alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Department of the United States Air Force LogoBiography
                  United States Air ForceGen. Kevin P. Chilton
            KEVIN P. CHILTONGen. Kevin P. Chilton, USAF, Ret., is a senior fellow with the National Defense University in support of the Pinnacle, Capstone and Keystone programs.

General Chilton completed a 34 1/2 year Air Force career as Commander of U.S. Strategic Command from 2007 to 2011, where he was responsible for the plans and operations for all U.S. forces conducting strategic deterrence and the Department of Defense’s space and cyberspace operations. Prior to this assignment, General Chilton commanded at the wing, numbered air force, major command and unified combatant command levels including serving as Commander of Air Force Space Command from 2006 to 2007. He flew operational assignments in the R-4C and F-15 and, as an Air Force test pilot, conducted weapons testing in various models of the F-4 and F-15. He also served 11 years as a NASA astronaut, where he flew as the Commander of STS-76, his third Space Shuttle mission, and served as the Deputy Program Manager for Operations for the International Space Station Program.

General Chilton is a distinguished graduate of the U.S. Air Force Academy, with a Bachelor of Sciences degree in engineering sciences, a Columbia University Guggenheim Fellow with a Master of Sciences degree in mechanical engineering, and a distinguished graduate of the U.S. Air Force pilot training and test pilot schools. He also was awarded an honorary Doctor of Laws degree from Creighton University.

General Chilton currently serves as an independent consultant and as a director for Level 3 Communications and Orbital ATK corporations. He is a trustee of the Air Force Academy Falcon Foundation, a member of the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories Board of Governors and a member of the Sandia National Laboratory Board of Managers. He is a former director of the Aerospace Corp., Anadarko Petroleum Corp., and Schafer Corp.

Retired from the Air Force in 2011,General Kevin P. Chilton’s active duty biographyis available on the Air Force website.Department of the Air Force Logo
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1299 

To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 1, 2007 

Mr. POE (for himself, Mr. MCCOTTER, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. FRANK of 

Massachusetts, and Mr. PEARCE) introduced the following bill; which was 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To permit the televising of Supreme Court proceedings. 

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

3 SECTION 1. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 28. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 45 of title 28, United 

5 States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘§ 678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings 

8 ‘‘The Supreme Court shall permit television coverage 

9 of all open sessions of the Court unless the Court decides, 

10 by a vote of the majority of justices, that allowing such 

11 coverage in a particular case would constitute a violation 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1299 IH

1 of the due process rights of 1 or more of the parties before 

2 the Court.’’. 

3 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The chapter analysis 

4 for chapter 45 of title 28, United States Code, is amended 

5 by inserting at the end the following: 

‘‘678. Televising Supreme Court proceedings.’’. 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
First Amendment to Employment Agreement, 11/26/03 - Lori Jones



 EXHIBIT 10.31 
  
 FIRST AMENDMENT TO 
 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
 (Chief Financial Officer) 
  
 This First Amendment to Employment Agreement (this “Amendment”) is entered into as of November 26, 2003, by and
between Analytical Surveys, Inc., a Colorado corporation whose principal executive offices are located in San Antonio, Texas (“Employer”), and Lori A. Jones (“Officer”). 
  
 Recitals 
  
 A. Employer and Officer are parties to an Employment Agreement dated as of January 20, 2003 (the “Employment
Agreement”). 
  
 B. Employer and Officer desire to make
certain amendments to the Employment Agreement. 
  
 Agreement

  
 Now, therefore, the parties agree as follows: 

 

	 	1.	Bonuses. Employer will pay a bonus of $60,000 (the “Bonus”) to Officer within 30 days of the filing of the September 30, 2004, audited financial statements with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the NASDAQ; provided, however, that the Bonus shall not be earned or due to Officer unless Officer is employed by Employer on the date such bonus is to be paid and Officer is performing at a satisfactory level
as determined by the Employer in its sole discretion. This Bonus will be paid on a lump sum, cash basis. This Bonus replaces any other bonus provisions for Officer, and specifically the bonus provisions outlined in the Employment Agreement. Officer
expressly waives and releases any and all rights to bonus compensation under the terms of the Employment Agreement. 

  

	 	2.	Miscellaneous. Except as modified by this Amendment, all provisions of the Employment Agreement will remain in full force and effect. This Amendment and the Employment
Agreement constitute the entire agreement between the parties with respect to Officer’s employment and supersede all proposals, prior agreements and all other communications between the parties, whether oral or in writing, relating to the
subject matter of this Amendment and the Employment Agreement. This Amendment may be amended or superseded only by an agreement in writing, signed by the Officer and an executive officer of Employer. This Amendment will be governed by and construed
according to the internal laws of the State of Texas, without regard to conflict of law principles. Disputes arising out of this Amendment or the Employment Agreement will be resolved in the manner provided for in Section 19 of the Employment
Agreement. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts. 








 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the date first above written.

  

	Employer:	 	 	 	Analytical Surveys, Inc.
			
	 	 	 	 	 By:


	 	 	 	 	Print Name: J. Norman Rokosh
	 	 	 	 	Title: Chief Executive Officer
			
	Officer:	 	 	 	  


	 	 	 	 	Lori A. Jones

  

 2
EXHIBIT 32.2



BEA SYSTEMS, INC.



Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted



Pursuant to Section 906 of the SarbanesOxley Act of 2002



In connection with the periodic report of BEA Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended
January 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Mark P. Dentinger, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section
1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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 at the dates and for the periods
indicated.
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This Certification has not been, and shall not be
deemed, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission



Date:
April 18, 2005



/s/ Mark P. DentingerMark P. DentingerChief Financial Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Nolan JAMES.

No. 2010-KP-1675.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 25, 2011.

In re James, Nolan; —Defendant; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court Div. D, No. 402; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2010 KW 0463.

Denied.
NO. 12-09-00214-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

JULIA MARIE MCNEAL, § APPEAL FROM THE

APPELLANT

V. § COUNTY COURT AT LAW

NAPOLEAN MCNEAL,

APPELLEE § SMITH COUNTY, TEXAS

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

This appeal is being dismissed for failure to comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate

Procedure. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3. Pursuant to rule 32.1, Appellant’s docketing statement was

due to have been filed at the time the appeal was perfected, i.e., July 13, 2009. See TEX. R. APP. P.

32.1. On July 13, 2009, this court notified Appellant that she should file a docketing statement

within ten days if she had not already done so. On the same date, by separate letter, this court

notified Appellant that the filing fee was due on or before July 23, 2009.

Because Appellant did not file the docketing statement as requested in our July 13, 2009

letter, this court issued a second notice advising Appellant that the docketing statement was past due.

The notice also advised Appellant that the filing fee in the appeal was due to have been paid on or

before July 23, 2009 but had not been received. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5. The notice further provided

that unless the docketing statement and fee were filed on or before August 3, 2009, the appeal would

be presented for dismissal in accordance with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.3. The date for

filing the docketing statement and the filing fee has passed, and Appellant has not complied with the

court’s request. Because Appellant has failed, after notice, to comply with rules 5 and 32.1, the

appeal is dismissed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(c).
2

Opinion delivered August 19, 2009.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(PUBLISH)
#### Elmer C. OBERHELLMANN, a trustee of an ERISA defined benefit pension plan, Appellant, v. Kristin Petersen OBERHELLMANN, a trustee and fiduciary of the ERISA defined benefit pension plan, Appellee.

No. 00-1256.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 11, 2001.

Decided Jan. 19, 2001.

Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges, and KYLE,1 District Judge.

1

. The Honorable Richard H. Kyle, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, sitting by designation.

*597PER CURIAM.

The District Court2 dismissed plaintiff Elmer C. Oberhellmann’s lawsuit with prejudice as a sanction for plaintiffs repeated, knowing failure to adhere to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff appeals. Having reviewed the case, we are thoroughly satisfied the District Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing plaintiffs case with prejudice. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

2

. The Honorable Jean C. Hamilton, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the interim
financial statements of Globus International Resources Corp. as at and for the
year ended September 30, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to
such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0001033114
<NAME>                        Globus International Resources Corp.
<MULTIPLIER>                  1
<CURRENCY>                    USD

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>             SEP-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                OCT-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                  SEP-30-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>               1
<CASH>                           34,712
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                 4,101,047
<ALLOWANCES>                  2,890,675
<INVENTORY>                     125,757
<CURRENT-ASSETS>              1,410,841
<PP&E>                          126,301
<DEPRECIATION>                  105,638
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                1,602,686
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>         2,322,515
<BONDS>                               0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                      5,340,841
<OTHER-SE>                   (6,060,670)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>   (719,829)
<SALES>                       7,751,839
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              7,751,839
<CGS>                         8,205,207
<TOTAL-COSTS>                  (453,368)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                588,115
<LOSS-PROVISION>              2,370,675
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              300,241
<INCOME-PRETAX>              (3,684,285)
<INCOME-TAX>                      9,155
<INCOME-CONTINUING>          (3,693,440)
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                 (3,693,440)
<EPS-BASIC>                        (.42)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (.42)



</TABLE>
#### J.C., Father of C.C., K.C., J.B., H.C., etc., Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, Appellee.

No. 5D11-2275.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Jan. 30, 2012.

Paulina Minelga, St. Augustine, and Jeffrey Deen, Regional Counsel, Casselberry, for Appellant.

Rosemarie Farrell, Orlando, for Appel-lee.

Laura E. Lawson, Guardian ad Litem Program, Tavares, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals an order from the dependency court placing his five children in permanent guardianship with their paternal aunt and terminating Department of Children and Families supervision. He argues that the court erred in denying his request for reunification. We agree and reverse.

During the hearing on Appellant’s motion for reunification, Appellee acknowledged that Appellant had complied with his case plan and that it had no evidence to support its position that reunification would jeopardize the children. Nevertheless, the lower court denied reunification with Appellant without evidence to support its finding. In doing so, it improperly relied solely on issues existing at the time the dependency case was initiated, without regard to Appellant’s progress in overcoming those issues. *C.D. v. Dep’t of Children & Families,*974 So.2d 495, 500 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008). The lower court also improperly relied upon a failed prior reunification attempt. The record indicates that the children previously were reunified with both their parents and were subsequently removed because of the mother’s actions. Appellant and the children’s mother are no longer together. In fact, the mother had relocated to Georgia at the time of the hearing. In the absence of substantial, competent evidence to support the conclusions of the trial judge, we are constrained to reverse.

*1278Accordingly, we reverse and remand the challenged orders with instruction that the trial court grant Appellant’s motion for reunification.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

ORFINGER, C.J., TORPY and LAWSON, JJ., concur.
#### W. H. Garretson v. S. R. De Poyster et al.

(No. 6224.)

Appeal from Dallas County.

Cobble & Avery, counsel for appellants.

No counsel appeared for appellees.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§137. *Chattel mortgage; contract of sale with reservation of title is a.*De Poyster contracted in writing with Garretson for a safé, the terms of the contract being that the former would pay the latter $250 for the safe, the payment to be made in several instalments. Said payments were to be made in Dallas, Dallas county, Texas, and it was stipulated that the safe, though delivered to De Poyster, should be and remain the property of Garretson until paid for in full. In his petition Garretson set forth the contract, alleging that the contract price of the safe had not been paid, and that said safe was in the possession of J. W. Jones, who claimed the same by purchase at a sale under attachment, the same having been sold as the property of De Poyster, and that said Jones purchased said safe with notice of the terms of said contract; and that said' contract, prior to said purchase by Jones, had been duly registered in Palo Pinto county, the county in which De Poyster and Jones resided, and in which was said safe. Garretson prayed for judgment against De Poyster for the purchase-money due on the safe, and for a foreclosure of his lien for said purchase-money upon said safe. De Poyster did not answer, and judgment was rendered against him for the amount claimed-in the petition. Jones excepted generally and *199specially to the petition. It was the opinion of the trial judge that the petition showed no valid lien or claim on the safe in the hands of Jones, and for this reason the exceptions to the petition were sustained, and the court adjudged that Garretson take nothing against Jones, etc. We are of opinion that the judgment sustaining the exceptions to the petition is erroneous. Under the statute of this state the contract in relation to the safe is a chattel mortgage, and by virtue thereof Garretson had a lien on the safe for the purchase-money thereof. [Sayles’ Civil St., art. 3190a; Key v. Brown, 61 Tex. 300; 2 Civil Cas. Ct. App., § 4:91.] This lien followed the safe into the hands of Jones if he purchased with notice, either actual or, constructive, of the existence of such lien. It was alleged in the petition that he purchased the safe with both actual and constructive notice of said lien. We think the petition alleges facts which show a valid lien upon the safe in the hands of the defendant Jones, and also facts which show that this suit was properly brought in Dallas county against both the defendants.

June 16, 1890.

Reversed and remanded.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          24,306
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          56,639
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    847,042
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                      1,570,906
<ALLOWANCE>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,574,675
<DEPOSITS>                                   1,834,879
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            462,482
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           191
<OTHER-SE>                                     277,123
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               2,574,675
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 55,729
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               30,985
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                86,714
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              40,951
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              53,742
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           32,972
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      925
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                               (146)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 20,766
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,782
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,896
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.56
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.19
<LOANS-NON>                                      5,608
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 6,988
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       95
<RECOVERIES>                                         7
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                7,825
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          7,825
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

              CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements 
(Form S-8 Nos. 333-37385, and 333-24941) pertaining to the 1995 Flexible Stock 
Incentive Plan, the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan and the 1997 Employee Stock 
Purchase Plan of BEA Systems, Inc. of our report dated February 24, 1998, with 
respect to the consolidated financial statements of BEA Systems, Inc. included 
in this Annual Report (Form 10-KSB) for the year ended January 31, 1998.

                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Palo Alto, California
April 24, 1998
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1393 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1393

  To amend the USEC Privatization Act to provide an extension of the 
period during which individuals may bring a suit for certain violations 
           of employee protection provisions under such Act.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 7, 2007

   Mr. Whitfield (for himself, Mr. Wilson of Ohio, and Mr. Shimkus) 
 introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
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 amend the USEC Privatization Act to provide an extension of the 
period during which individuals may bring a suit for certain violations 
           of employee protection provisions under such Act.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF OTHERWISE APPLICABLE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR 
              CERTAIN SUITS UNDER USEC PRIVATIZATION ACT.

    Section 3110(a)(7)(C) of the USEC Privatization Act (42 U.S.C. 
2297h-8(a)(7)(C)) is amended to read as follows:
                    ``(C) An individual aggrieved by a violation of any 
                provision of this subsection may bring a suit in any 
                district court of the United States having jurisdiction 
                over the parties, without regard to the amount in 
                controversy or the citizenship of the parties, to the 
                extent such suit does not allege a violation of the 
                National Labor Relations Act. Notwithstanding section 
                1658 of title 28, United States Code, any such suit 
                alleging a violation occurring on or before December 
                31, 2000, may be brought on or before June 30, 2009.''.
                                 <all>
```