alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1720

AN ACT

To provide for Federal court proceedings in Plano, Texas.

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

2

S 1720 ES

1 SECTION 1. CHANGE IN COMPOSITION OF DIVISIONS OF

2 EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 124(c) of title 28, United

4 States Code, is amended—

5 (1) in paragraph (3)—

6 (A) by striking ‘‘Denton, and Grayson’’

7 and inserting ‘‘Delta, Denton, Fannin, Grayson,

8 Hopkins, and Lamar’’; and

9 (B) by inserting ‘‘and Plano’’ after ‘‘held

10 at Sherman’’;

11 (2) by striking paragraph (4) and redesignating

12 paragraphs (5) through (7) as paragraphs (4)

13 through (6), respectively; and

14 (3) in paragraph (5), as so redesignated, by in15 serting ‘‘Red River,’’ after ‘‘Franklin,’’.

16 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—

17 (1) IN GENERAL.—This section and the amend18 ments made by this section shall take effect on the

19 date of the enactment of this Act.

20 (2) PENDING CASES NOT AFFECTED.—This sec21 tion and the amendments made by this section shall

22 not affect any action commenced before the effective

23 date of this section and pending in the United

24 States District Court for the Eastern District of

25 Texas on such date.
†

3

S 1720 ES

1 (3) JURIES NOT AFFECTED.—This section and

2 the amendments made by this section shall not af3 fect the composition, or preclude the service, of any

4 grand or petit jury summoned, impaneled, or actu5 ally serving in the Eastern Judicial District of Texas

6 on the effective date of this section.

Passed the Senate November 4, 2003.

Attest:

Secretary.
108TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1720

AN ACT

To provide for Federal court proceedings in Plano,

Texas.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                  5
       
<S>                                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                        3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                    MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                         JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               382,532
<SECURITIES>                                         3,191,592
<RECEIVABLES>                                        000
<ALLOWANCES>                                         000
<INVENTORY>                                          000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     000
<PP&E>                                               000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       31,243,970<F1>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                000
<BONDS>                                              000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                000
<PREFERRED>                                          000
<COMMON>                                             000
<OTHER-SE>                                           30,830,019
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         31,243,970<F2>
<SALES>                                              000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     57,236<F3>
<CGS>                                                000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     140,702<F4>
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      000
<CHANGES>                                            000
<NET-INCOME>                                         (960,393)<F5>
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (18.67)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        000
<FN>
<F1>Included in Total Assets is Investments in Local Limited  Partnerships of $27,370,520,  Restricted cash of $256,003
and Other assets of $43,323.
<F2>Included  in Total  Liabilities and Equity is Accounts  payable to affiliates of $376,760 and Accounts  payable and
accrued expenses of $37,191.
<F3>Total revenue includes Investment of $49,353 and Other of $7,883.
<F4>Included  in Other  Expenses  is Asset  management  fees of  $72,753,  General  and  administrative  of $59,903 and
Amortization of $8,046.
<F5>Net loss reflects Equity in losses of Local Limited Partnerships of $876,927.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
#### Williams *v.*Dickerson.

In a suit on a written promise made to the plaintiff by a wrong name, the declaration should aver that the promise was made to him by the wrong name.

ERROR to the *Allen*Circuit Court.

Dewey, *J.*

Samuel *Dickerson*sued *Williams*in assumpsit before a justice of the peace, who rendered judgment against the defendant by default. The cause was appealed. The justice’s transcript does not show the plaintiff’s statement of his demand; and the only cause of action on file was a note, by which the defendant promised to pay *Samuel Dix-son*35 dollars. The defendant moved the Circuit Court to dismiss the suit for want of a sufficient cause of action. The motion was overruled. Final judgment for the plaintiff.

We think the motion to dismiss the action should have prevailed. The note on file does not apparently contain any promise to the plaintiff, nor does he appear to have any interest in it. The promise seems to be to another person. *Dickerson*and *Dixson*are distinct and different names, and have not the same sound. If the promise contained, in the note was really made to the plaintiff by a wrong name, that fact should have been averred. *Madison Ins. Co.*v. *Stangle,*6 Blackf. 88. See *Willis*v. *Barrett,*2 Stark. R. 29.— *Vandagrift*v. *Tate et ux.*4 Blackf. 174.

*288
      *R. Brackenridge,*for the plaintiff.

*S. Bigger*and *J. K.*Edgerton, for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is reversed with costs. Cause remanded, &c.
- Home
- Community of Practice
- NASA TechLeap Prize: Universal…

- Home
- About
- News
- Work with Us   - Access Flight Tests
  - Flight Provider Overview
- Resources   - Overview
  - Community of Practice Webinars
  - Lessons Learned Library
  - Newsletters
  - Reports and Fact Sheets
  - Solicitations Archives
- Tech Portfolio   - Technologies
  - Flight Summaries
- Images

**FLIGHT OPPORTUNITIES COMMUNITY OF PRACTICE WEBINAR**

## NASA TechLeap Universal Payload Interface Challenge

### January 10, 2024

### Abstract

Join this month’s Community of Practice to hear about the**NASA TechLeap Universal Payload Interface Challenge**. To change the pace of space by moving technologies into flight testing and between different flight environments as quickly as possible, NASA’s **Flight Opportunities**program is asking businesses, academic institutions, entrepreneurs, and other innovators to develop a flight-ready universal payload interface for its third **NASA TechLeap Prize**. A maximum of three winners will receive up to $650,000 each to build their system plus the opportunity to flight test it at no cost. Representatives from Flight Opportunities and Carrot, the organization that administers the challenge, will provide an overview and answer questions. **Check out****our****FAQs in advance.**

**Read more about TechLeap’s Universal Payload Integration Challenge.**

##### Download the slides

## 				Learn More and Get Involved			

## Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Sign up to receive interesting and relevant news and updates from NASA's Flight Opportunities program delivered to your inbox, including Community of Practice webinar announcements.

## Community of Practice Webinars

Designed to distill and share the most important lessons learned by suborbital researchers, these webinars are chance to hear from subject matter experts on best practices for preparing for suborbital flight tests.

## Other Resources

Find our Community of Practice webinar series, Flight Opportunities' Lessons Learned, newsletters, reports and fact sheets related to program activities, and solicitations archives.

## Contact Us

You are welcome and encouraged to contact us to learn more about NASA's Flight Opportunities program.

## Discover More Topics From NASA

Space Technology Mission Directorate

STMD Solicitations and Opportunities

STMD Flight Opportunities

STMD Small Spacecraft Technology
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 204 (Friday, October 22, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65296-65297]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-26412]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Notice of Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted to 
OMB for Review

SUMMARY: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has 
submitted the following information collection to OMB for review and 
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13.
    Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of 
having their full effect if received within 30 days of this 
notification. Comments should be sent via e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f6d504c4c607e11606d4a4b535a5b585a7f50525d115a504f11585049"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="33615c40406c721d6c6146475f56575456735c5e511d565c431d545c45">[email protected]</span></a> or fax to 202-395-3086. Copies of submission may 
be obtained by calling (202) 712-1365.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    OMB Number: OMB 0412-New.
    Form Number: AID 321-2.
    Title: Mentor Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Program--Annual Report.
    Type of Submission: New Information Collection.
    Purpose: The mentors are required to report on the progress made 
under each active Mentor-Prot[eacute]g[eacute] Agreement annually 
throughout the term of the agreement. Each report is due 30 days after 
the end of each twelve-month period commencing with the start of the 
agreement.
    Annual Reporting Burden:
    Respondents: 30.
    Total annual responses: 30.
    Total annual hours requested: 360 hours.


[[Page 65297]]


    Dated: October 8, 2010.
Beth Salamanca,
Acting Director, Office of Management Services, Bureau for Management.
[FR Doc. 2010-26412 Filed 10-21-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm











We
      consent to the use of our report dated March 30, 2005, with respect to the
      consolidated balance sheet of Tribeworks, Inc. and subsidiaries (the “Company”)
      as of December 31, 2004, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
      cash flows, and stockholders’ deficit for the year then ended, which are
      included in the Form 10-KSB/A (Amendment No. 2) for the year ended December
      31,
      2005.











/s/
      Tauber & Balser, P.C.


Tauber
      & Balser, P.C.


Atlanta,
      Georgia


April
      4,
      2007
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 97-6547
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus EDDIE DEAN FLUKER, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, Chief District Judge. (CR-92-31-A, CA-96-555-R) Submitted: March 26, 1998 Decided: April 6, 1998 Before WIDENER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eddie Dean Fluker, Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no re versible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Fluker , Nos. CR-92-31-A; CA-96-555-R (W.D. Va. Mar. 28, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Edmonds *v.*Paskins.

In actions of debt, assumpsit, and covenant, commenced in the Circuit Court, if the amount of the plaintiff’s demand, established by the evidence, exceed, independently of matters of set-off, &c., fifty dollars, the plaintiff will recover costs; but if that amount be only fifty dollars or less, the defendant will be entitled to costs.

Where the record does not contain the evidence, the Court will presume that it was such as to justify the judgment.

ERROR to the *Johnson*Circuit Court.

Dewey, J.

This was an action of assumpsit commenced in the Circuit Court. The first count is special, and demands *197ten dollars. The other counts are the common counts, each demanding more than one hundred dollars. Plea, non as-. sumpsit. The cause was submitted to the Court. Judgment for the plaintiff for ten dollars in damages, and for the defendant for the costs.

It is contended that the plaintiff should have recovered costs.

The action was commenced when the statute of 1838 was in force, and tried under that of 1843; but this is immaterial, as both statutes are substantially the same on the subject 'of costs in actions of debt and assumpsit. They both provide that, in actions of debt and assumpsit (and the latter statute adds covenant), wherein the sum “due or demanded” shall exceed fifty dollars and not exceed one hundred dollars, exclusive of interest and costs, the Circuit Courts and justices of the peace shall have concurrent jurisdiction; and that if suit be brought in the Circuit Court for fifty dollars or less, the plaintiff shall be adjudged to pay the costs. R. S. 1838, p. 364. — R. S. 1843, pp. 864, 5. When the declaration in the Circuit Court demands fifty dollars or less, there is no difficulty in applying the latter provision to the case. But the declaration may demand more than that sum, when the real debt or demand which the plaintiff is capable of proving, may be less. If the sum demanded by the declaration is conclusive on the subject of costs, it is evident that the statute may be always evaded; that every action of debt, assumpsit, and covenant (however small the real sum due), may be commenced in the Circuit Court, and full costs recovered by the plaintiff; and that justices may be thus practically stripped of all jurisdiction in those actions. This cannot have been the intention of the legislature. We conceive the proper construction of the statute is, that the debt “due or demanded” must be ascertained by the evidence; and that if the amount thus established by the plaintiff exceed, independently of matters of set-off, or other matters of reduction adduced by the defendant,-fifty dollars, the plaintiff is entitled to costs; but if that amount be only fifty dollars or less, the defendant is to recover costs.

The record does not contain the evidence in this cause, and we must presume it was such as to justify the judgment of the Circuit Court.

*198
      *J. Morrison*and *S. Major,*for the plaintiff. *W. Quarles,*for the defendant.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with costs.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-13-00731-CV

Elfreda Cherie Allen, Appellant

v.

CitiMortgage, Inc., Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY, 236TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. 236-244370-10, HONORABLE TOM LOWE, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Elfreda Cherie Allen filed a notice of appeal in October 2013. She

stated that she was appealing a “memorandum opinion and judgment on contest for

affidavit of inability to pay costs.” She attached a copy of a memorandum opinion and judgment

issued by the Fort Worth Court of Appeals. See Allen v. CitiMortgage, No. 02-13-00027-CV,

2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 8918 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth July 18, 2013, no pet.) (mem. op.) (noting that

appellant failed to pay filing fee and dismissing appeal for failure to comply with a requirement of

rules of appellate procedure and a supreme court order).

On November 6, 2013, the Clerk of this Court requested a response from Allen by

November 18, 2013. The Clerk advised Allen that she must inform this Court of the basis on which

jurisdiction exists or that this Court would dismiss this cause for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R.

App. P. 42.3(a); see also Tex. Gov’t Code §§ 22.201(d) (listing counties within Third Court of
Appeals District), .220(a) (“Each court of appeals has appellate jurisdiction of all civil cases within

its district of which the district courts or county courts have jurisdiction when the amount in

controversy or the judgment rendered exceeds $250, exclusive of interest and costs.”). Allen has not

filed a response. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a).

__________________________________________

Melissa Goodwin, Justice

Before Justices Puryear, Rose, and Goodwin

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: December 13, 2013

2
## This page has permanently moved.

### If redirect does not occur in 5 seconds, click the following link: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/Investigation.html?#id=85
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1791 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 1791

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Lease Lot Conveyance Act of 2002 to provide that the 
amounts received by the United States under that Act shall be deposited 
            in the reclamation fund, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. LEASE LOT CONVEYANCE.

    Section 4(b) of the Lease Lot Conveyance Act of 2002 (116 Stat. 
2879) is amended--
            (1) by striking ``As consideration'' and inserting the 
        following:
    ``(1) In general.--As consideration''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(2) Use.--Amounts received under paragraph (1) shall be--
                    ``(A) deposited by the Secretary, on behalf of the 
                Rio Grande Project, in the reclamation fund established 
                under the first section of the Act of June 17, 1902 (43 
                U.S.C. 391); and
                    ``(B) made immediately available to the Irrigation 
                Districts, to be credited in accordance with section 
                4(I) of the Act of December 5, 1924 (43 U.S.C. 501).''.

            Passed the Senate September 15, 2004.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
108th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 1791

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

   To amend the Lease Lot Conveyance Act of 2002 to provide that the 
amounts received by the United States under that Act shall be deposited 
            in the reclamation fund, and for other purposes.
```
#### Mary Alexander *v.*R. H. Paxton.

Landlord’s Lien — Distraint — Replevin.

Whether appellant or her son-in-law was the owner of the wheat, on which the landlord held a lien for which he distrained, the appellant’s replevy of the distress transferred the lien to her by equitable subrogations.

Same — Subsequent and Subordinate Liens.

The appellee as execution creditor holding a subordinate -lien could only have sold the wheat subject to appellant’s lien for the payment of the amount of rent discharged by replevin.

Same — Bond to Suspend Execution for the Purpose of Trying Rights of Property.

Appellant’s bond to appellee suspending his execution for the purpose of trying the rights of property bound her only for the value of the wheat subject to the lien for rent.

APPEAL PROM MERCER CIRCUIT COURT.

October 10, 1866.

Opinion oe ti-ie Court by

Judge Robertson:

Whether the appellant or her son-in-law was the owner of the wheat on which the landlord, Davis, held a lien, for enforcing *316■which he distrained, her replevin of the distress, instead of destroying, only transferred that lien to her by equitable subrogation. And the appellee as execution creditor bolding a subsequent and subordinate lien could only have sold the wheat as subject *to*her lien for the payment of the amount of rent discharged by replevin.

Consequently her bond to that creditor suspending his execution for the purpose of trying the right of property bound her only for the value of the wheat as thus subject on account of the rent. And its stipulation to pay the value of the wheat should be understood as an undertaking to pay the value of it as thus incumbered.

She was, therefore, liable on the motion for judgment, in this case for only so much of the assessed value of the wheat as remained after deducting the amount paid by her to the landlord for his right, and consequently the instruction of the Circuit Court to the contrary was erroneous.

Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
**Exhibit 15.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

The Board of Directors 

Kenon Holdings Ltd.: 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-201716) on Form S-8 of Kenon Holdings Ltd. of our report datedMarch 31, 2015, with respect to the combined carve-out statements of financial position as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, and the related combined carve-out statements of income, other comprehensive income, changes in parent company investmentand cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2014, which report appears in the December 31, 2014 annual report on Form 20-F of Kenon Holdings Ltd. 

/s/ Somekh Chaikin 

Certified Public Accountants (Israel) 

A Member firm of KPMG International 

Tel Aviv, Israel 

March 31, 2015