alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### The Sun Fire Office v. I. A. Hodges.

(No. 4095.)

Appeal from Johnson County.

*(Transferred from Austin. J*

S. C. McCormick and Crane & Ramsey, counsel for appellant.

Davis & Plummer and W. H. Skelton, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 268. *Fire insurance; stipulation in contract of, held valid; case stated.*Appellant issued to appellee a polic,y of fire insurance on three frame houses, numbered 1, 2 and 3. The insurance on.No. 3 was $375. The contract, among other stipulations, contained the following, viz.: If *any*building insured by the policy become vacant or unoccupied for the purpose indicated in the contract, this policy shall be void unless consent in writing should be indorsed on the policy by the company.” House No. 3 was destroyed by fire, and this suit was brought by appellee to recover said insurance. The principal defense was, that said house at the time it was destroyed was unoccupied, and that the company had not consented to its being unoccupied. Appellee recovered judgment for the amount sued for and costs. *Held:*The said stipulation in the contract is a valid one and is a part of said contract. [Ins. Co. v. Long, 51 Tex. 89; Ins. Co. v. Jacobs, 56 Tex. 366; First Nat. Bank v. Ins. Co. 62 Tex. 461.] There is some conflict in the evidence as to whether *327the house was occupied at the time of the contract of insurance, but the preponderance of the evidence is that it was occupied at that time. At the time of its destruction, and for some time prior thereto, the evidence cleaxiy establishes that it was unoccupied. Appellant never consented in writing or otherwise that said house might be unoccupied. The acts of the company or its agent in relation to the other two houses could not affect the contract as to the house in question, because the contract was severable as to the three houses.

February 26, 1887.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION





I, Theodore Abajian, certify pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 that:





1.
The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended August 9, 2010 (the “Quarterly Report”) complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)); and





2.
The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: September 28, 2010                                                                    /s/ Theodore Abajian


Theodore Abajian


Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer





This certification accompanies the Quarterly Report pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) or Rule 15d-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, except to the extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by reference.
#### G., H. & S. A. R’y Co. v. E. Van Winkle & Co.

(No. 5665.)

Appeal from Caldwell County.

*(Transferred from Austin. J*

Springfellow & McNeal and W. N. Shaw, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellees.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 443. *jRailroad company not liable for damage to goods occurring on another line, when; case stated.*Appellees sued appellant for damage to a gin, condenser and feeder shipped from Atlanta, Georgia, to Luling, Texas, claiming $400 as the amount of damage. They recovered judgment for $124 and costs. • Among other defenses appellant pleaded that the railroad company at Atlanta, where said goods were shipped, was not authorized to bind appellant to any contract of carriage, nor did appellant ratify any contract made by said company with respect to said goods; that appellant received the goods for carriage at Houston, Texas, not as through freight, but as way freight, and carried the same to Luling, Texas, charging local rates thereon; that when it received said goods the same were damaged, and it receipted therefor in a damaged condition, and delivered the same without further damage. This plea was stricken out by the court. *Held*error. Said plea presented a good legal defense to the action. In order to hold one carrier responsible for the default of another, a partnership between them must *539be shown, either express or implied, or it must appear that the one was acting as the agent of the other against whom the recovery is sought. [2 App. O. O. § 431.]

March 6, 1889.

§ 444. *When suit is on bill of lading the bill of lading must be produced in evidence, etc.*This suit was founded upon a bill of lading, but the bill of lading was not produced in evidence, nor was its non-production accounted for, and hence appellees were not entitled to recover. [2 App. 0.0. § 160; *ante,*§ 187.]

§ 445. *Goods not damaged so as to be worthless must be received by consignee, etc.*The goods were not a total loss, but were only damaged. Appellant was entitled to offset the damage by a reasonable charge for storage after the time when appellees refused to receive said goods. [R. S. art. 4237.] So long as goods remain in specie, however much they may be depreciated in value, the consignee or owner must receive them when tendered by the carrier, and can recover from the carrier only the damages for the delay or injury. It is the duty of the owner or consignee to receive the goods, and the receipt of them is usually not a waiver of a claim for damages. This duty to receive exists so long as the goods are not substantially changed, but remain fit for the ordinary uses for which they are intended. There cannot be a *quasi*conversion of the goods by the carrier unless the goods are a total loss or so injured as to be worthless. [Field on Dam. § 383; Hutch. on Carriers, § 775; Edwards on Bailments, § 610; 1 App. C. C. § 815.]

Reversed and remanded.
583 A.2d 312

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. KIM A. CURCI.

January 23, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

PENELOPE RUSSELL,

Respondent Below,

Appellant,

v.

PETER RUSSELL,

Petitioner Below,

Appellee.

§

§ No. 54, 2015

§

§

§

§ Court Below: Family Court

§ of the State of Delaware,

§ in and for Sussex County

§ File No. CS10-01591

§ Pet. No. 10-17782

§

Submitted: March 6, 2015

 Decided: March 11, 2015

O R D E R

This 11th day of March 2015, it appears to the Court that the Chief Deputy 

Clerk issued a notice to show cause to the appellant on February 9, 2015 by 

certified mail and again on February 24, 2015 by first class mail. The notice 

directed the appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for 

her failure to file her notice of appeal in a timely manner. The appellant failed to 

respond to the notice to show cause within the required ten-day period; therefore, 

dismissal of this action is deemed to be unopposed.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the appeal is 

DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1199 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1199

       To extend the grant program for drug-endangered children.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 27, 2007

  Mr. Cardoza (for himself, Mr. Larsen of Washington, and Ms. Hooley) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
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 extend the grant program for drug-endangered children.

    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 ``Drug Endangered Children Act of 
2007''.

SEC. 2. DRUG-ENDANGERED CHILDREN GRANT PROGRAM EXTENDED.

    Section 755(c) of the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization 
Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 3797cc-2(c)) is amended by striking ``fiscal 
years 2006 and 2007'' and inserting ``fiscal years 2008 and 2009''.
                                 <all>
```
IB 

House Calendar No. 31 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1138 

[Report No. 110–71] 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 

at 306 East Main Street in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, as the 

‘‘J. Herbert W. Small Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2007 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD (for himself, Mr. COBLE, Mr. PRICE of North Carolina, 

Mr. JONES of North Carolina, Mr. ETHERIDGE, Mr. WATT, Mrs. 

MYRICK, Mr. HAYES, Mr. MCINTYRE, Mr. MILLER of North Carolina, 

Ms. FOXX, Mr. MCHENRY, and Mr. SHULER) introduced the following 

bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

MARCH 26, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located at 306 East Main Street in Elizabeth 

City, North Carolina, as the ‘‘J. Herbert W. Small Federal Building and United States Courthouse’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1138 RH

1 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

2 The Federal building and United States courthouse 

3 located at 306 East Main Street in Elizabeth City, North 

4 Carolina, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘J. Her5 bert W. Small Federal Building and United States Court6 house’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 

10 building and United States courthouse referred to in sec11 tion 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘J. Herbert 

12 W. Small Federal Building and United States Court13 house’’. 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS

rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
House Calendar No. 31 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1138 

[Report No. 110

–71] 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building and United 

United States Courthouse’’. ‘‘J. Herbert W. Small Federal Building and Street in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, as the States courthouse located at 306 East Main 

MARCH 26, 2007 

Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 

printed 


rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 43 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. CON. RES. 43

 Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should implement 
            Recommendation 9 of the Iraq Study Group Report.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 2007

 Mr. Paul (for himself, Mr. Neal of Massachusetts, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. 
    Kucinich, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland, Mr. Meehan, Mr. Duncan, Mr. 
Abercrombie, Mr. Jones of North Carolina, and Mr. Taylor) submitted the 
following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on 
                            Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                         CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should implement 
            Recommendation 9 of the Iraq Study Group Report.

Whereas immediately after the attacks on the United States on September 11, 
        2001, the Government of Iran signaled to the United States a willingness 
        to cooperate in the effort to find and capture the perpetrators of that 
        attack;
Whereas immediately after the United States invasion of Iraq in 2003, the 
        Government of Iran sent a message to the United States Department of 
        State proposing a broad dialogue with the United States, suggesting a 
        willingness to cooperate on nuclear programs, accept the State of 
        Israel, and terminate Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups; 
        and
Whereas the President of the United States recently praised the work of the Iraq 
        Study Group, stating that the administration, ``benefitted from the 
        thoughtful recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel 
        led by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee 
        Hamilton'': Now, therefore, be it:
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),  
That the President of the United States should implement Recommendation 
9 of the Iraq Study Group Report, which states: ``Under the aegis of 
the New Diplomatic Offensive and the [Iraq International] Support 
Group, the United States should engage directly with Iran and Syria in 
order to try to obtain their commitment to constructive policies toward 
Iraq and other regional issues. In engaging with Syria and Iran, the 
United States should consider incentives, as well as disincentives, in 
seeking constructive results.''.
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 12.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Robert McBride, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of IONA Technologies PLC;     2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report;     3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annualreport;     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report isbeing prepared;     (b) [Paragraph omitted in accordance with SEC transition instructions contained in SECReleases 34-47986 and 34-52492];     (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this annual report based on such evaluation;and     (d) Disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and     5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: April 18, 2006     By: /s/ Robert McBride         Robert McBride    Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 57796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23672]


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

FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY


Membership of the Federal Labor Relations Authority's Senior 
Executive Service Performance Review Board

AGENCY: Federal Labor Relations Authority.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the members of the Performance 
Review Board

DATES: September 22, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sonna Stampone, Executive Director, 
Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA); 1400 K Street, NW.; 
Washington, DC 20424-0001; (202) 218-7941.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 4314(c) of Title 5, U.S.C. (as 
amended by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978) requires each agency 
to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office 
of Personnel Management, one or more Performance Review Boards (PRB). 
Section 4314(c)(4) requires that notice of appointment of the PRB be 
published in the Federal Register.
    As required by 5 CFR 430.310, the following executives have been 
appointed to serve on the 2009-2011 PRB for the FLRA, beginning 
September 2010 through September 2012:
    Susan McCluskey, Chief Counsel for the Chairman, Federal Labor 
Relations Authority;
    Sonna Stampone, Executive Director, Federal Labor Relations 
Authority;
    Dennis P. Walsh, Deputy General Counsel, Federal Labor Relations 
Authority;
    James E. Petrucci, Director, Dallas Regional Office, Federal Labor 
Relations Authority;
    H. Joseph Schimansky, Executive Director, Federal Service Impasses 
Panel, Federal Labor Relations Authority.

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 4134(c)(4).

    Dated: September 17, 2010.
Sonna Stampone,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-23672 Filed 9-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6727-01-P
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-91,996-01

EX PARTE RYAN CARTER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. B-44,752-A IN THE 161TH DISTRICT COURT

FROM ECTOR COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

A jury convicted Applicant of capital murder and sentenced him to life in prison without the

possibility of parole. Applicant, through habeas counsel, filed this application for a writ of habeas

corpus in the county of conviction, and the district clerk forwarded it to this Court. See TEX. CODE

CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07.

Applicant raises several claims that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. The trial

court entered an order designating issues and an order for trial counsel to provide an affidavit. The

habeas record has no response from trial counsel or findings from the trial court.

Applicant has alleged facts that, if true, might entitle him to relief. Strickland v. Washington,

466 U.S. 668 (1984). Accordingly, the record should be developed. The trial court is the appropriate
2

forum for findings of fact. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(d). The trial court shall resolve

the disputed factual issues. In developing the record, the trial court may use any means set out in

Article 11.07, § 3(d). 

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law as to whethertrial counsel’s

performance was deficient and Applicant was prejudiced. The trial court may make any other

findings and conclusions that it deems appropriate.

The trial court shall make findings of fact and conclusions of law within ninety days from

the date of this order. The district clerk shall then immediately forward to this Court the trial court’s

findings and conclusions and the record developed on remand, including, among other things,

affidavits, motions, objections, proposed findings and conclusions, orders, and transcripts from

hearings and depositions. See TEX.R.APP.P. 73.4(b)(4). Any extensions of time must be requested

by the trial court and obtained from this Court.

Filed: May 19, 2021

Do not publish
News United States Air Force
 AF announces squadron commander candidatesPublished Oct. 6, 2015
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                More than 980 officers from 29 career fields were selected by development teams as 2016 support, logistics, materiel leader, training, recruiting and medical commander candidates."This is a highly competitive selection process," said Joseph Marchino, Air Force Personnel Center assignment officer. "Development teams carefully reviewed all aspects of officers' records, duty history, demonstrated leadership ability, professional development and permanent change of station eligibility in identifying the most qualified candidates available for command."For more specific career field requirements, officers should refer to the appropriate career field page on the myPers website."Selected candidates have demonstrated traits essential for leading Airman to day-to-day operational success," Marchino said. "Additionally, squadron commanders are the best positioned to recognize and develop the talents and skills of their personnel for future leadership opportunities."Wing hiring officials, major command functional managers and AFPC assignment teams will use the candidate list to fill projected 2016 squadron commander vacancies, with those selection results tentatively planned for release in December."It is important to note, not all officers on the candidate lists will get command assignments,” Marchino said. “Development teams typically select more qualified officers than projected vacancies to account for a variety of unprojected events which occur throughout the year."Candidates not selected for command will remain on this list, unless removed for one of a variety of reasons, such as selected for another assignment opportunity, until superseded by next year's results.Candidate lists have been posted on the myPers website.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.commander 



squadron 



AFPC 



FM