alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                          15,099
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,327
<ALLOWANCES>                                       862
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,317
<PP&E>                                             732
<DEPRECIATION>                                     218
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  37,199
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,584
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      25,121
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    37,199
<SALES>                                         23,395
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                23,395
<CGS>                                           15,035
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   15,035
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   282
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   268
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  34
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,706
<INCOME-TAX>                                       637
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,069
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,069
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.64
        

</TABLE>
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_______________________________

No. 96-50947 Summary Calendar

_______________________________

JAIME ROSADO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

DEPARTMENT OF THE UNITED STATE AIR FORCE,

KELLY AIR FORCE BASE,
Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas

(SA 96-CV-1020)

_________________________________________________________________ June 12, 1997 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM * :

Jaime Rosado, pro se , appeals the dismissal for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction of his complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the parties’ briefs, and note that appellant wholly
fails to brief any issue on appeal, contrary to the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure. In any event, we affirm the dismissal ofRosado’s complaint for essentially the reasons stated by the

district court.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 10 (d)

Fastraxx Las Vegas Indoor Karting LLC
Att: Geoffrey Levy, Founding Member
2251 N. Rampart Blvd. #323
Las Vegas, NV 89128

Re: Consulting Retainer Agreement
Research, Viability, Implementation of an Indoor Karting Facility in
Las Vegas, NV

Dear Mr. Geoffrey Levy:

The purpose of this retainer agreement is to memorialize the arrangement that
was created on November 27, 2001, between you and our firm. Now that you have
created a formal entity, Fastraxx Las Vegas Indoor Karting LLC ("Fastraxx"), we
have agreed to create this consulting retainer agreement between Fastraxx and
IGFS Ltd. ("IGFS") for services performed to date and for future services. This
will confirm our consulting retainer agreement whereby Fastraxx has hired IGFS
to perform all necessary services required to establish an indoor karting
facility in Las Vegas, NV, starting with the idea and continuing through the
research, due diligence, fund raising, building or lease acquisition and ending
with the opening of the facility. Based on the understanding that FasTraxx is
not yet capitalized, IGFS has agreed to accept a monthly consulting retainer
amount of $30,000 all inclusive to be accrued each month from November 27, 2001,
and continuing indefinitely until a Fastraxx facility opens in Las Vegas, NV.
Upon Fastraxx receiving adequate funding, Fastraxx agrees to pay all amounts in
arrears and to continue paying the consulting retainer on a current basis. It is
understood that this monthly consulting retainer includes all services and
expenses and no substantiation of costs, time, etc., shall be provided. However,
please be assured that all necessary energy and expenses will be made on behalf
of this project by IGFS.

In return for IGFS' efforts on Fastraxx' behalf, in addition to the monthly
consulting retainer fee to be earned by IGFS, IGFS or its nominee shall also
receive 4.9% ownership in either Fastraxx or any public company that Fastraxx
merges into or is acquired by prior to the opening of the Las Vegas facility.

Please acknowledge your agreement with this formal consulting retainer agreement
by signing appropriately below.

Sincerely,

For and on behalf of IGFS Ltd.

By:
    -------------------------------------------
    Paul Gastwirth, Its President

I, Geoffrey Levy as a Founding Member of Fastraxx Las Vegas Indoor Karting LLC
have read and understand the above consulting retainer letter, have received a
copy, and for and on behalf of Fastraxx Las Vegas Indoor Karting LLC accept all
of its terms:

Accepted and Agreed To on July 23, 2002:

--------------------------------------
Geoffrey Levy as Founding Member
#### Lewis D. Tolls and Wife *v.*Euphemia Soward.

Pleadings — Answer and Cross-petition — Joint Obligations — Demurrer.

While the answer and cross-petition alleges that from the death of Richard Soward, Sr., till September, 1867, the plaintiff, Euphemia Soward, and her two sons, Richard and John Soward, had the possession and use of the share of the defendant Anne, in the real estate of her father, and that the use of it was worth one hundred and twenty dollars per annum, it fails to allege either a joint renting or occupancy, or a joint obligation to pay the rent. The allegations of the cross-petition may all be true and yet the appellee may have had the use of some inconsiderable portion of the land, separate from her sons.'

APPEAL PROM FLEMING CIRCUIT COURT.

January 29, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Hardin:

The positive testimony of John W. Soward, that the money and property alleged to have been paid on the judgment against *275the appellee, was in fact paid and accepted, is not, in our opinion, overcome by the other proof of the same facts and circumstances, conducing to the conclusion that the money and property were given or advanced by the appellee, to Mrs. Tolls, and not intended to go as a payment for this amount on the judgment; and this view is strengthened and fortified by the fact that it is neither alleged nor proved that the circumstances of the appellee were such as to enable her to give or advance the money and property to Mrs. Tolls, and still stands bound to pay the judgment against her. It is insisted, however, that although the demurrer of Richard and John W. Soward was sustained to the cross-petition of Tolls and wife against them, and their mother, as the latter did not answer, it ought to have been taken for confessed against her, and the claim for the rent therein set up applied to the ex-tinguishment of the matters presented in the petition as payments on the judgments. But there are two fatal objections to this. First, that while the answer and cross-petition alleges that from the death- of Richard Soward, Sr., till Sept., 1867, “the plaintiff, Euphemia Soward, and her sons, Richard and John Soward, had the possession and use of the share of the defendant Anne in the real estate of her father” and that the use of it was worth one hundred and twenty dollars per annum, it fails to allege either a joint renting or occupancy, or a joint obligation to pay the rent; and the allegation of the cross-petition may all be true and yet the appellee may, at least during each year, have had the use of some inconsiderable portion of the land, while her sons separately used the residue under a distinct and separate liability or undertaking for the payment of rent, and second, that the money and property, being set up and shown to have been considered as payments on the judgment, and not as mere set-offs against the claims for rent, if confessed to its fullest extent, however available in an original action, could not be used to defeat the defense of payment.

*H. Taylor, for appellant.*

*Andrews &*Fister, *for appellee.*

Therefore the judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 265 Engrossed in House (EH)]

                 In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

                                                      October 21, 1997.
    Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker 
may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII, declare the House resolved into the 
Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of the 
bill (H.R. 2204) to authorize appropriations for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 for 
the Coast Guard, and for other purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be 
dispensed with. Points of order against consideration of the bill for failure to 
comply with section 401 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. 
General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. After general debate the 
bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be 
in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under the 
five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the 
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure now printed in the bill. The 
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. 
Points of order against the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute 
for failure to comply with clause 7 of rule XVI or section 401 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 are waived. During consideration of the bill 
for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord priority in 
recognition on the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has caused 
it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as 
read. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time 
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a 
recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another electronic 
vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum time for electronic 
voting on the first in any series of questions shall be fifteen minutes. At the 
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise 
and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted. 
Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House on any amendment adopted in 
the Committee of the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the 
nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on 
the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion 
except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
```

[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 720 Introduced in House (IH)]

105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 720

 To terminate the international military education and training (IMET) 
                         program for Indonesia.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 12, 1997

  Mr. Frank of Massachusetts introduced the following bill; which was 
          referred to the Committee on International Relations

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To terminate the international military education and training (IMET) 
                         program for Indonesia.

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

SECTION 1. TERMINATION OF IMET PROGRAM FOR INDONESIA.

    Funds made available on or after the date of the enactment of this 
Act to carry out chapter 5 of part II of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
1961 (22 U.S.C. 2347 et seq.; relating to the international military 
education and training program) may not be obligated for Indonesia.
                                 <all>
```
#### *A. A.*Terrell *v.*Chas. J. Wathen.

Bills and Notes — Payment in Treasury Notes — Legal Tender Act — Subsequent Judicial Decisions — Effect.

When the legal tender notes were paid in satisfaction of appellee’s judgment, the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in *698the case of Hepburn v. Griswald was regarded as settling the right of creditors to demand the payment of debts, in coin, created before the passage of the legal tender act. Appellant voluntarily paid off the judgment against him in treasury notes at their negotiáble value as compared with gold. The payment so made completely extinguished the relation of debtor and creditor between him and appellee. The Supreme Court afterwards overruled the case of Hepburn v. Griswald and held that treasury notes should be regarded as a legal tender for all debts, but this ruling cannot have the effect of reopening transactions fully and finally settled while the law was differently construed by the same court.

APPEAL FROM NELSON CIRCUIT COURT.

October 22, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay :

When the legal tender notes were paid in satisfaction of appellee’s judgment, the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of *Hepburn v. Griswald*was regarded as settling the right of creditors to demand the payment of debts created before the passage of the legal tender act, in coin.

Appellant was convinced of this fact, and voluntarily paid off the judgment against him in treasury notes at their negotiable value as compared with gold. The payment when so made completely extinguished the relation of debtor and creditor between him and appellee. Neither of them thought of claiming anything from the other. The Supreme Court, in the recent cases of *Knox v. Lee, Execr.,*and *Parker v. Davis,*overruled the case of *Hepburn v. Grsiwald,*and held that treasury notes should be regarded as a legal tender for all debts, but this ruling can not have the effect of reopening transactions fully and finally settled whilst the law was differently construed by the same court.

Such a rule would be productive of endless litigation and could possibly result in no good under its operations. The overruling of an opinion by the court of last resort would have the effect of unsettling every transaction based upon it, notwithstanding the existence of the utmost good faith upon the part of the contending parties.

Subsequent judicial decisions can not be allowed to set aside settlements under a construction of the law by the courts at the *699time the settlement was made. *(16th Howard,*432; *9th Wallace*55 *and*485.)

*McKay, for appellee.*

*Muir & Wickliffe, for appellee.*

Judgment affirmed.
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Masha Berger","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/mberger5\/","title":"Systems Engineering Technical Excellence Award","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"qZaIQFStUp\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/reference\/systems-engineering-technical-excellence-award\/\">Systems Engineering Technical Excellence Award<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/reference\/systems-engineering-technical-excellence-award\/embed\/#?secret=qZaIQFStUp\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Systems Engineering Technical Excellence Award” — NASA\" data-secret=\"qZaIQFStUp\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
`[Congressional Bills 105th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 277 Reported in House (RH)]






                                                 House Calendar No. 116
105th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 277

                          [Report No. 105-342]

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
   bill (H.R. 2107) making appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
                     1998, and for other purposes.


_______________________________________________________________________


                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 23, 1997

    Mr. Linder, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following 
resolution; which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be 
                                printed

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION


 
Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
   bill (H.R. 2107) making appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
                     1998, and for other purposes.

    Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in 
order to consider the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 
2107) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and 
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1998, and for 
other purposes. All points of order against the conference report and 
against its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 
considered as read.
                                     





                                                 House Calendar No. 116

105th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                              H. RES. 277

                          [Report No. 105-342]

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the 
   bill (H.R. 2107) making appropriations for the Department of the 
Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
                     1998, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                            October 23, 1997

        Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed`
#### James Smith *v.*Martin H. Browder.

Judgments — Entry After Term of Judge had Expired — Merger—Subsequent Act of the Legislature.

A judgment entered of record after the expiration of the judge’s term of office is a nullity and the subsequent action of the Legislature can not revive a judgment that has been abandoned or merged into another.

APPEAL FROM KENTON CIRCUIT COURT.

October 1, 1872.

Opinion by

Judge Lindsay:

At the time this case was appealed from the Quarterly to the Circuit Court of Kenton County, no such judgment as that of February, 1869, was in existence.

In fact, the appeal had been pending in the Circuit Court nearly a year before the Legislature enacted the statute under and by virtue of which an ex-county judge entered said judgment upon the records of a court over which he had long since ceased to preside.

It'is also manifest that appellees regarded any action that may have been taken by said judge whilst in office as utterly null and void, it not having been made a matter of record, and that he abandoned all idea of enforcing the collection of a. judgment that had no existence except in the recollection of an officer whose term of office had expired, hence his amended pleadings, and his judgment of March, 1870.

When the judgment was rendered, it was the only one evidenced by the record, and the only one appellee had the right to enforce. His debt, whether in the shape of an account or of *702a prior judgment, was merged into this last judgment, and from it alone could the appellant appeal. His appeal was prosecuted in proper time, and he had a right to a trial in the Circuit Court.

*W. S. Rankin, for appellant.*

*Carlisle, for appellee.*

The subsequent action of the Legislature could not divest him of this vested right, nor could it revive against him a judgment which appellee had abandoned, and which upon his own motion had been merged into a later judgment.

The amended answer filed without objection in the Circuit Court presents a valid defense to at least a portion of appellee’s claim, and the issues raised should have been tried.

The court erred in dismissing the appeal.

The judgment is *reversed*and the cause remanded for a trial upon its merits.