alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| Subsidiaries                                     |   | State      or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation or Organization |
|--------------------------------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                             |   |                                                              |
| SonicWALL      B.V.                              |   | Netherlands                                                       |
| Sonicwall      AG                                |   | Switzerland                                                       |
| SonicWALL      Mexico                            |   | Mexico                                                            |
| SonicWALL      Shanghai Limited                  |   | China                                                             |
| SonicWALL      Services Private Ltd.             |   | India                                                             |
| Aventail      LLC                                |   | Delaware                                                          |
| Aventail      Europe Ltd.                        |   | United      Kingdom                                               |
| Aventail      France SARL                        |   | France                                                            |
| SonicWALL      Infosecurity Private Limited |   | India                                                             |
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA

FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CHARLES JEFFERY WALKER

,

Appellant

,

v. Case No. 5D 2 3

- 0 866

LT Case No. 2022

- 311437

- MMDB

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

.

________________________________/

Decision filed July 11, 2023

Appeal from Circuit Court

for Volusia County

, Brian A. Feigenbaum , Judge.

Matthew J. Metz

, Public Defender

, and

Ali L. Hansen, Assistant Public Defender

, Dayton a Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General

, Tallahassee,

a nd Daniel P. Caldwell, Assistant Attorney

General, Daytona Beach , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM

.

AFFIRMED

.

MAKAR

, LAMBERT and SOUD , JJ., concur

.
# Tribal Students Make Robots with NASA Aerospace Engineer Casey Denham

Casey Denham, aerospace engineer with the Systems Analysis and Concepts Directorate at NASA’s Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia, works with tribal students during a STEM activity at the American Indian Engineering Sciences (AISES) National Conference in Spokane, Washington, Oct. 19-21, 2023.

Read More

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/casey-denham/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenOctober 19, 2023Image CreditNASA / Caroline MontgomerySize5472x3648pxNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Nov 08, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								  									Monika Luabeya								 
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
Order entered February 13, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00179-CR

MARK ANTHONY SPEERS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 194th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F12-27999-M

ORDER

The Court DENIES appellant’s third motion to extend time to file his brief.

We ORDER the trial court to conduct a hearing to determine why appellant’s brief has 

not been filed. In this regard, the trial court shall make appropriate findings and 

recommendations and determine whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal, whether 

appellant is indigent, or if not indigent, whether retained counsel has abandoned the appeal. See

TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(b). If the trial court cannot obtain appellant’s presence at the hearing, the 

trial court shall conduct the hearing in appellant’s absence. See Meza v. State, 742 S.W.2d 708 

(Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 1987, no pet.) (per curiam). If appellant is indigent, the trial court is 

ORDERED to take such measures as may be necessary to assure effective representation, which 

may include appointment of new counsel.
We ORDER the trial court to transmit a record of the proceedings, which shall include 

written findings and recommendations, to this Court within THIRTY DAYS of the date of this 

order.

This appeal is ABATED to allow the trial court to comply with the above order. The 

appeal shall be reinstated thirty days from the date of this order or when the findings are 

received, whichever is earlier.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 11.1

                      OBJECTIVE SYSTEMS INTEGRATORS, INC.
                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE
                    (in thousands, except per share amounts)
                                  (unaudited)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                        Three Months Ended
                                                           September 30,
                                                           -------------
                                                       1997              1996
                                                       ----              ----
<S>                                                  <C>               <C>
Net income (loss)..................................  $(6,810)          $ 2,353
                                                      ======            ====== 

Weighted average common shares outstanding.........   32,661            31,479

Equivalent shares attributed to options
  (treasury stock method)..........................       --             2,588
                                                      ------            ------
Weighted average common and equivalent shares......   32,661            34,067
                                                      ------            ------
Net income (loss) per share........................  $ (0.21)          $  0.07
                                                      ======            ======
</TABLE>
#### Francis Smith *v.*R. Smith and Wife.

Dissolution of Injunction — Damages Therefrom.

Where it appears from the records that the defendant is not in fact, restrained from proceeding against plaintiff on an order for an injunction damages will not be awarded.

APPEAL FROM DAVIESS CIRCUIT COURT.

October 2, 1866.

Opinion of the Court by

Judge Peters :

The allegations of the petition are sufficient under the *Civil Code*to authorize a court of equity to interpose and to pward appellee Ellen Smith a new trial; but the order awarding the injunction *400restrains appellee from proceeding with his execution against the estate of Robert and James Smith as well as against Ellen, although the petition contained no allegation that they had any defense to the action, and had shown no cause for opening the judgment against them.

And the order appealed from is in language, we think, sufficiently broad and comprehensive to open the judgment as to all the defendants therein, when it should have been restricted to Robert Smith and Ellen, his wife.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to discharge the injunction so far as it operates tp restrain appellant from proceeding against the estate of Robert and James Smith, and the court below will make such orders in relation to damages on the dissolution of the injunction as may seem proper. If it turns out that appellant was not in fact prevented by reason of the order for the injunction from proceeding against Robert and James Smith to collect his debt, *no dunnages should*be awarded.
#### D. C. Ferguson *v.*J. R. Morehead.

Possession of Land Under Title Bond — Rescission — Repaying Purchase Money — Interest — Improvements — Rents — Waste — Equity.

Where an appellee is in possession of land under a purchase with appellant’s bond for title, it was error to require a refunding of the purchase money paid without first rescinding the contract, on equitable principles, and having an account stated between the parties.

Cross-petition — Warning Order.

A warning order against a defendant as to the petition in which he-was not a party does not apply to a'cross-petition as to which he was not before the court.

APPEAL PROM PENDLETON CIRCUIT COURT.

January 29, 1867.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Hardin:

The judgment is for $212, with interest from the 6th day of February, I860, the day of the contract and payment of the $20T *83claimed in the petition, so that in any view of the case the judgment is for too much hy $5. But the judgment was otherwise erroneous.

As Morehead was in possession of the land under his purchase with appellant’s bond for title, the court should not have adjudged the purchase money paid to he refunded without first rescinding the contract on equitable principles and ascertaining the balance due, if anything, on an account taken of the money paid and interest and improvements, if any, on the one side and rents and waste, if any, on the other.

Same disposition should have been made of appellant’s cross-petition against Daugherty. The warning order against him is as to the petition in which he was not made a party, and does not apply to the cross-petition, as to which he was not before the court. He seems to have been a necessary party, hut as the appellant neither brought him before the court himself nor sought to compel Morehead to do so, as a defendant to the petition, we would not feel authorized to reverse the judgment for the apparent irregularity as to the cross-petition concerning Daugherty.

As the judgment must he reversed, however, for the other reasons indicated, the appellant should be permitted to prepare his case on his cross-petition if he will do so within a reasonable time, and if he will not do so the same should be dismissed without prejudice as to Daugherty. v

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 508 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 508

  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1084) to address slow 
  economic growth and spur investment and development in underserved 
                      communities across America.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           September 7, 2017

   Ms. Michelle Lujan Grisham of New Mexico submitted the following 
        resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 1084) to address slow 
  economic growth and spur investment and development in underserved 
                      communities across America.

    Resolved, That immediately upon adoption of this resolution, the 
House shall proceed to consideration in the House of the bill (H.R. 
1084) to address slow economic growth and spur investment and 
development in underserved communities across America. All points of 
order against consideration of the bill are waived. An amendment in the 
nature of a substitute consisting of the text of H.R. 3440, as 
introduced, shall be considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall 
be considered as read. All points of order against provisions in the 
bill, as amended, are waived. The previous question shall be considered 
as ordered on the bill, as amended, and on any further amendment 
thereto, to final passage without intervening motion except: (1) one 
hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary or their respective 
designees; and (2) one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
    Sec. 2.  Clause 1(c) of rule XIX shall not apply to the 
consideration of H.R. 1084.
                                 <all>
```
#### MARTHA LATTA v. JAMES T. CAULFIELD.

May 16, 1978.

Petition for certification granted. (See 158 *N. J. Super.*151)
<PAGE>

                                                                     EXHIBIT 3.3

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                     RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                          IDENIX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

     Idenix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the "Corporation"), organized and existing
under and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,
does hereby certify as follows:

     The Board of Directors of the Corporation duly adopted at a meeting duly
called, pursuant to Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the State of
Delaware, resolutions setting forth an amendment to the Restated Certificate of
Incorporation of the Corporation and declaring said amendment to be advisable.
The stockholders of the Corporation duly approved said proposed amendment by
written consent in accordance with Sections 242 and 228 of the General
Corporation Law of the State of Delaware. The resolutions setting forth the
amendment are as follows:

     RESOLVED:  That the first sentence of Article Fourth of the Restated
                Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation be and hereby is
                deleted in its entirety and the following new first sentence of
                Article Fourth be inserted in lieu thereof:

                   "FOURTH: The total number of shares of all classes of stock
                   which the Corporation shall have authority to issue is
                   75,000,000 shares of Common Stock, $.001 par value per share
                   ("Common Stock")."

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate of
Amendment to be signed by its President this 30th day of January, 2006.

                                                  IDENIX PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

                                                  By: /s/ Jean-Pierre
                                                      Sommadossi
                                                    ----------------------------
                                                    Jean-Pierre Sommadossi
                                                    Chairman, Chief Executive
                                                      Officer and President

                                       A-1
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED APRIL 24, 2014

NO. 03-13-00378-CV

In the Matter of R. T.

APPEAL FROM THE 395TH DISTRICT COURT OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES PEMBERTON AND ROSE

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on May 3, 2013. Having reviewed 

the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error in the 

trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Because 

appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
## COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02

- 12

- 003 3 1

- CR

Pedro Dominguez

v.

The State of Texas §

§

§

§

§

§ From Criminal District Court No. 4

o f Tarrant County ( 1219 7 80 D )

May 30 , 2013

Opinion by Justice Meier

Concurrence by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)



### JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By

_________________________________ Justice Bill Meier
# Four STS 61-C crewmembers gather at the commander’s station

61C-21-009 (12-17 Jan 1986) --- Four members of the seven-man STS 61-C crew aboard the Columbia convene at the commander's station during the five-day mission which kicks off a busy 1986 for the Space Transportation System (STS).  Astronaut Robert L. Gibson (center frame), mission commander, is surrounded by (l.-r.).  Astronaut Steven A. Hawley, mission specialist, an unidentified crewmember (only partially visible) and astronaut Charles F. Bolden, pilot.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/amf-61c-21-009/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareTakenJanuary 12, 1986ProducerJSCSize1920x1234pxPIA Number61c-21-009The National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Mar 30, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1669

To reauthorize the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2003

Mr. INHOFE (for himself and Mr. BREAUX) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL

To reauthorize the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restoration 

Act.

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

3 SECTION 1. FEDERAL AID IN SPORT FISH RESTORATION 

4 AND MANAGEMENT. 

5 Section 4 of the Dingell-Johnson Sport Fish Restora6 tion Act (16 U.S.C. 777c) is amended—

7 (1) in subsection (b)—

8 (A) in paragraph (3)—

9 (i) in the paragraph heading, by strik10 ing ‘‘2003’’ and inserting ‘‘2004’’; and 
2

•S 1669 IS 

1 (ii) by striking ‘‘2003’’ and inserting 

2 ‘‘2004’’; and 

3 (B) by striking paragraph (4); 

4 (C) by redesignating paragraph (5) as 

5 paragraph (4); and 

6 (D) in paragraphs (3)(C) and (4) (as re7 designated by subparagraph (C)), by striking 

8 ‘‘Secretary of Transportation’’ each place it ap9 pears and inserting ‘‘Secretary of Homeland 

10 Security’’; and 

11 (2) in subsection (c)—

12 (A) in paragraph (4), by inserting ‘‘and’’ 

13 after the semicolon at the end; and 

14 (B) by striking paragraphs (5) and (6) and 

15 inserting the following: 

16 ‘‘(5) ‘‘$10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2003 

17 and 2004;’’.

Æ
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 99-1753

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, *

* v. * * Nathan Williams, Jr., * * Appellant. * Appeals from the United States

__________ District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. No. 99-1755

__________ [UNPUBLISHED] United States of America, * * Appellee, *

* v. * * Jerry Tronne Brown, * * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: September 14, 1999

Filed: September 22, 1999

___________ Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.-2- ___________ PER CURIAM. NathanWilliams, Jr. and Jerry Tronne Brown (collectively the appellants) appeal their drug-related convictions. Brown also raises a sentencing argument. Having carefully considered the record and the appellants' arguments, we conclude the record supports the district court's decisions because the appellants' contentions are foreclosed by this court’s holdings, otherwise without merit, or both. First, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brown's motion for severance. Second, the district court did not commit error in admitting tape-recorded conversations between Williams, a coconspirator, and a nontestifying informant or by permitting the jury to usetranscripts of the taped conversations while listening to the tapes, and, even if there was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the overwhelming evidence of the appellants' guilt. Third, we reject Brown's sentencing argument because the district court's findings about the amount of drugs involved are not clearly erroneous.
Because an extended opinion would simply rehash this court’s well-established precedents, we summarily affirm the appellants' convictions and Brown's sentence. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy.
Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### MILLARD SPIALTER T/A LINDSLEY ARMS APARTMENTS v. WILLIAM C. LOHRFINK.

May *2,*1978.

Petition for certification denied.
#### JOHN ROBINSON v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK & NEW JERSEY.

May 16, 1978.

Petition for certification 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

     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC  California
Housing Tax Credits III, L.P. (the  "Partnership") for the period ended December
31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  I,  Wilfred N.  Cooper,  Jr.,
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner
of the Partnership, hereby certify that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  except to the extent  that such
     provisions require the audit report of Local Limited Partnership  financial
     statements  to  refer  to the  auditing  standards  of the  Public  Company
     Accounting   Oversight  Board  for  the   Partnership's   annual  financial
     statements; and

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




/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.

October 26, 2007