alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### John M. Robertson et al. *v.*James F. Nelson and Loyd.

Conditional Contract — Breach — Damages.

1. A sale of personal property, consisting of corn, was made by appellant to appellee; no price was agreed on and no particular amount was specified by appellant, and further conditioned on certain acts of appellee in securing pasturage for watering and feeding his hogs, and this the appellee took time to do. *Held*as not being a sale so complete as to bind either party.

Same.

2. But had the contract been binding on Robinson, Loyd had paid nothing and was only entitled to the difference in the price he was to give and the market value.

APPEAL EROM MONTGOMERY CIRCUIT COURT.

January 22, 1867.

Opinion oe the Court by

Judge Robertson:

It seems to this court that on the pleading and proof the judgment against the appellant Robertson was unauthorized. It is not material whether the com belonged to him or to his wife. His contract of sale to Loyd did not vest the title in the latter, as the quantity of com was not ascertained, but the com still remained Robertson’s or his wife’s and at the risk of the owner.

And, as no time for ascertainment of the quantity or payment of the price was fixed, and as, moreover, it seems that whether Loyd would take the com or not depended on his procuring a field with water in it for feeding his hogs, and he took time for that purpose, the sale was not so complete as to bind either party.

But had the contract been binding on Robertson, Loyd, having paid nothing, could be entitled only to the difference between the price he was to give and the market value in less than a week after *46the date of the agreement; and, though the price rose considerably during the fall afterward, there is no proof of any rise in the short interval of less than a week, when the corn had not matured.

*Haz & Winn, for appellant.*

Wherefore, the judgment against Robertson is reversed, and the cause remanded, with instructions to dismiss Loyd’s cross-petition against him.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-7057
STEVEN WHISENANT, Plaintiff - Appellant, versusDAVID K. SMITH; EDWARD MURRAY; LARRY W. HUFFMAN; HENRY PONTON, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Chief District Judge. (CA-93-802-R) Submitted: December 19, 1996 Decided: January 6, 1997 Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Whisenant, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Campbell Alexander, Assistant Attorney General, Jill Theresa Bowers, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's orders entering judgment on the jury verdict in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) action and denying his motion for judgment as a matter of law. The record does not contain a transcript of the jury trial. Appellant has the burden of including in the record on appeal a transcript of all parts of the proceedings material to the issues raised on appeal.Fed. R. App. P. 10(b); 4th Cir. Local R. 10(c). Appellants proceeding on appeal in forma pauperis are entitled to transcripts at government expense only in certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) (1994). By failing to produce a transcript or to qualify for the production of a transcript at government expense, Appellant haswaived review of the issues on appeal which depend upon the transcript to show error. Powell v. Estelle , 959 F.2d 22, 26 (5th Cir.), cert. denied , 506 U.S. 1025 (1992); Keller v. Prince George's County , 827 F.2d 952, 954 n.1 (4th Cir. 1987). We have reviewed the record before the court and the district court's opinions and find no reversible error. We therefore affirm the district court's order entering judgment on the verdict. We also affirm the district court's order denying Appellant's motion for judgment as a matter of law because the denial of summary judgment does not necessitate a finding of a constitutional violation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the mate-3 rials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
##### 



Exhibit 21
 SonicWALL, Inc.
Subsidiaries of the Registrant
 State or Other Jurisdiction ofSubsidiaries
    
    Incorporation or OrganizationSonicWALL B.V.
    
    NetherlandsSonicwall AG
    
    SwitzerlandSonicWALL Mexico
    
    MexicoSonicWALL Shanghai Limited
    
    ChinaSonicWALL Services Private Ltd.
    
    IndiaAventail LLC
    
    DelawareAventail Europe Ltd.
    
    United KingdomAventail France SARL
    
    FranceAventail GmbH
    
    GermanyAventail InfoTech Private Ltd.
    
    India
- Home
- Occupational Heath
- Human Spaceflight and Aviation   -  HMTA
  - Standards
- Research Oversight   - Institutional Review Board (IRB)
  - Chief Veterinary Officer (CVO)
  - Flight IACUC
- Policy
- Helpful Links   - Tech Briefs
  - eIRB
- More   - Extreme Environments  							Reporting Concerns						
						All human subjects research will be conducted in accordance with the approved protocol, federal laws, and NASA policies and guidelines. Any person who has concerns about the conduct of human subjects research are encouraged to report their concern to the Office of Research Assurance (ORA).					
  **ANONYMOUS** concerns may be submitted to ORA by calling:    281-244-1800    You may also submit a concern via e-mail to ORA by clicking here.    You are protected by federal law from retaliation.    **NO** adverse action will be taken against you.    You may remain anonymous.    Contact the NASA IRB / **Return to the NASA IRB Homepage**  Keep ExploringDiscover More From NASA
Safety and Mission Assurance

Office of the Chief Engineer (OCE)

Living in Space

Why Go to Space
      The 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:								  								Jan 31, 2024								 
-  									Page Editor:								  									Arturo Garza								 
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
DISMISS ; and Opinion Filed December 31, 2013. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 01058

- CV

SHARON D. LEWIS AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 608 MULBERRY LANE, DESOTO, TEXAS 75115 , Appellants V. AH4R1 TX DFW, LLC , Appellee
On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 13

- 01305

- C



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices O’Neill, Myers, and Brown Opinion by Justice O’ Ne ill In a letter dated December 10, 2013, the Court questioned its jurisdiction over this appeal

in a forcible detainer action . Specifically, it appears the appeal is moot because appellee now has
possession of the property . We instructed appellants to fi le, within ten days, a letter brief
explaining how this Court has jurisdiction. We cautioned appellants that failure to file a letter
brief within the time requested would result in dismissal of the appeal without further notice. As
of today’s date, appe llants have not file d a jurisdictional brief.
A case becomes moot if, at any stage during the proceedings, a controversy ceases to
exist between the parties. See Williams v. Lara , 52 S.W.3d 171, 184 (Tex. 2001). The purpose

of a forcible detainer action is to obtain immediate possession of property. See Scott v. Hewitt , 127 Tex. 31, 35, 90 S.W.2d 816, 818

- 19 (1936) . A judgment of possession in a forcible detainer– 2

– action determines the right to immediate possession and is not intended to be a final

deter mination of whether the eviction is wrongful. See Marshall v. Housing Auth. o f the City of

San Antonio , 198 S.W.3d 782, 787 (Tex. 2006).
In their unopposed motion to release the funds held as bond
, 1 appellant s informed the

Court that appellee is now in po ssession of the property. The issue of possession is no longer i n controversy. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3(a).

131058F.P05

1 In an order dated August 19, 2013, the Court granted appellants’ unopposed motion. /Michael J. O'Neill/ MICHAEL J. O ’ NEILL JUSTICE– 3

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
JUDGMENT

SHARON D. LEWIS AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 608 MULBERRY LANE, DESOTO, TEXAS 75115, Appellants

No. 05

- 13

- 01058

- CV V.

AH4R1 TX DFW, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3, Dallas County, Texas. Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 13

- 01305

- C. Opinion delivered by Justice O’Neill. Justices Myers and Brown, participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.
It is ORDERED that appellee, AH4R1 TX DFW, LLC, recover its costs of this appeal from appellants, SHARON D. LEWIS AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS OF 608 MULBERRY LANE, DESOTO, TEXAS 75115.

Judgment entered this 31 st day of December, 2013.

/Michael J. O'Neill/ MICHAEL J. O'NEILL JUSTICE
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Thornburg Mortgage, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Larry A. Goldstone, President and Chief Operating 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) | 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/ Larry A. Goldstone               
|Larry A. Goldstone                   
|President and Chief Operating Officer
|August 8, 2006
- IV&V Home
- About NASA’s IV&V Program   - About IV&V
  - Mission and Values
  - Director’s Bio
  - IV&V Organization
  - Visiting IV&V
  - Program Flyers
- IV&V Services   - IV&V Services Home
  - IV&V Services Overview
  - IV&V Current Projects
- Doing Business   - Doing Business with IV&V
  - IV&V Partners
- Additional Links   - STEM Engagement
  - JSTAR
  - IV&V Workshop Archive
  - IV&V Management System
  - For IV&V Employees

## Independent Verification and Validation Services

NASA’s IV&V Program strives to improve software safety, reliability, and quality for NASA programs and missions through effective applications of systems and software IV&V methods, practices, and techniques. NASA’s IV&V Program applies system and software engineering best practices to evaluate the correctness and quality of critical and complex software systems throughout the System Development Life Cycle (SDLC).

The NASA IV&V Program’s analytical approaches enable efficient, cost-effective IV&V service through the usage of broad-based expertise, adaptive software engineering best practices, and a common toolset for all IV&V analysts. The analytical paradigm utilized by NASA’s IV&V Program requires a multi-disciplinary team, and a qualitative software risk and criticality assessment capability coupled with an extensive multiphase V&V analytical process. Software IV&V has been demonstrated as an effective technique on large, complex software systems.  IV&V increases the probability of producing software that meets requirements and is delivered within cost and schedule. When performed in parallel with the SDLC, software IV&V provides early detection and identification of risk elements, enabling mitigation of risk early in the SDLC

The IV&V Program is a proven solution provider for organizations who want to ensure their system software operates reliably, safely, and securely. For more information about starting a space act agreement or entering another type of partnership to receive services from NASA’s IV&V Program, please contact Jarrod Petersavage (Jarrod.M.Petersavage@nasa.gov).
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-10387

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

GEORGE WHITEHEAD, JR.,

Defendant - Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:07-CR-11-1

Before BARKSDALE, STEWART, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, George Whitehead, Jr., federal

prisoner # 35653-177, appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to

vacate his convictions for possession of a controlled substance with intent to

distribute and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Whitehead contends he

should have been granted a writ of audita querela pursuant to the All Writs Act,

28 U.S.C. § 1651, because he did not discover his claimed double-jeopardy

violation until after he had sought relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 20, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not *

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 11-10387 Document: 00511607363 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/20/2011
No. 11-10387

The question whether a prisoner may challenge his sentence via a writ of

audita querela is reviewed de novo. E.g., Ctr. for Individual Freedom v.

Carmouche, 449 F.3d 655, 662 (5th Cir. 2006) (questions of law reviewed de

novo); United States v. Holt, 417 F.3d 1172, 1174 (11th Cir. 2005) (per curiam)

(“We review de novo the question of whether a prisoner may challenge his

sentence by filing a motion for a writ of audita querela.”). The writ is not

available if the objection can be brought pursuant to any other post-conviction

remedy. United States v. Miller, 599 F.3d 484, 488 (5th Cir. 2010). Thus, the

writ is not available when the prisoner may seek redress under § 2255. United

States v. Banda, 1 F.3d 354, 356 (5th Cir. 1993). Neither a prior unsuccessful

§ 2255 motion nor an inability to meet the requirements for pursuing a

successive § 2255 motion renders the § 2255 remedy unavailable. Tolliver v.

Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 878 (5th Cir. 2000).

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 11-10387 Document: 00511607363 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/20/2011
#### Robert Pinkston, Sr., *v.*Miriam Pinkston, Etc.

Conveyance of Land — Mental Incapacity.

From the palpable unreasonableness of appellant’s conveyance without consideration, whereby he left himself homeless, it will be inferred that he did not understand the legal effect of the conveyance, and did not know the essential difference between a will and a deed.

Deed — Description — Vagueness.

A conveyance of land by deed, which recites that it was “ 25 acres of the tract more or less of about 50 acres sold to appellant and his; brother,” is void for uncertainty of description.

APPEAL PROM MADISON CIRCUIT COURT.

January 13, 1867.

Opinion oe the Oourt by

Judge Robertson:

The *facts*proved, in this case preponderate in favor of the conclusion that the appellant had not, at the date of his conveyance, capacity to bind himself by a contract disposing of all, or nearly all, he owned. Dr. Drench’s opinion to that effect is corroborated by the appellant’s imbecile and diseased condition about that time, and by the concurrent opinions of others, including Dr. Ohenault.

But if the appellant had been competent to bind himself by a reasonable contract, well understood by a free and self-poised mind, the palpable unreasonableness of his conveyance without, consideration, either good or valuable, including his brother’s land without his authority or knowledge, although he resided on the land, and to take effect at once, whereby the appellant left himself homeless and turned out of his doors his aged and paralyzed mother, dependent on his care and protection, constrains us to infer that he did not understand the legal effect of the conveyance and was fraudulently deceived and importuned by his-nephew and his mother, both of whom traveled to Richmond when the deed was expected to be made and stuck to the appellant until it was made. And the deduction is fortified by the fact that he-seemed to understand that, he would hold and enjoy the land as-long as he lived, and, according to the opinions of many witnesses and to intrinsic probability, did not know the essential difference between a will and a deed.

*99
      *Burnam & Gaperton, for appellant.*

Moreover, the land conveyed is undefined and undefmable.. The only description of the land conveyed is that it was twenty-five acres, *more or less,*of the tract of about fifty acres sold to the-appellant and his brother, Squire Pinkston. Such a deed is too-vague to stand on its own legs and the record contains nothing; extraneous to identify, in either boundary or quantity, the precise.’ land conveyed.

Besides, if the land might be defined, one-half of it, and probably more, belongs to Squire Pinkston, and this fact also tends to show that the appellant did not understand the tenor or effect of the deed and should not be bound by it.

We conclude that the Circuit Court ought not to have dismissed the petition, but should have set aside the conveyance to Miriam Pinkston and proceeded with the cross-petition of Squire Pinkston.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for a decree and further proceedings conformable with this, opinion.
EXHIBIT 32.2



                          SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS

                  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 Form 10-KSB/A of Auteo Media,  Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-KSB/A  for the  period  ended  December  31,  2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Michael
W. Kinley, President and Director 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 based on my knowledge:

     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.


Date:  April 29, 2005


/s/ MICHAEL W. KINLEY
______________________________________
Michael W. Kinley
President and Director




A SIGNED  ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT  REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, OR OTHER
DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISE ADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT
APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE  ELECTRONIC  VERSION OF THIS WRITTEN  STATEMENT
REQUIRED BY SECTION  906,  HAS BEEN  PROVIDED TO AUTEO  MEDIA,  INC. AND WILL BE
RETAINED BY AUTEO MEDIA,  INC.  AND  FURNISHED  TO THE  SECURITIES  AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

lr oi July 16, lW,

do*Lrr to 

### bar5 turit uhot m d hr. thm ro& euthorlty on6 

### b4 l x pe a ted

o e Rroror ml* s a w.*

proribsr hrtiole 8008, Rorlm6 Civil f3tatutrs of m&s,

*We Com1&8rio~orr of Karke\;s

an4 Warn-- hewer 8hrlt have 

### power a54 authority tb m-0 fore0 or QU&O to be aotorood, cony pnwlsioa Of thh OhaptW. Ke rhall sppalnta ohlat**do uty,**  WIt **uho** ahall be **kwwn** as **Chlof** Deputy of ghta anb tie4ww44. In the abeworn or.lnablllty of the Comis~ioaer, maah dqiutr msy prforn any **duty** required **by** the pmvicrlonaof thla ohaptrr. * l .* ArtlOlO 5909, Rericred CiTll Sktutes oi 1988, prwldsri
vho C4aml4slaor Shall irmrtl(trt*oonditlanr 

### trIr c4u~out

th4 ma ta , e nd l 8peolalljr

la all the oltlar on4 

### towaa la th* 3t8t4, rlth rupee% to wolb;htls

and aulburas, and the 4414 Of (Isads, rrrrer.nnd

urobandlm, oomeditlar, food duff and to.6 **duff** @old irr pooka@m or ~ofitaLaar& and alro all kl.5do Of f44a, tttel er 144 th4t. lu raid **by** wl&t er mm~uro~
. . ."

uld4Sl artlolr 89wJ. 1Raviwd ClVll Btatuts*, rofs*p+ ;.,

hrtiola 89 of the Coda of Crlalnal E’ reordura prescrlbw t&e dutler of p44o4 ofiiowa ea follower

*It la th4 **duty** of wery pwoe 

### officerto pr4asrvo tha pss*oa dthin hlr jurirdlotlon. TO eff'wt thiw purpem, ho l -11 a94 alI law rul muna. lh SbaLl, in avary eesi where h* 1s authorlsad**br** the pr0~1~l.o~ of thla Code, l&t@+ fwa4ulthout WaTFWt to PX'WOBt Or MDDr444

B4 ahall ar4aut4+ll l4eux groor~... i..aai to him by any 

### mgirtnte or omFt;. Be shall &ire notlaa to @OUW ?nagi@trate Of 911 Off44448 OodttQd Within hi8 $iriSdiQtiOn, where he kitas

go& ratamn to bsl?ero than, has been (Ltio3atlan of the pslul law. f&a shall errs& offenderswithout vffirraat in every0 480 whwa ho

18 l uthwlsed b,~

lim, In order t ha t thay lray ba k&en betma t&a proper magirtrato OT oowt ad bo trl8d."

190 tl%ut thrt Ma rarogtdng 

### will 84W4 to alarify that portlen af Opl&Qn Oo. O-S490 whloh 4~ arQ to 00~. fuQ8 yQu. W4 Q&B11 8IplB 6drlQe mat Jop, n your orpQol* r am O&lot Deputy of W*l#!* aa4 Wmtro8, ar4 net 

### lpaOfiQally ehs? ad With t&4 MfO8OOI&ait Of the QTOT~~OII# Of Artial.4

k sd, t P0aQl Ood0. WwQTor, ln 4l.a thQQ4 44Perb 1nQtm.Q rbwr0 y4u 00rld0r a rialation of raid p-1 atotuto 88 faUl~~# mlthln th4 bouPd, of oas or mom of 

### t?toae ln+oatl#Aloar whloh fori Qr4 authsrimd to 4onduot by tlro **tama** of &Mole 59OV, 8*rl8ad Oivll **Statutaa** of Tax&r thm, t&a atatutwy rwiriqnr 88t **out rbwe**  olaarly & JOU powo~ sad authe 9 b $a **lwoka** mad ogforae tha #anal 

### 9rmlelona of et&818 Wk. as youT d4trTkalMtioa Bf th%Q qt~aQtl0a



### of dut y you l **hall ba**  @lbd **by ytmr**  **aoand** dlrorr **tian.**
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

July 23, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

WILLIAM SCOTT COSGROVE,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

BOX ELDER COUNTY, a Utah State

County; LEON JENSEN, in both his

official and individual capacities,

 Defendants - Appellants.

No 10-4084

(D.C. No 2:07-CV-00350-DAK-BCW)

(D. of Utah)

ORDER

This matter is before the court on the Appellants’ Motion to Voluntarily Dismiss

Appeal. Upon consideration, the motion to dismiss appeal is granted. See Fed. R. App.

P. 42(b). The appeal is dismissed. Each party will bear its own fees and costs on appeal. 

A copy of this order will stand as the mandate of the court. The mandate shall issue

forthwith.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-4084 Document: 01018462656 Date Filed: 07/23/2010 Page: 1