divorce suit, is held to cover $3,000 allowed to pay debts by her incurred.

*2.*In this case it is held that a record of 12 pages would have presented the only point for decision, and the expense of the excess of 93 pages is charged to the plaintiff, the unnecessary matter having been included at his request and against defendant’s objection.

Error to St. Clair. (Stevens, J.)

Argued May 17, 1888.

Decided June 15, 1888.

*Assumpsit.*Defendant brings error.

Affirmed.

The ' facts are stated in the opinion.

*Frank Whipple,*for appellant.

*Sheldon A. Wood,*for plaintiff.

*628Champlin, J.

The only question in this case is whether the court below erred in instructing the jury to render a. judgment for $1,807,20 in favor of the plaintiff.

At the request of defendant’s counsel the court held that a contract existed between plaintiff and defendant that he was to receive, for his services rendere d to her in a suit which she had with her husband for divorce, the sum of 15 per cent, upon .the amount awarded to defendant by the court above $15,000. She was allowed $28,000. Three thousand of this was allowed to pay debts incurred by her, and it is insisted by her counsel that this should be deducted. The circuit court thought otherwise, and in this we think the circuit judge was correct. There is no more reason for deducting the $3,000 from the excess over $15,000 than there is that it should be considered a part of the $15,000. It constituted a portion of the amount allowed her, and there is no reason why it should not be included in the amount upon which the percentage should be computed.-

The judgment of the circuit court is affirmed, with costs of both courts

The record contains 105 pages, when it should not have exceeded 12 to raise and present the only point in the case. This unnecessary matter was included at the request of the plaintiff, and against- the objection of defendant’s counsel. This extra and unnecessary expense must be set off and deducted from the costs as taxed by plaintiff.

The other Justices concurred.