alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### W. D. Bell et al. v. P. L. Gammon et al.

(No. 2930.)

Appeal from Ellis County.

W. F. Short, counsel for appellants.

Lancaster & Maxwell, counsel for appellees.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 404. *Chattel mortgage; purchaser with actual notice of, takes subject to, although not recorded; case stated.*Appellees were the sureties of W. D. Bell upon a note for $522.50, payable to one Conner. When the note ma*477turecl said sureties paid the same to Conner, and he assigned the same to them. Said Bell, who resided in Taylor county, executed to appellees a chattel mortgage on two horses to secure them against loss by reason of their said suretyship. The horses were in Ellis county, and subsequent to the execution of said mortgage had been levied upon and sold by the sheriff of said county, and one Ware purchased them at said sale with actual and full knowledge of said mortgage. Said mortgage had not been recorded in Taylor county, the county of the mortgagor’s residence. Appellees sued W. D. Bell and said Ware and recovered judgment against said Bell for the full amount of said note, interest and costs, and a foreclosure of the chattel mortgage as against Ware. *Held:*Ware having actual notice of the mortgage at the time he purchased the horses could not defeat the same without showing that he was subrogated to the rights of some person who was not affected by said mortgage, notwithstanding said mortgage was not recorded in Taylor county, where, under the statute, it should have been recorded. Failing to show such subrogation, he took the property subject to the mortgage.

November 28, 1888.

§ 405. *Surety may recover the full amount of the debt discharged by him.*A surety is entitled, upon the payment of the debt of the principal, not only to have the full benefit of all the collateral securities, both of an equitable and a legal nature, which the creditor has taken as an individual pledge for his debt, but he is entitled to be substituted as to the very debt itself to the creditor, and to have it assigned to him. [Sublett v. McKinney, 19 Tex. 438; Tutt v. Thornton, 57 Tex. 35.]

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                           5
<LEGEND>
THIS  SCHEDULE  CONTAINS  SUMMARY  FINANCIAL   INFORMATION  EXTRACTED  FROM  THE
FINANCIAL  STATEMENTS OF HEMASURE  INC. FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED  SEPTEMBER 30,
1997 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                        1,000
<CURRENCY>                          U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                        SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                     1
<CASH>                              3,914
<SECURITIES>                        6,787
<RECEIVABLES>                       250
<ALLOWANCES>                        0
<INVENTORY>                         787
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    11,917
<PP&E>                              3,834
<DEPRECIATION>                      1,841
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      13,975
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               2,956
<BONDS>                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                            82
<OTHER-SE>                          1,778
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>        13,975
<SALES>                             1,590
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                    1,590
<CGS>                               2,505
<TOTAL-COSTS>                       2,505
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                    7,270
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  (1,042)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (6,271)
<INCOME-TAX>                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (6,271)
<DISCONTINUED>                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                        (6,271)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                       (0.77)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Dereece Timika HOWELL, Appellee.

No. 5D10-1516.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

April 15, 2011.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Richard S. Rhodes, of Richard S. Rhodes, P.A., Orlando, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The State of Florida appeals an order of the trial court modifying the sentence imposed after Appellee, who was represented by private counsel, entered into a plea agreement. The plea agreement called for a sentence of forty-eight months’ probation, six months of which was to be spent in the Orange County Jail Work Release Program for the offenses of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, resisting *302merchandise recovery and petit theft. As part of the agreement, the State entered a *nolle prosequi*on the aggravated battery with a deadly weapon charge.

A few weeks later, Appellee sent the trial court a *pro se*motion to modify her sentence, asking for a reduction to eighteen months of probation and ninety days of work release. Though not of record, apparently the trial judge communicated to defense counsel that he would entertain the motion if it were filed by counsel. Counsel filed the motion, and the trial court entered an order reducing the six months of work release to ninety days. The State appeals, seeking enforcement of the plea agreement and the benefit of its bargain. We agree that the trial court lacked the discretion to modify the sentence previously imposed pursuant to the plea agreement. *State v. Swett,*772 So.2d 48 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). We accordingly reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions to vacate the order of modification.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GRIFFIN, EVANDER and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Theodore Abajian, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
November 3, 2003, of CKE Restaurants, Inc.;

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b) [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-82538 and 34-47986];

c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual
report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee 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 of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control over
financing reporting.

Date: December 10, 2003

/s/ Theodore AbajianTheodore Abajian
Chief Financial Officer
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-20275

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ALFREDO ARZATE-DAVALOS

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-476-2

Before DAVIS, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfredo Arzate-Davalos (Arzate) pleaded guilty to conspiracy to harbor

illegal aliens. He was sentenced to 33 months of imprisonment, the lowest

possible term under the applicable guidelines sentencing range.

Arzate appeals his conviction but makes no argument with regard to his

sentence. Arzate seeks to have his plea set aside, asserting that it was

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

May 1, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-20275

2

unknowing and, thus, involuntary due to the district court’s failure to comply

with the requirements of FED. R. CRIM. P. 11 during his rearraignment.

When, as here, a defendant does not object to Rule 11 errors in the district

court, plain error review applies. See United States v. Vonn, 535 U.S. 55, 59

(2002). To show plain error, the appellant must show an error that is clear or

obvious and that affects his substantial rights. United States v. Baker, 538 F.3d

324, 332 (5th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 962 (2009). If the appellant

makes such a showing, this court has the discretion to correct the error but only

if it seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial

proceedings. Id. Arzate has failed to show that, but for the asserted Rule 11

errors, he would not have pleaded guilty. See United States v. Dominguez

Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 83 (2004). Nor has he shown that, taken together, the

district court’s omissions had a cumulative effect sufficient to undermine

confidence in the outcome of the proceeding. See id. Accordingly, he has failed

to show that his plea was unknowing and involuntary. Id.

AFFIRMED.
News United States Air Force
 AF releases criteria for basing new RPA unitsPublished April 12, 2016
                        
                        By Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                The Air Force released basing criteria April 12 that will be used to select candidate bases for a potential new MQ-9 Reaper wing with units at up to two locations.The Air Force is pursuing additional locations to help diversify assignment opportunities for personnel within the MQ-9 enterprise, provide increased opportunities for leadership from within the community, and provide flexibility to enhance integration with other organizations and capabilities.The desire for additional locations for an MQ-9 wing was identified during surveys of officers and enlisted Airmen in the MQ-9 and MQ-1 Predator enterprise as part of Air Combat Command’s Culture and Process Improvement Program.“We are initiating the strategic basing process to determine the best locations for hosting additional locations for the MQ-9 mission,” said Jennifer L. Miller, the deputy assistant secretary of the Air Force for installations. “As we go through the basing process, we will use the information we collect to help us determine the affordability and potential locations for expanding MQ-9 enterprise.”The basing criteria will focus on mission requirements (runway length for the launch and recovery mission and synergies between common missions with existing units), capacity, environmental requirements, and cost factors.The Air Force will first identify a location to potentially host an operations group with mission control elements. All active-duty Air Force bases in the continental U.S., Alaska and Hawaii that do not currently have an MQ-9 wing will be evaluated. The locations being considered must also have an active-duty flying wing or group that performs at least one core RPA mission and/or is co-located with an active-duty distributed ground system. MQ-9 crews will fly the MQ-9 from these locations but no aircraft will be associated with these units.The Air Force also plans to identify a second potential location, which may host a full MQ-9 wing that will include a launch and recovery element and a mission control element. This second installation must be an active-duty Air Force installation in the continental U.S., Alaska or Hawaii that has at least an 8,000-foot runway and does not currently have an MQ-9 wing. This location is expected to have 24 MQ-9s located there.After identifying candidate bases, ACC will conduct site surveys at each location. Site survey teams will assess each location against requirements, potential impacts to existing missions, infrastructure and manpower. They will also develop cost estimates to bed down the units.Based on the results of these efforts, the Air Force plans to identify candidate installations in the summer of 2016 and the preferred alternatives in the winter of 2016/2017. Final basing decisions will be made by the secretary of the Air Force after the requisite environmental analysis is complete.SecAF 



ACC 



MQ-9 Reaper 



RPA
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1330 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1330

To amend title 10, United States Code, to extend the time limit for the 
  use of education assistance by members of the Selected Reserve and 
members of the reserve component supporting contingency operations and 
                       certain other operations.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 6, 2007

   Mr. Carney (for himself and Mr. Burton of Indiana) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title 10, United States Code, to extend the time limit for the 
  use of education assistance by members of the Selected Reserve and 
members of the reserve component supporting contingency operations and 
                       certain other operations.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME LIMIT FOR USE OF EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE BY 
              MEMBERS OF THE SELECTED RESERVE AND MEMBERS OF RESERVE 
              COMPONENT SUPPORTING CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS AND CERTAIN 
              OTHER OPERATIONS.

    (a) Members of Selected Reserves.--Section 16133(a) of title 10, 
United States Code, is amended by inserting ``that is ten years after 
the date on which'' after ``on the date''.
    (b) Reserve Component Members Supporting Contingency Operations.--
Section 16164(a) of title 10, United States Code, is amended to read as 
follows:
    ``(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), the period during which 
a person entitled to educational assistance under this chapter may use 
such person's entitlement expires (1) at the end of the 14-year period 
beginning on the date on which such person becomes entitled to such 
assistance, or (2) on the date that is ten years after the date on 
which the person is separated from the Selected Reserve or the Ready 
Reserve, whichever occurs first.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this Act shall apply 
with respect to a person who becomes eligible for benefits under 
chapter 1606 or 1607 of title 10, United States Code, on or after 
January 1, 2007.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 180 (Friday, September 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 56980]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-23187]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Research Service


Notice of Intent To Grant Exclusive License

AGENCY: Agricultural Research Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, intends to grant to 
PlantHaven, Inc. of Santa Barbara, California, an exclusive license to 
the variety of hibiscus described in U.S. Plant Patent Application 
Serial No. 12/454,676, ``Sahara Sunset,'' filed on May 21, 2009.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 18, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: USDA, ARS, Office of Technology Transfer, 
5601 Sunnyside Avenue, Rm. 4-1174, Beltsville, Maryland 20705-5131.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June Blalock of the Office of 
Technology Transfer at the Beltsville address given above; telephone: 
301-504-5989.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Government's rights in this 
plant variety are assigned to the United States of America, as 
represented by the Secretary of Agriculture. It is in the public 
interest to so license this variety as PlantHaven, Inc. of Santa 
Barbara, California has submitted a complete and sufficient application 
for a license. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty-
bearing and will comply with the terms and conditions of 35 U.S.C. 209 
and 37 CFR 404.7. The prospective exclusive license may be granted 
unless, within thirty (30) days from the date of this published Notice, 
the Agricultural Research Service receives written evidence and 
argument which establishes that the grant of the license would not be 
consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.

Richard J. Brenner,
Assistant Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-23187 Filed 9-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-03-P
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.                  

###### Small Business Administration

          - [Disaster Declaration #12258 and #12259]

# AGENCY:

U.S. Small Business Administration.

# ACTION:

Amendment 5.

# SUMMARY:

This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Iowa (FEMA-1930-DR), dated 07/29/2010.

*Incident:*                         Severe Storms, Flooding, and Tornadoes.                    

*Incident Period:*                         06/01/2010 through 08/31/2010.                    

*Effective Date:*                         09/17/2010.                    

*Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         09/27/2010.                    

*Economic Injury (EIDL) Loan Application Deadline Date:*                         04/29/2011.                    

# ADDRESSES:

Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, SW., Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for Private Non-Profit organizations in the State of Iowa, dated 07/29/2010, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster.

Primary Counties: Pocahontas

All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008)

James E. Rivera,

Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.

[FR Doc. 2010-23996 Filed 9-27-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
#### A. T. Voss v. L. W. Bassett.

(No. 6725.)

Appeal from Washington County.

Searcy & Garrett, counsel for appellant.

Bassett, Muse & Muse, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 116. *Conversion by landlord of tenant’s property; assignment of error; case stated.*This is a suit to recover damages for the conversion of corn, and for other damages resulting from such conversion. Appellee recovered $Y4.50 for forty-nine bushels of corn, with interest, and $50 as damages. Appellant assigns for error that the verdict of the jury is contrary to the law and evidence, because there was no evidence showing that the defendant ever claimed or assumed ownership or control over the corn, or that he ever appropriated any of said corn to his own use without the consent of the plaintiff. This assignment simply denies that there was evidence of a conversion of the corn. There is ample evidence of a conversion of some corn; whether the amount was as great as claimed by the plaintiff is another question. The facts show that appellee had some corn in a crib on the farm owned by defendant, but previously occupied by the appellee. He had hauled one wagon load, and was about to haul the remainder, when defendant forbade his doing so, unless he (appellee) would pay him $50, which he demanded either for the use of the crib, or as damages for the appellee’s failure *178to carry out an agreement between them for an exchange of corn. There is conflict of evidence as to the basis of the demand for the $50. This is unimportant, because appellant had no right upon either ground to forbid appellee to haul his corn. Appellant could not in this manner adjust his claim for damages. Under this assignment of errors appellant makes a statement which is not responsive to the assignment, and upon this statement seeks to have the judgment reversed upon another ground, one not covered by the assignment, viz.: That the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the verdict as to the quantity of corn converted, and- the amount of the damages sustained. There being no assignment calling in question the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict, nor that the verdict is excessive, this court cannot pass upon these questions. We have very carefully examined the other assignments, but find no reversible error.

May 24, 1890.

Affirmed.