alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Department of the United States Air Force LogoBiography
                  United States Air Force040506-F-JZ509-144.JPG
            Major General JAMES A. BAILEYMaj. Gen. James A. Bailey is deputy chief of staff, comptroller, Air Force Logistics Command, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.
General Bailey was born in Rock Hill, S.C., in 1920, and received his secondary education in the public schools system of that state. He earned his civilian pilot's license in June 1940.
Prior to and during World War II, he was a civilian instructor at Army Air Corps flying schools and was a member of the Army reserve. He received a direct appointment as second lieutenant in the Army Air Corps in January 1944 and has been on continuous active duty since that time. In addition to assignments as flight test engineer and combat crew commander in the Strategic Air Command, his military career has encompassed almost all facets of the logistics career field.
His logistics positions have included duties as supply officer at base level; in the stock control, transportation and storage functions at depot level; as logistics staff officer at Headquarters Air Force Logistics Command, Headquarters U.S. Air Forces in Europe, and the Joint Staff, Headquarters United States European Command. During the period 1963 to 1967, he was chief of the Aerospace Support Division, Deputy Chief of Staff for Systems and Logistics, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, and was responsible for the programming and budgeting for a major portion of the Air Force materiel budget.
General Bailey has a bachelor of business administration degree from the University of South Carolina; attended the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology and completed a two-year program there in industrial administration. He received a master's degree with distinction from the Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration in 1963.
In July 1967 General Bailey was assigned to Warner Robins Air Materiel Area at Robins Air Force Base, Ga., where he served as director of materiel management and in June 1968 became vice commander. In June 1969 he assumed duties as commander of the Pacific Exchange System, Honolulu, Hawaii. In July 1971 he was assigned as deputy chief of staff, comptroller, Headquarters Air Force Logistics Command.
(Current as of Aug. 1, 1972)Department of the Air Force Logo
<PAGE>


                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2


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



         In connection with the Annual Report of Silverleaf Resorts, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harry
J. White, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      Except for failure to comply with all requirements of
                  Regulation S-X due to the disclaimer of an opinion by the
                  Company's auditors on the Company's consolidated financial
                  statements for the year ended December 31, 2000, the Report
                  fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
                  15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



Dated:  November 19, 2002                          /s/ HARRY J. WHITE, JR.
                                             -----------------------------------
                                                    Harry J. White, Jr.
CKE RESTAURANTS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES


EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K


(Dollars in thousands)





EXHIBIT 99.1








CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC FINANCIAL REPORTS PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350





The undersigned hereby certifies
that he is the duly appointed and acting Chief Executive Officer of CKE Restaurants, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), and hereby further certifies as follows.





1.  The periodic report containing financial statements to which this certificate is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.





2.  The information contained in the periodic report to which this certificate is an exhibit fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





In witness whereof, the undersigned has executed
and delivered this certificate as of the date set forth opposite his signature below.





Date:  December 4, 2002





/s/    ANDREW F. PUZDERAndrew F. Puzder Chief Executive
Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY>   U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                             SEP-30-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                    1
<CASH>                                       616,853
<SECURITIES>                               2,994,425
<RECEIVABLES>                              4,404,844
<ALLOWANCES>                                (50,000)
<INVENTORY>                                3,305,434
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          11,635,252
<PP&E>                                     3,697,175
<DEPRECIATION>                           (1,633,814)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            13,973,617
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      1,466,118
<BONDS>                                            0
<COMMON>                                     102,293
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        3
<OTHER-SE>                                12,181,818
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              13,973,617
<SALES>                                    1,861,132
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           1,861,132
<CGS>                                        929,603
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                929,603
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                           2,186,512
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                97
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (1,192,920)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (1,192,920)
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                             (1,192,920)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                (0.118)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                (0.118)
        

</TABLE>
#### J. G. Hendricks v. William Cameron.

(No. 4069.)

Appeal from Hill County.

*(Transferredfrom Austin.)*

J. G. Abney, counsel for appellant.

No counsel appeared for appellee.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 261. *New cause of action cannot be pleaded m .icounty court on appeal from justice1 s court; case stated.*Cameron sued Hendricks & Etchison in justice’s court upon a note executed by Etchison alone, alleging that Hendricks and Etchison were partners at the time of the execution of said note, and that said note was executed for the benefit of said partnership. In the citation the amount sued for Was stated to be.$134.50 and interest, and Cameron recovered judgment against both defendants for the amount claimed. Hendricks appealed to the county court, and in that court Cameron was permitted to amend his claim by claiming ten per cent.' on the amount of the note for collection expenses, as stipulated in said note, and he recovered judgment for the full amount of his amended claim. *Held*error. The claim for ten per cent, collection expenses was a new cause of action, was not presented in the justice’s court, and could not be entertained in the county court on appeal. [W. & W. Con. Rep. § 239; 2 W. Con. Rep. § 351.]

§ 262. *Partners; liability of one partner upon a note executed by another.*It appears from the evidence that the consideration of the note sued on was lumber purchased of appellee by Etchison. It is not clear from the evidence whether Etchison purchased the lumber on his own *320individual account, or for the partnership of Hendricks & Etchison. To make Hendricks liable upon the note it devolved upon Cameron to prove that the lumber was purchased on account of, or inured to the benefit of the partnership of Hendricks & Etchison. If Etchison bought the lumber on his own account, and used it for himself, Hendricks would not be responsible therefor. But if the lumber was bought for or used by the firm, Hendricks would be liable although he did not execute the note. These rules of law governing the case were not properly explained to the jury by the court.

February 19, 1887.

Reversed and remanded.
761 A.2d 546

#### Richard L. VECHTER, Appellee, v. COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, BUREAU OF DRIVER LICENSING, Appellant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Nov. 27, 2000.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 27th day of November, 2000, the order of the Court of Common Pleas is hereby REVERSED, *see Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Transportation v. McCafferty,*563 Pa. 146, 758 A.2d 1155 (2000), and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with that opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1260 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1260

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 15, 2007

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
at 6301 Highway 58 in Harrison, Tennessee, as the ``Claude Ramsey Post 
                               Office''.

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

SECTION 1. CLAUDE RAMSEY POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 6301 Highway 58 in Harrison, Tennessee, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Claude Ramsey Post Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Claude 
Ramsey Post Office''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 14, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
#### STATE ex rel. Gregory MYLES v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2010-KH-1539.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 2011.

In re Myles, Gregory; — Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court Div. 2, No. 265,423; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 45,-612-KH.

Denied.
F09-55995-H 

KENNETH § :· i'""'\ JOHN WEEKLEY IN THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT - I 

v. § NUMBER 1, DALLAS ~c'f! r".:"r ~n - " I i ._,.. ...... --• ""' "-..-' p·· ..... (19 !l ~ .. v 

THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY TEXAS '· 

DEFENDANTS NOTICE OF APPEAL 

TO THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 1, DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS: 

JOHN KENNETH WEEKLEY, Defendan~ pro se in the above styled 

and numbered case hereby gives notion of appeal of the Trial 

Courts decision of November 18, 2014 denying his Motion for DNA 

Testing pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 64 TEX. R. APP. P. 

2s.2 Ca)(2) 

PRAYER 

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, Defendant prays this Court 

grant him permission to appeal pursuant to TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC. 

art. 64.05 

pro se 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that a true and correct copy of Defendants Notice of 

Appeal was sent to the below by U.S. Mail, first class, postage pre 

paid on this the 18th. day of December 2014 

District Attorneys Office 

Frank Crowley Courts Bldg. 

133 N. Riverside Blvd., LB 19 

~~las, ~~~:/t:~~----- J n Kenneth W~----

-1-

05-15-00037-CR

ACCEPTED

05-15-00037-CR

FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS

DALLAS, TEXAS

1/13/2015 9:23:04 AM

LISA MATZ

CLERK

 FILED IN 5th COURT OF APPEALS DALLAS, TEXAS 1/13/2015 9:23:04 AM LISA MATZ Clerk
... ···,l 

m ~ 

- ~ 0 

j-.1 .... ~ » 

() t &" =-

··.J 2. F ? !~:i - l/I 

.i=:i 

~ (' b !.t~ ~ {? 

'·· c: s; 

() c. i 

('°) - ...J ~ -r Vi 

~ ~ ~ CJ 

e. > .....J ~ -r-- "') 

J (;::> -r- _, 

..t c;_ V' ~ Vi ~ ~ l' 

-

- .. l,J -· r 

- 0 I"" 

- r J - (jJ G"' i.,::: - l\j\ 

-· vJ () 

"1) 

- n - -~ 

g!1. 

., 

- ~ -· -· - ,. - .. -

-· ....... 

-· ---

-· 

-· -·
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Aubrey William SIKES.

No. 2010-KO-2528.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2011.

In re Sikes, Aubrey William; —Defendant; Applying For Writ of Certiorari and/or Review, Parish of Tangipahoa, 21st Judicial District Court Div. B, No. 801482; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KA 0341.

Denied.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
  /s/ Colleen B. BrownColleen B. Brown
President and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 32

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

In connection with the Annual Report of American Soil Technology, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2006 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Carl P. Ranno, Chief Executive Officer, President, and Chief Financial Officer
of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to
ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

     1. The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


/s/ Carl P. Ranno
--------------------------------------
Carl P. Ranno
Chief Executive Officer, President and
Chief Financial Officer
April 17, 2007
#### Virgie WASHBURN, Appellant, v. FLORIDA’S NATURAL GROWERS and Alternative Service Concepts, Appellees.

No. 1D10-3562.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

June 20, 2011.

Susan W. Fox of Fox & Loquasto, P.A., Orlando, and Laurie T. Miles of Smith, Feddeler, Smith & Miles, P.A., Lakeland, for Appellant.

Michael Broussard and Meredith Barrios of Broussard & Cullen, P.A., Orlando, for Appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Virginia Washburn, Claimant, appeals an order of the Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) arguing that the JCC applied incorrect legal standards in denying her claim for permanent total disability benefits. Florida’s Natural Growers and Alternative Service Concepts; jointly the employer/carrier (E/C), cross-appeal, ar*1094guing that the JCC erred in finding that the major contributing cause of Claimant’s permanent work limitations was the workplace accident and in awarding Claimant an attorney’s fee. We AFFIRM without comment the issue argued by Claimant on appeal. We also AFFIRM without comment the major contributing cause issue raised by the E/C on cross-appeal. Because the JCC reserved jurisdiction to determine the amount of the fee, we DISMISS the cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction. *See Zampell Refractories, Inc. v. Welch,*61 So.3d 1160 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (dismissing cross-appeal for lack of jurisdiction because JCC reserved jurisdiction to determine amount of attorney’s fee). *See also Se. Recycling v. Cottingim,*728 So.2d 342, 343 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999) (dismissing “portion of order which determines entitlement to attorney’s fees but reserves jurisdiction to set the amount of the fee” for lack of jurisdiction).

VAN NORTWICK, PADOVANO, and HAWKES, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. James BERTRAND.

No. 2010-KK-2465.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 17, 2010.

In re Bertrand, James; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Evangeline, 13th Judicial District Court Div. A, Nos. 79,492, 79,490; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. KW 10-00929.

Denied.

WEIMER, J., would grant.
**Exhibit** **32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

 

I, David M. Bronson, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of PSS World Medical, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify that the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended September 28, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the  “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

/s/ David M. Bronson

David M. Bronson

Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

November 7, 2007
News United States Air Force
 Nominations open for 2015 Fisher humanitarian awardPublished Oct. 28, 2014
                        
                        By Janis El Shabazz
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas  (AFNS) --**
                Air Force officials are accepting nominees for the 2015 Zachary and Elizabeth Fisher Distinguished Civilian Humanitarian Award.
Established in 1996 by the secretaries of the Army, Navy and Air Force, the award is named in honor of Zachary and Elizabeth Fisher, both of whom contributed extensively to the support and welfare of U.S. military members and their families, Air Force Personnel Center officials said.
The annual award is presented to an individual or organization outside the Defense Department that has demonstrated exceptional patriotism and humanitarian concerns for members of the military or their families.
Organizations and base-level personnel must contact their major command, field operating agency or direct reporting unit for applicable suspense dates and additional information regarding nomination procedures. 
Each MAJCOM, FOA or DRU may submit one nomination.  Completed nomination packages are due to AFPC by March 19.
For more information on Air Force recognition programs and other personnel issues, visit the myPers website.2015 Zachary and Elizabeth Fisher Distinguished Civilian Humanitarian Award 



Humanitarian 



recognition 



MAJCOM 



FOA 



DRU 



awards
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                         5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER>                      1,000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           DEC-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                              DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                MAR-25-1999
<CASH>                                            9,289
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    96,878
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                     106,673
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                223,338
<PP&E>                                          189,357
<DEPRECIATION>                                        0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  461,223
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            90,155
<BONDS>                                          10,315
<COMMON>                                        322,593
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<OTHER-SE>                                            0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    461,223
<SALES>                                         121,370
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                121,370
<CGS>                                            82,660
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   112,439
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                  1,627
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  550
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   6,754
<INCOME-TAX>                                      2,419
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               4,335
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                      4,335
<EPS-BASIC>                                      0.22
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      0.22
#### KORELL v. BYMART, Inc.

Civ. No. 12183.

United States District Court, E. D. New York.

Nov. 15, 1951.

Louis Norris, New York City, for plaintiff.

Hughes, Hubbard & Reed, New York City, for defendant.

BYERS, District Judge.

This is a plaintiff’s motion to remand a wage and hour case removed to this Court, from the Supreme Court of New York, Queens County, by the defendant.

The basis of the motion is that removal is incompatible with the provision of the Act concerning an action to remove thereunder which “may be *maintained*in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees * * 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b), (Emphasis added.)

This contention has been examined so many times, and has led to such irreconcilable conclusions even within one district, that the citation of cases pro and con would not be helpful. The only one decided since the 1948 revision of Title 28 U.S.Code, seems to be Dando v. Stonhard Co., D.C., 93 F.Supp. 270, in which such a motion was granted, upon the authority of earlier decisions .antedating the revision. The opinion contains no reference to the removal statute as now found in Title 28 U.S.'C. § 1441, which took effect September 1, 1948: “(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”

The foregoing is the deliberate enactment of Congress, Presumably adopted with knowledge of what was written, for instance, in Johnson v. Butler Bros., 8 Cir., 1947, 162 F.2d 87, 172 A.L.R. 1157.

It would probably promote a speedy trial for this plaintiff, and certainly promote the convenience of this Court in moving its calendar, if this motion could be granted; if a discretionary power could be discovered in the statute, it would be summoned and exercised as plaintiff asks. Since there is none, it follows that the motion must be denied.

Settle order.