alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### T. S. McDade v. Waller County.

(No. 1977.)

Appeal from Waller County.

Harvey & Brown, counsel for appellant.

A. G. Lipscomb and T. S. Reese, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J. '

*140§ 110. *Guard; sheriff cannot bind county for services of; liability of county for such services, how created; case stated.*Appellant, being sheriff of Waller county, employed .one Wooley..to guard prisoners confined in the jail of said county. This employment was without the approval of the commissioners’ court or county judge of said county. Wooley served as such guard three months, and the pay claimed for such service amounted to $136.50, for which amount appellant sued appellee in justice’s court and recovered judgment therefor. Appellee appealed to the county court where judgment was rendered in its favor. *Held:*Article 4522 of the Revised Statutes provides, “ Whenever in any county it may become necessary to employ guards for the safe-keeping of prisoners and the security of jails, the sheriff may, with the approval of the commissioners’ court, or, in cases of emergency, with the approval of the county judge, employ such number of guards as may be necessary, and his account therefor, duly itemized and sworn to, shall be allowed by said commissioners’ court and paid out of the county treasury.” Thus we see that the power of the sheriff to employ guards is expressly defined and limited. He can only make such employment with the approval of the commissioners’ court, or, in cases of emergency, with the approval of the county judge. There is but one instance in which he may employ guards without such approval, and that is where there is no jail in the county. [C. C. P. art. 54.]

§ 111. *Claim for services, etc., of guard must be presented to commissioners’ court.*It is further provided by statute that the commissioners’ court of the county shall audit and settle all accounts against the county, and direct their payment. [R. S. art. 1514.] It is also provided that at each regular term of the commissioners’ court, the sheriff shall present to said court his account for guard hire, etc. [C. C. P. art. 1071.] Which account said court shall act upon. [C. C. P. 1072.] It is also expressly provided that “No county shall be sued unless *141the claim upon which such suit is founded shall have first been presented to the county commissioners’ court for allowance, and such court shall have neglected or refused to audit and allow the same or any part thereof.” [R. S. art. 677.] The claim sued upon in this case was not presented to the commissioners’ court verified by the affidavit of the sheriff as required by the statute. [C. C. P. art. 1071.] A presentation of the account in accordance with the statute was a condition precedent to appellant’s right to sue the county thereon, and no other court had jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim until it had been •properly presented to the commissioners’ court, and that court had neglected or refused to allow it.

February 20, 1886.

Affirmed.
#### J. A. Gray v. J. E. Webb.

(No. 2676.)

Appeal from Hunt County.

Bericins, Gilbert & Bericins, counsel for appellant.

E. W. Terhunb, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

*398§ 331. *Landlord and tenant; distress warrant; damages for*illegal, *etc., issuance of; exemplary damages not recoverable unless, etc.; case stated.*Appellant sued appellee in justice’s court for rent and advances amounting to $180. A distress warrant was sue.d out upon the ground that said indebtedness was then due. Appellee pleaded a counter-claim for $17.50, and also pleaded in re-convention for damages for breach of rent contract, and for damages for illegally, in justly and without probable cause suing out the distress warrant. Appellee recovered judgment in justice’s court for $142.50. On appeal to the county court by appellant, and on a trial *ele novo,*appellee recovered a judgment for $113.25 and costs of the county court. Said judgment was rendered upon a verdict, which ivas as follows: “We, the jury, find for the defendant, J. E. Webb, the sum of $113.25.” Upon the trial the court instructed the jury as to exemplary damages. *Held:*Such a charge was not warranted by the evidence, and furthermore, as given, did not state the law correctly. It should have instructed that such damages were not recoverable if probable cause existed for the issuance of the distress warrant, and that probable cause did exist if appellee had removed any of the agricultural products, etc., from the rented premises without the consent of appellant, and while any portion of the rent or advances claimed were unpaid, whether due or not. [R. S. arts. 3107, 3108, 3112; Act 17th Leg. p. 98; 2 App. C. C. § 277.] Malice and want of probable cause must concur in such a case to warrant a finding for exemplary damages. [2 App. C. C. § 733.] In this case a portion of the rent was due and unpaid, and appellee, without the consent of appellant, had removed a portion of the cotton raised on the rented premises from said premises. The verdict does not specify the character of the damages awarded appellee, whether actual or exemplary, or both. If any portion of the 'amount awarded is exemplary damages, the verdict and judgment are wrong, *399and because exemplary damages may have been awarded the judgment is reversed. . >

November 26, 1887.

Reversed and remanded.
# United States Court **of Appeals**  **f or the Fifth Circuit** 

No. 22

- 60010 Summary Calendar

**Ahed Abdul Hadi Sheeti; Majed Mohd Al**

**- Hatabeh;**  **Hamza Majed Al Hatabeh,**

Petitioners **,**

versus
**Merrick Garland,** U.S. Attorney General **,** Respondent

**.**

Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No s

. A206 946 871, A206 946 872, A206 946 875

Before **Barksdale, Elrod,** and **Haynes,** Circuit Judges

**. Per Curiam**  **:** *

Ahed Abdul Hadi Sheeti , Syrian native and citizen of Jordan, petitio n s for review of the B oard of I mmigration A ppeals ’ (BIA) den ying her application for asylum and rejecting her claim the Immigration Judge (IJ)

* Pursuant to **5th Cir cuit**  **R ule**  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 cuit**  **R ule**  47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED November 28, 2022 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 22-60010 Document: 00516558743 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/28/2022No. 22

- 60010

2 denied her due

- process

. (Her husband and minor son are derivative applicants on her application.)

In considering the BIA’s decision (and the IJ’s, to the extent it influenced the BIA) , legal questions are reviewed de novo ; factual findings, for substantial evidence

. E.g. , Orellan a

- Monson v. Holder , 685 F.3d 511, 517

– 18 (5th Cir. 2012). Under the substa ntial

- evidence standard, petitioner must demonstrate “the evidence is so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could reach a contrary conclusion”. Chen v. Gonzales , 470 F.3d 1131, 1134 (5th Cir. 2006). Sheeti’s testimony in support of asylum revolves around economic and criminal issues regarding knowledge of her former employer’s business practices in Jordan . Because the record does not reflect direct political activity (the claimed statutorily

- protected ground) that casts “a political shadow over an otherwise largely economic claim ”, Sheeti fails to satisfy the requisite persecution based on a political belief. Ontunez

- Tursios v. Ashcroft , 303 F.3d 341, 352 (5th Cir. 2002).
Further, Sheeti’s procedural due

- process rights have not been violated. She contends the I J’s interpreter spoke a different Arabic dialect, causing her confusion. She did not , however, object to the translator and made no indications during he r hearing that translation was an issue, nor does sh e point to any part of the record as incorrectly translated. Accordingly, she has made no showing of substantial prejudice that affected the proceedings. E.g. , Ogunfuye v. Holder , 610 F.3d 303, 306

– 07 (5th Cir. 2010) ( due

- process violation requires estab lishing the violation affected outcome of proceedings).

**DENIED.** Case: 22-60010 Document: 00516558743 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/28/2022
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 82 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5186]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of May 
12, 1995, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Fields] is recognized for 
60 minutes.

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

                          ____________________
```
News United States Air Force
 Barksdale B-52s drop bombs in exercise with Jordanian forcesPublished May 25, 2016
                        
                        By U.S. Strategic Command Public Affairs
                **OFFUTT AIR FORCE BASE, Neb. (AFNS) --**
                Two B-52 Stratofortress bombers assigned to the 2nd Bomb Wing at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana, returned May 24 from a 35-hour, 14,000-mile nonstop mission to Jordan as part of this year’s exercise Eager Lion with Jordanian Armed Forces (JAF).Eager Lion is an annual U.S. Central Command exercise hosted by the Jordan government to test responses to conventional and unconventional threats in a joint environment. Exercise mission sets are based on a fictional adversary and range from border security, command and control, and cyber defense to battlespace management. Eager Lion 16 marked the second consecutive year of the integration of the multi-role, heavy bomber into the exercise.During the exercise, B-52 crews conducted air intercept training with Royal Jordanian Air Force F-16 fighter aircraft and executed a live conventional weapons demonstration directed jointly by JAF and U.S. ground controllers.“Executing these global bomber training missions supports successful integration into geographic combatant command and multinational operations, such as the current B-52 deployment in support of Operation Inherent Resolve,” said Navy Adm. Cecil D. Haney, the U.S. Strategic Command commander. “Our participation in two Eager Lion exercises in as many years allows us to continue to build relationships with our allies and partners in the region and beyond, better enabling us to confront today’s global challenges.”Combined with the long-range nature of the flight, which involved four aerial refueling operations, this mission showcases the flexible capabilities of the bomber force and its ability to integrate with other nations around the world.STRATCOM’s bomber force regularly conducts combined training and theater security cooperation engagements with allies and partners, demonstrating the U.S. capability to command, control and conduct global bomber missions anywhere. B-52 participation in exercise Eager Lion follows the deployment of B-52s to Morón Air Base, Spain, in February and March, where they participated in Norwegian exercise Cold Response and French exercise Serpentex, as well as the deployment of B-2 Spirits to the Indo-Asia-Pacific in March. Additionally, in April, a B-52 flew a sortie to France to integrate with the French air force, and a B-52 also flew to South America to train with the Colombian air force.B-52 



Jordan 



OIR 



bombs 



Eager Lion 



exercise 



joint 



AFGSC Related Links
        B-52H Stratofortress
                                Dec. 16, 2015
                                The B-52H Stratofortress is a long-range, heavy bomber that can perform a variety of missions. The bomber is capable of flying at high subsonic speeds at altitudes of up to 50,000 feet. It can carry nuclear or precision guided conventional ordnance with worldwide precision navigation capability.
<PAGE>
                                                                 Exhibit 11.1

                         C-CUBE MICROSYSTEMS INC.
                                     
                    COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                  Quarter Ended March 31, 1997 and 1996
                 (in thousands, except per share amounts)


                                          Quarter Ended March 31,           
                                          ----------------------    
                                             1997         1996      
                                          ---------    ---------    
        Net income                        $  15,395    $  13,581    
                                          =========    =========    
        Weighted average common 
           shares outstanding                36,214       32,742    
        Common share equivalents 
           related to stock options           1,730        3,300    
                                          ---------    ---------    
        Weighted average common and 
           equivalent shares                 37,944       36,042    
                                          =========    =========    
        Net income per share              $    0.41    $    0.38    
                                          =========    =========
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-43641) of First Industrial, L.P. of our
report dated February 9, 2001 relating to the consolidated financial statements
and of our report dated February 9, 2001 relating to the combined statements of
the Other Real Estate Partnerships, which appear in this Annual Report on Form
10-K/A No. 1. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report
dated February 9, 2001 relating to the financial statement schedule of First
Industrial, L.P., which appears in this Form 10-K/A No. 1.





                                                PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Chicago, Illinois
July 6, 2001
583 A.2d 338

#### CORONET PROPERTIES COMPANY v. THE TOWNSHIP OF NORTH BERGEN.

March 7, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
No. 07-13-00404-CR

Michelle Lorraine Lehman From the County Court at Law No. 2

Appellant of Ellis County

v. September 8, 2014

The State of Texas Opinion by Justice Pirtle

Appellee §

§

§

§

§

§

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated September 8, 2014, it is ordered,

adjudged and decreed that the judgments of the trial court be modified to delete the

order to pay $600 for attorney’s fees and as modified, the judgments are affirmed.

Inasmuch as this is an appeal in forma pauperis

, no costs beyond those that

have already been paid are adjudged.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

o O o
Exhibit 10.81

Aerospace/Defense, Inc.
4838 Jenkins Avenue
North Charleston, SC 29405
Telephone: (843) 744-5174
Facsimile: (843) 747-4092
E-mail:garfinklel@intertechse.com

June 2,
2008

John
F. Wall, III, Esquire
Vice President, Legal Affairs
Force Protection Industries, Inc.
9601 Highway 78
Ladson, SC 29456



Dear
Mr. Wall:

Pursuant
to Section 27K of the Leases (referencing amending each Lease), this letter, when signed by an authorized representative of each Tenant, shall serve as an amendment (the
"Second Extension Amendment") to each of the Leases referenced above (as amended by Extension Amendment dated January 10, 2008).

TheInitial Term(as that term is defined in each such Lease) is hereby extended to and will expire on March 31, 2009.

For
clarification and avoidance of doubt, Section 2 of each Lease (with respect to extending the terms of each Lease) provides in part that the Tenant may extend its option to
renew by notice in writing to the Landlord served at least six (6) months and not more than twelve (12) months prior to the end of the Initial Term or the then-current Option
Period, as the case may be. Therefore, in order for the Tenant to exercise its option to extend the Initial Term of each Lease (should the Tenant so desire to exercise such right(s)) due to expire on
March 31, 2009, as provided for in this Second

---



Extension
Amendment, the Tenant must serve a notice in writing upon the Landlord no later than September 30, 2008.

If
this Second Extension Amendment or the signature page, as executed, is transmitted by one party to the other by facsimile transmission or electronic "pdf" transmission, such
transmission shall be deemed an executed original of this Second Extension Amendment and of such signature.

Except
as modified by this Second Extension Amendment, the Leases remain unchanged.

If
the Tenants agree to the terms and provisions of this Second Extension Amendment, please have an authorized representative of each Tenant sign below and thereafter either fax or pdf
to me the original hereof.

Aerospace/Defense, Inc.

By:

/s/M. JERRY GARFINKLEM. Jerry GarfinkleIts:

Senior Vice President


We agree to the above Second Extension Amendment

Force Protection Industries, Inc.

Force Protection, Inc.By:

/s/LENA RUTH MACDONALD

By:

/s/LENA RUTH MACDONALDIts:

Chief Strategy Officer, General Counsel and Corp Secretary
6/25/08

Its:

Chief Strategy Officer, General Counsel and Corp Secretary
6/25/08


2

---



QuickLinks
#### Womack et al. v. Acuff et al.

(No--.)

Appeal from Bosque County.

Smith & Davis, counsel for appellants.

No counsel appeared for appellees.

Opinion by-

Davidson, J.

§ 215. *Assumpsit; evidence held insufficient to establish.*Appellants, Womack and Morris, were sued in justice’s court by appellees for the value of four thousand rails and a gate and post, of the alleged aggregate value of $125. Judgment was rendered against them in said justice’s court for the sum of $10J.50, and, on appeal to the county court, they again lost the case, and the judgment was increased to the full demand of $125. The sureties on the appellants’ appeal bond were included in the latter judgment. The only error insisted on in this court is the insufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment rendered against'the appellants. The testimony, in substance, is, on part of the plaintiffs below, that A. P. Womack bought the rails of one Acuff, who claimed to be heir at law of Wood, deceased, and agreed to pay for same; and on the part of the defendants below that Jake-Womack, who is not a party to this suit, bought the rails of said Acuff and hauled the said rails away from the Wilcox survey, where they were when purchased. Some of the rails were on “Judge Dyer’s land.” The only evidence to show any responsibility on the part of Morris for the alleged value of the rails consisted of the fact that he married the sister of Jake Womack, and assisted the said Jake Womack in hauling the rails away from the premises where they were, and carried them to the premises of A. P. Womack; and the further fact that said Morris afterwards *419resided on the premises where the rails were placed. Neither does the marriage to Womack’s daughter, nor his residence on the premises where the rails were placed, constitute any legal cause of indebtedness against Morris, nor any reason why he should pay for the rails or their value. A marriage into the Womack family by Morris constituted against him no legal liability for the debts of A. P. Womack, nor does it amount to a contract, in writing or otherwise, to pay the “ debt, default or miscarriage ” of A. P. Womack. It is not shown that he agreed, as a consideration of his marriage into the family, that he would pay this debt or any part of it. The judgment as to Morris is not only not supported by the testimony, but is against the evidence. The testimony is conflicting as to the liability of A. P. Womack, and we do not feel authorized in disturbing the judgment against him. The judgment as to A. P. Womack is sufficiently supported by the evidence, and will be affirmed; and the judgment as to Marion Morris, because there is no evidence to support it, will be reversed and remanded; and the costs of this appeal will be paid equally by the appellant A. P. Womack and the appellees herein.

April 29, 1891.

Ordered accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          13,045
<SECURITIES>                                    11,263
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,733
<ALLOWANCES>                                       502
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,302
<PP&E>                                          12,872
<DEPRECIATION>                                   7,300
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  50,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,867
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            82
<OTHER-SE>                                      43,454
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    50,220
<SALES>                                          7,695
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                12,039
<CGS>                                              566
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,378
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,967
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  20
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (56)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (24)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (32)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE of Louisiana v. MOREL G. LEMOINE DISTRIBUTORS, INC., Martin G. Lemoine and Veronica Lemoine.

No. 2010-KK-2439.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Lemoine, Morel G.; Lemoine, Veronica; Morel G. Lemoine Distributors Inc. et al.; —Defendant(s); Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Pointe Coupee, 18th Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 70287F, FI, F2; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 1044.

Denied.