alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### M. Z. Smissen v. C. H. Lee.

(No. 5941.)

Appeal from Mitchell' County.

R. H. Looney, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 449. *Garnishment; application for, must be in the record; case stated.*Appellee garnished appellant in justice’s court for an indebtedness to one Garrison. Appellant answered that he was not indebted to Garrison. His answer was controverted, and judgment was rendered against him, and he appealed to the county court. In the latter court, the cause .being called for trial, it was discovered that the original papers had been lost. There was no substitution, or attempt at substitution, of the lost papers, and, over objection of appellee, the court tried the cause and rendered judgment against him for $120 and costs. *Held*error. The application in writing under oath for the writ of garnishment required by article 185, Revised Statutes, is the basis of the proceeding — the pleading upon which the whole case against appellee depended. It was indispensable to a proper understanding and trial of the cause, and it was error to proceed to a trial of the cause without either the original or a prop*549erly substituted copy of it. The judgment is reversed, and upon the facts of the case is rendered in favor of appellee.

April 10, 1889.

Reversed and rendered.
News United States Air Force
 AMC commander directs maximized privacy for pregnant AirmenPublished Aug. 4, 2022
                        
                        
                        Air Mobility Command Public Affairs
                **SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill. (AFNS) --**
                **Gen. Mike Minihan**, commander of **Air Mobility Command**, recently signed a directive that provides pregnant AMC Airmen a streamlined process to access prenatal medical care resources while prioritizing the member’s health privacy and safeguarding unit readiness.

This change follows new efforts by the **Department of the Air Force Women’s Initiative Team** to mask pregnancies at the unit level to remove current and potential barriers affecting Airmen during pregnancy. Removal of these barriers is part of a broader Airmen readiness effort to minimize stigma surrounding pregnancy.

“Pregnancy is the only medical condition identified in profiles, personnel and readiness systems, making the diagnosis accessible to the unit before some women are able to process the news, determine viability, or even notify their own families,” said Capt. Frances Castillo, WIT lead.

In 2021, the **Department of the Air Force Inspector General Disparity Report** identified maternal bias as one of the leading reasons women did not feel included in an organization. It indicated in some cases Airmen experienced professional setbacks in the form of limited, delayed or cancelled training and broadening opportunities.

Additionally, the report revealed that one in four women delay pregnancy testing due to concerns that their organization would take action that would adversely impact their duties or career trajectory.

“The Air Force is addressing systemic changes, but until those changes are implemented, I expect everyone under my command to maximize the privacy, health, and readiness of pregnant Airmen,” Minihan said.

Under the new guidance, rather than receiving the previously required 10-month profile with restrictions not applicable until later in the pregnancy, pregnant Airmen will be issued the general 30-day profile that only documents mobility, duty, and fitness restrictions. Additionally, subordinate commanders are directed to minimize automatic recipients of the Air Force Form 469, Form 422, and Department of Defense Form 2992, as well as strictly protect medical information from unauthorized disclosure.

Members are still encouraged to promptly inform their direct unit commanders, but under the new stipulations, the Airman’s pregnancy status remains discretely with limited leadership and health authorities.

“As part of maintaining operational readiness, units must be notified of mobility, duty, and fitness restrictions,” Castillo said. “However, the medical diagnosis driving those deferments should be kept private, similar to every other medical condition, so women are **empowered** to decide when to make their pregnancy public.”LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



AMC 



Air Mobility Command 



diversity 



privacy 



pregnant 



pregnancy 



medical 



health 



readiness
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999             SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                          11,505                  24,359
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,266                   4,887
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0                       0
<INVENTORY>                                      2,833                   1,909
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                21,507                  32,245
<PP&E>                                           3,911                   4,542
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  53,929                  38,069
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,421                   5,630
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                     629
<COMMON>                                           510                     359
<OTHER-SE>                                     152,810                 114,317
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,929                  38,069
<SALES>                                         21,023                  13,940
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0                       0
<CGS>                                            5,258                   3,103
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,774                  20,466
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (114)                   1,323
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (26,637)                 (7,849)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (1,139)                     412
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (25,498)                 (8,261)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (25,498)                (14,078)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.58)                   (.52)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.58)                   (.52)


</TABLE>
WARNING: THE EDGAR SYSTEM ENCOUNTERED ERROR(S) WHILE PROCESSING THIS SCHEDULE.

<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                          <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                           1,373
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                23,414
<PP&E>                                          18,107
<DEPRECIATION>                                     302
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  44,719
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          170,052
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                     86,360
<COMMON>                                           417
<OTHER-SE>                                   (475,470)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    44,719
<SALES>                                          1,385
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,385
<CGS>                                            3,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    3,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               107,456
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 818
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (109,889)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (109,889)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (109,889)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


        

</TABLE>
BRIGADIER GENERAL CLARENCE J. GALLIGANClarence Joseph Galligan was born in New York City in 1920. He graduated from St. Peters High School, Staten Island, in 1937, and entered New York University where he studied aeronautical engineering. 

He interrupted his studies to enlist as a flying cadet and was commissioned a second lieutenant March 15, 1941. He served primarily as a combat group commander during World War II and is rated a command pilot. 

He logged more than 750 combat hours and 55 combat missions during the war. He was assigned to the European Theater from June 1942 through the war's end. During this period he participated in the North African invasion and six other campaigns. 

In 1944, he commanded the American combat group in the "Balkan Air Force" - an international force that supplied assistance and evacuated partisans and guerillas operating in enemy-held territories. 

From 1945 through September 1950, Colonel Galligan held command positions at base and group level. He also obtained his bachelor of science from the University of North Carolina during this period (1949). 

In September 1950 he was assigned as chief, Personnel Progress Branch, Deputy Chief of Staff/Comptroller, Headquarters U.S. Air Force in Washington. A year later he attended the Harvard University, Graduate School of Business Administration and graduated "with distinction" with a master's in business administration. 

He was assigned in August 1953 to Korea where he served as comptroller, 5th Air Force. He then became the chief of accounting for the Military Air Transport Service. 

Colonel Galligan became comptroller of the Southern Air Materiel Area (Europe) in June 1955 and served in this assignment until September 1957 when he was assigned to Headquarters Air Materiel Command and became chief of accounting and finance, then deputy comptroller of the Air Materiel Command. 

In September 1960, Colonel Galligan was assigned as deputy chief of the Army and Air Force Exchange Service, and the Air Force's senior representative to the joint activity. During his tenure as A&AFES deputy chief, Colonel Galligan served as the system's general manager. He brought to the Exchange Service an extensive background in business administration and fiscal control and initiated improvements designed to streamline procedures and introduce automation in systems development. 

When it became time to rotate the A&AFES top position from the Army to the Air Force in June 1963, Colonel Galligan was named by the chief of staff, U.S. Air Force and approved by the board of directors, Army and Air Force Exchange and Motion Picture Services to become chief of the world-wide exchange system. He was promoted to brigadier general Aug. 1, 1963 and is currently serving as chief, Army and Air Force Exchange Service. 

(Current as of September 1963)
##### 



The Cronos Group

CERTIFICATIONS
(Exchange Act Rule 13a-14)

Exhibit 99.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. § 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of The Cronos Group (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Peter J Younger, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, based on my knowledge, that:



| | (i)  |  | The Report fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13 (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934; and,                           
| | ---- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
| | (ii) |  | The information contained in the Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
and results of operation of the Company.

November 12, 2002

/s/   PETER J YOUNGER
Peter J Younger
Chief Financial Officer



---

|* |  | This certification, required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, other than as required by Section 906, is not deemed to be filed with
the Commission or subject to the rules and regulations promulgated by the
Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or to the
liabilities of Section 18 of said Act.
|- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### Mary L. & John Tarlton v. A. H. Weir.

(No. 1203, Op. Book No. 3, p. 497.)

Appeal from McLennan County.

Opinion by

Winkler, J

§ 142. *Amendment; due order of pleading.*It is no infraction of the rule which requires a defendant to file his answer in the due order of pleading, to allow him to amend his original answer by filing a special exception amendatory of his general demurrer, which had been filed in due order of pleading.

§ 143. *Immaterial rulings will not reverse a judgment.*Where rulings of the court relate to questions which are superseded in their application to the particular case by some principle which underlies them, they are immaterial, and therefore can afford no ground for reversing the judgment. [Davis v. Loftin, 6 Tex. 489.]

§ 144.- *Judgment; action of debt on; may be maintained by assignee of.*An action of debt may be maintained upon a judgment without resorting to the statutory remedy by *scire facias.*[Townsend v. Smith, 20 Tex. *58465; Graves v. Hall, 13 Tex. 382; Austin v. Townes, 10 Tex. 26; Johnson v. Murphy, 17 Tex. 219.] And such suit may be maintained by the assignee of the judgment.

February 9, 1881.

§ 145. *Married woman; suit against on debt created dum sola; proper judgment in such case.*Where judgment is rendered against a married woman upon an indebtedness incurred by her before marriage, the judgment should be that execution issue against her separate property only, and should exempt the property of the husband from execution upon such judgment. [Roundtree v. Thomas, 32 Tex. 288; Nash v. George, 6 Tex. 236; Booth v. Cotton, 13 Tex. 359.] *Quere,*is community property subject to such execution? [Nash v. George, 6 Tex. 236.]

§146. *Costs; extent of plaintiff’s liability for.*When the plaintiff recovers judgment for costs, but is unable to make them out of the defendant, he is liable to the officers of the court for so much only of the costs of the suit as was incurred in his behalf, and the liability of his surety for the costs is the same. [Cleveland v. Henderson, 4 Tex. 182.]

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                    SUPERGEN, INC.

                                                                    Exhibit 11.1
                   Statement re: computation of net loss per share
                                     (unaudited)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                   Three Months Ended             Nine Months Ended
                                       September 30,                 September 30,
                                   1996            1995          1996           1995
<S>                             <C>             <C>           <C>            <C>

Net loss                        ($3,120,699)     ($988,745)   ($5,674,311)   ($3,034,682)
                               -----------------------------------------------------------
                               -----------------------------------------------------------


Weighted average number
of shares of Common Stock
outstanding                      16,831,726     12,574,627     15,635,554     12,349,352


Shares related to SAB
Nos. 64 and 83                                     165,466                       165,466

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

Total weighted average
number of shares of
Common Stock outstanding         16,831,726     12,740,093     15,635,554     12,514,818
                               -----------------------------------------------------------
                               -----------------------------------------------------------


Net loss per share                   ($0.19)        ($0.08)        ($0.36)        ($0.24)
                               -----------------------------------------------------------
                               -----------------------------------------------------------

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Edward ALLEN a/k/a “Skinny”, et al.

No. 2011-KK-2349.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 2, 2011.

In re Allen, Edward; — Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court Div. L, No. 491-394; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. 2011-K-1492.

Denied.
583 A.2d 336

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WALTER TILLERY.

March 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Durie & Pickens v. R. C. Anderson.

(No. 7155.)

Error from Cooke County.

Opinion by

Davidson, J.

§ 250. *Judgment by default; if excessive by reason of erroneous calculation, will be properly modified on appeal.*Defendant in error sued plaintiff in *error on*January 28, 1890, upon a promissory note of date July 20, 1888, which became due on November 1, 1889. The note was for $262.86, and bore interest at the rate of twelve per cent, per annum from maturity, as well as ten per cent, as attorney’s fees in case the note was collected by virtue of legal proceedings. On July 9, 1890, judgment by default was rendered against the plaintiffs in error for the sum of $357.17, with interest thereon from that date at twelve per cent, per annum. Plaintiffs in error assign as error that the judgment is excessive, and that said judgment at its rendition should have been for $313.03, and costs of suit, and therefore is excessive to the amount of $4!.M, for which reason the judgment should be reversed. The judgment was taken in the trial court by default. We find that the judgment is excessive, and will render such judgment as should have been reiidered below. The judgment here *433rendered is that Richard C. Anderson, assignee of the Dayton Plow Company, do have and recover of Charles Burie and William Pickens, composing the partnership firm of Pickens & Durie, the sum of $313.03. together with twelve per cent, per annum interest thereon from July 9, 1890, until paid, and all costs of thé trial court, and that the defendant in error, Richard C. Anderson, pajr all costs of the writ of error, as well as the costs of this court.

May 20, 1891.

Reversed and rendered.
579 A.2d 813

#### IN THE MATTER OF PETER CAMMELIERI, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 13, 1990.

ORDER

The Disciplinary Review Board having recommended that the restrictions on respondent’s practice imposed by this Court’s order of June 19, 1984 be lifted; and good cause appearing,

It is ORDERED that the restrictions on respondent’s practice of law imposed by this Court’s order of June 19, 1984 are vacated.
583 A.2d 316

#### DU-WEL PRODUCTS, INC., ETC. v. UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, ETC.

February 6, 1990.

Petition for certification denied. (See 236 *N.J.Super.*349, 565 A.2d 1113)
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM BALANCE
SHEETS AND A STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-27-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-27-1997
<CASH>                                           4,717
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,976
<ALLOWANCES>                                       140
<INVENTORY>                                      6,902
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,376
<PP&E>                                          15,086
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,011
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 372,739
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,227
<BONDS>                                        202,419
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           63,988
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,235
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   372,739
<SALES>                                        143,020
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               143,020
<CGS>                                           45,729
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,042
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                18,431
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   140
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              18,393
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,014
<INCOME-TAX>                                       779
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,235
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,235
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>