alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Jon B. Holladay

NASA Technical Fellow for Systems Engineering

Mr. Jon Holladay currently serves as the NASA Technical Fellow for Systems Engineering.  He joined NASA in 1987 as a co-op at Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), working in the Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation on the Thermal Control Systems and Environmental Control and Life Support Systems (ECLSS) for the International Space Station (ISS), later becoming a NASA certified Lead Systems Engineer.  From 1996 to 2003, Mr. Holladay served as the Hardware Development and Operations Manager for the ISS’s Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM), a major NASA and Italian Space Agency hardware development, where he provided Certificate of Flight Readiness Endorsement and real-time operations support for five MPLM assembly and re-supply missions to the ISS.  In 2003, he served on detail as the Deputy Manager of the Next Generation Launch Technology Program, which was an effort to develop new technologies to improve launch vehicle safety and lower launch costs, focusing on payload integration.  Later, he was the Deputy of the Ares Vehicle Integration Office’s Requirements and Verification Team.  From 2007 to 2009 he served as the Chief Engineer of the MSFC Flight Projects Directorate, Science and Mission Systems Office, where he held NASA Independent Technical Authority for MSFC engineering support to the Constellation and ISS Programs.  In 2009, Mr. Holladay transitioned to lead the formulation and development of the Ares V Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle. After this, he headed the Space Launch System (SLS) Mission Concept Review (MCR) “clean sheet vehicle” effort, resulting in his team being awarded the SLS Chief Engineer’s innovation award.  He then led the SLS Evolvability effort, defining and maintaining the approach for expanding the SLS launch vehicle performance from 70 to 130 metric tons, while maximizing NASA Exploration mission capture and cost engagement efficiency.  In 2015, Mr. Holladay completed an 18-month developmental rotation to NASA Headquarters, supporting the NASA Associate Deputy Administrator for Strategy and Policy, the Exploration Systems Development Office, and the NASA Technical Capability Assessment Team.

Mr. Holladay has over a quarter century of experience in the human spaceflight arena involving spacecraft and launch vehicle development and operations and has served as both a Chief Engineer and Project Manager.  He has completed the Senior Executive Fellows Program at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and has published almost two dozen journal and conference proceedings on topics from technology to integrated architectural systems.  Mr. Holladay is the recipient of numerous awards, including the NASA Space Flight Awareness Leadership and Silver Snoopy awards.

Mr. Holladay received his Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in mechanical engineering from The University of Alabama.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 10, 2021

No. 04-21-00416-CV

Kimi-Lyn MURRAY,

Appellant

v.

Phillip MURRAY,

Appellee

From the 45th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018-CI-19449

Honorable Monique Diaz, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

A copy of appellant’s notice of appeal was filed in this court on September 30, 2021. 

When the notice of appeal was filed, this court notified appellant in writing that our records did 

not reflect that the filing fee in the amount of $205.00 was paid. In addition, our record contains 

no evidence that appellant is excused by statute or rule from paying the filing fee. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 5, 20. 

We therefore ORDER appellant to show cause in writing by November 29, 2021, that 

either: (1) the filing fee has been paid; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the 

filing fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal will be dismissed for 

failure to pay the filing fee. See id. R. 5, 42.3(c). All other appellate deadlines are suspended 

pending the payment of the filing fee. 

_________________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 10th day of November, 2021.

FILE COPY
___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ, Clerk of Court

FILE COPY
#### Thos. Swan et al. *v.*Saml. Vaughn.

Partnership — 'Purchase of Land — Presumption as to Payment.

A. and B. enter into an agreement to purchase land, A. assuring B. that the land would be paid for out of the partnership funds, they being at the time partners in the mercantile business: A., being the only active manager of the business, represented that such funds were more than sufficient to pay the entire consideration. *Held,*that in the absence of proof of n deficit of partnership funds, or of a settlement of partnership accounts, the prima facie presumption is that A. paid for the land as contemplated by both parties, with partnership means, either directly or indirectly.

Same — Burden of Proof.

Under such facts, the burden of showing either that there was no partnership funds appropriable to the purchase or that they had been otherwise accounted for and appropriated was upon A.

APPEAL PROM MARION CIRCUIT COURT.

April 18, 1867.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Kobertson :

The multitudinous beirsliip of the appellants is sufficiently admitted for the maintenance of this action.

The proof falsifies the answer so far as to show indisputably that Samuel Swan was a joint and equal purchaser of the land. It also shows that Swan and Vaughn were mercantile partners and that Vaughn induced Swan to join him in the purchase by assuring him that he would pay for the land with partnership funds which he, the only active manager, represented as more than sufficient to pay the entire consideration.

And, there being no proof of a deficit of partnership funds, or even of any settlement of partnership accounts, the *prima facie*presumption is that Vaughn paid for the land, as contemplated by both parties, with partnership means, either directly or indirectly.

The facts and deductions imposed on the appellee, Vaughn, the burden of showing either that there were no partnership funds appropriable to the purchase or that they had been otherwise accounted for and appropriated, and that Swan, therefore, had abandoned the purchase.

*523Woods, for Appellant.

*Roundtree &*Fogle, for Appellee.

It seems to us, therefore, that the converse did not devolve on the appellants under the pleadings and proofs, and that, consequently, the judgment dismissing their petition without prejudice, only because they would not so amend it as to show the opposite of what the appellee ought to have been required to show, was erroneous. Wherefore, the judgment is reversed, and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's unaudited financial statements for the quarter ended September 30,
1998 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000892160
<NAME>                        Derma Sciences, Inc.

       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                  JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           5,465,839
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      952,094
<ALLOWANCES>                                             0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,528,595
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 8,283,659
<PP&E>                                             236,996
<DEPRECIATION>                                           0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   8,898,508
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            3,105,452
<BONDS>                                                  0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                         50,708
<COMMON>                                            62,612
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,679,736
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     8,898,508
<SALES>                                          6,512,346
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 6,512,346
<CGS>                                            1,450,844
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,450,844
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 (55,363)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,534,642)
<INCOME-TAX>                                             0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,534,642)
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,534,642)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        (0.25)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        (0.25)
        


</TABLE>
#### SHMUEL YAAKOV GLOBMAN v. SHIRLEY GLOBMAN.

June 21, 1978.

Petition for certification denied. (See 158 *N. J. Super.*338)
#### STATE v. JOHNSON

No. 233P01

Case below: 143 N.C. App. 186

Petition by Attorney General for writ of supersedeas denied 8 November 2001. Petition by Attorney General for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 denied 8 November 2001. Temporary stay dissolved 8 November 2001. Conditional petition by defendant for discretionary review pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 dismissed as moot 8 November 2001.
**Exhibit 31.1****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Paul S. Shipman, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Redhook Ale Brewery, Incorporated;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;  (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and theaudit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions); (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information;and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: August 10, 2007         BY:    /s/ Paul S. Shipman           Paul S. Shipman                *Chief Executive Officer*                *and Chairman of the Board*  
36
[Letterhead of Davis Family Trust]

Jeffrey F. Davis, Vice President                                   June 18, 1998
Electronic Fuel Control, Inc.
4851 Georgia Highway 85
Suite 210
Forest Park, Ga., 30297

         Re:      Licensing Agreement between Davis Family
                  Trust and Electronic Fuel Control, Inc.

Dear Mr. Davis:

Following up on our various  telephone  conversations of the past several weeks,
this letter is intended as a summary of the agreement we have reached  regarding
alterations in the existing Licensing Agreement between Electronic Fuel Control,
Inc.  and the Davis  Family  Trust.  This  agreement  is subject to your company
meeting all of the conditions  specified and fulfillment of those  conditions by
the dates and times set forth.

The amount of the debt owed to the Davis Trust by Electronic Fuel Control,  Inc.
("EFC") as of December 31, 1997 was  $133,635.08.  EFC has proposed to liquidate
that debt on July 31, 1998 under the terms and conditions  herein set forth.  On
July 31,  1998 the  amount  EFC will owe the  Davis  Trust,  including  interest
accrued  from  January  1,  1998  through  and  including  that  date,  will  be
$143,576.10.  EFC will pay to the Trust the sum of  $43,576.10  on July 31, 1998
and,  in  addition,   EFC  on  that  date  will  tender  to  the  Trust  108,000
non-assessable,  unencumbered, duly authorized and issued shares of EFC's common
stock. The Trust will then mark the existing,  $150,000.00 promissory note "paid
in full" and will  return the  original of said note to EFC.  Additionally,  the
Trust will suspend the quotas in the  Licensing  Agreement for a period of three
(3) years as set forth in my letter to you of June 4, 1998.

If you  agree  that  the  contents  of this  letter  accurately  represents  our
understanding,  please  sign where your name  appears  below and return a signed
copy of this document to me at the address set forth above.


<PAGE>

Jeffrey F. Davis, Vice President
Page Two
June 18, 1998


With kind regards, I remain

                                                     Sincerely yours,



                                                     /s/ Mark W. Crouch
                                                     ------------------
                                                     Mark W. Crouch, acting
                                                     in his capacity as Trustee
                                                     of the Davis Family Trust

MWC/mwc
cc: file

I  agree  that  the   contents  of  this  letter   accurately   represents   our
understanding.

/s/ Jeffrey F. Davis
--------------------
Jeffrey F. Davis, Vice President

06/19/98
--------
Date
Exhibit 3.1
 
 AMENDED AND RESTATED
 CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
 
 General Corporation Law
 DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:
   RESOLVED
    shall
 shall "




---



##### 



Definitions
 Affiliate Associate
 Board Member
 Beneficial Owner
 (i)
    
    with respect to which such Person or any of its
Affiliates and Associates, pursuant to any agreement, arrangement or
understanding, or otherwise, has or shares, directly or indirectly,
voting power, including the power to vote or direct the voting of such
 shares, or investment power, including the power to dispose or to
direct the disposition of such shares, or both;(ii)
    
    that such Person or any of its Affiliates or
Associates has the right to acquire (whether such right is exercisable
immediately or only after the passage of time), pursuant to any
agreement, arrangement or understanding or upon the exercise of
conversion rights, exchange rights, warrants or options, or otherwise;
or(iii)
    
    that are beneficially owned, directly or
indirectly, by any other Person with which such first-mentioned Person
or any of its Affiliates or Associates has any agreement, arrangement
or understanding for the purpose of acquiring, holding, voting or
  2




---



##### 



disposing of any shares of capital stock of the Corporation, as the
case may be.
 Disqualified Director
 Disqualified Holder
 Fair Market Value
 Gaming Authority
 Gaming Related Contract
 Person
  3




---



##### 



Redemption Date
 Board Member Obligations
 Beneficial Owner Obligations
     4




---



##### 



Disqualified Directors
 Disqualified Holders
  The Wall Street Journal provided, The Wall Street Journal
      5




---



##### 



3):
 4)
  6




---



##### 



IN WITNESS WHEREOF
 By:
    /s/ Barth F. AaronName:
    Barth F. AaronTitle:
    Secretary  7




---



##### 



FULL HOUSE RESORTS, INC.By:
    (-S- BARTH F. AARON)Barth F. AaronSecretary
#### Jepha Morrow *v.*Thos. A. Berryman.

Usury — Pleading — Equity.

Although usury was not specially pleaded a court of equity will not enforce payment of it.1

Warranty — ’Vendor’s Deed not Enough.

The contract bound appellee to guarantee the title to Booth’s heirs by general warranty — his own deed for that purpose is not enough.

APPEAL FROM OWEN CIRCUIT COURT.

June 18, 1867.

Opinion of the Oourt by

Judge Robertson :

The pleadings are so confused and self-contradictory as to leave the judicial mind, after elaborate analysis, in some doubt as to the true state of accounts between the parties. But a careful consideration of all the facts results in the conclusion that the judgment is erroneous to the appellant's prejudice in the following particulars at least:

1. Although the admitted usury included in the settlement has not been specially pleaded yet a court of equity should not enforce payment of it, and especially by selling appellant's land — *449for enforcing an equitable lien on it —• and therefore, to the extent of the usury whatever it shall be ascertained to be, the judgment was erroneous.

*2.*The contract bound the appellee to guarantee the title from Booth's heirs by a general warranty. His own deed for that purpose is not enough, and does not pass the title of his constituents or bind them. And the deed purporting to be from those constituents is altogether insufficient because there is neither proof nor allegation that the persons whose names are signed to it are the heirs or only heirs of Booth, and because also that deed purports to have been so signed by only an attorney in fact, and no power of attorney has been shown.

Without securing the legal title according to the contract-the lien ought not to be enforced by a haphazard sale of the land.

As to the claim of the appellant to a credit for about $500, for the alleged discovery of which after the first decree had been rendered he set aside that decree, we will not now venture an opinion but leave this matter to more satisfactory elucidation in the further preparation of the case on its return to the Circuit Court.

For the errors suggested the judgment is reversed and-the cause remanded for further preparation according-to the principles of the foregoing opinion.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

§906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of ATEL Cash Distribution Fund V, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Dean L. Cash, President and Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, General Partner of the Partnership,
hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §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 Partnership.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 12, 2009



|                                                                                       
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Dean L. Cash                                                                       
|Dean L. Cash                                                                           
|President and Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC (General Partner)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Partnership and will be retained by the Partnership and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WILLIAM A. FEENEY.

May 2, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                          <C> 
<PERIOD-TYPE>                 3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                            SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                  2,929,835
<SECURITIES>                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                           218,191
<ALLOWANCES>                            0
<INVENTORY>                             84,610
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                        3,662,186
<PP&E>                                  0
<DEPRECIATION>                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          16,891,738
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                   1,317,209
<BONDS>                                 0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                   0
<PREFERRED>                             70
<COMMON>                                1,034
<OTHER-SE>                              8,968,592
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>            16,891,738
<SALES>                                 5,580,505
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                        5,580,505
<CGS>                                   0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                           5,671,847
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      495,381
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         (482,351)
<INCOME-TAX>                            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     (482,351)
<DISCONTINUED>                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                         0
<CHANGES>                               0
<NET-INCOME>                            (482,351)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                           (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                           0
        

</TABLE>
Order entered October 24, 2022

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-01070-CV

IN RE LILIANA SANCHEZ MENDEZ, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 301st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-21-18680

ORDER

Before Chief Justice Burns, Justice Partida-Kipness, and Justice Smith

Before the Court is relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We request real 

party in interest and respondent to file a response, if any, to the petition for writ of 

mandamus by November 1, 2022.

/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE