alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
| William C. Owens, as Chief Executive Officer and President of Owens Financial Group, Inc., the General Partner of Owens Mortgage Investment Fund, a California Limited |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Partnership (the “Registrant”), and Bryan H. Draper, as Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of Owens Financial Group, Inc., hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, that: |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|              (1)  | the Registrant’s Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”) |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                               | fully complies with the applicable requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                                               |
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 6, 2019

No. 04-18-00509-CV

TITLE SOURCE, INC.,

Appellant

v.

HOUSECANARY INC., formerly known as Canary Analytics, Inc.,

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-CI-06300

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

This appeal was scheduled for formal submission and oral argument at 9:00 a.m. on 

Thursday, February 14, 2019. On January 30, 2019, appellants filed an unopposed motion, 

seeking to reschedule submission and oral argument.

After review, we GRANT appellant’s motion to reschedule submission and oral 

argument. We ORDER the oral argument scheduled for February 14, 2019 at 9:00 a.m. 

cancelled, and the submission date of February 14, 2019 withdrawn. We further ORDER this 

appeal to be submitted on April 29, 2019, and oral argument to be heard on Monday, April 29, 

2019, at 1:30 p.m. before a panel consisting of Chief Justice Marion, Justice Martinez, and 

Justice Rios in the courtroom of the Fourth Court of Appeals.

The parties are reminded that arguments are limited to twenty (20) minutes for each side 

with ten (10) minutes rebuttal allotted to appellant.

 We order the clerk of this court to serve a copy of this order on all counsel.

It is so ORDERED on February 6, 2019.

PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: ___________________________________

 KEITH E. HOTTLE,

 Clerk of Court
Public Comments from 

François-Frédéric Ozog

Shokubai.tech

GSA TIES lead for automotive multi-tenancy group

I – Indirect attacks mitigation

Time synchronization, DNS server and smtp servers can be consequential for the proper behavior of 

home devices.

Time tampering: if your home security policies depend on the time of the day, tampering with time may 

allow attackers to benefit from lower level protection. Usually, IoT devices get their reference time from 

a pre-configured network time server. If those are foreign controlled, consumers of a country may find 

themselves more exposed.

There should be a requirement to get those network time servers from the telecom operator. This 

configuration can be automated at onboarding time as part of matter process.

DNS servers are used to translate from internet names to IP addresses. This may be used by IoTs such as 

a door lock to check a number of things. Default DNS servers may be introduced in some devices and 

point to foreign, may be compromised servers. Malicious attackers may leverage DNS requests to 

identify with good probability when people are in-house or out for vacation. 

There should be a requirement to get those network time servers from the telecom operator. This 

configuration can be automated at onboarding time as part of matter process.

SMTP servers are used to send mails or alerts. Should those servers be compromised, alerts may not 

arrive at their intended destination. 

There should be a requirement to get those network time servers from the telecom operator. This 

configuration can be automated at onboarding time as part of matter process.

II – attack detection

It is very important to complement security with breach detection. That is many times forgotten 

unfortunately despite it is instrumental in reducing the impact of a successful attack.

Out of detection mechanisms, IETF Manufacturer Usage Description 

Specification (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc8520/) is very simple yet powerful.

It raise the alarm when a device is conducting traffic that does not correspond to its spec. We don’t 

know how the security was breached, but we can act on a breach as soon as it happen.
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4590 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4590

 To require that reimbursement provided to members of the Armed Forces 
who purchased their own protective body armor when military-issue body 
armor was unavailable include reimbursement for the cost to deliver the 
                       body armor to the member.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 16, 2004

 Mr. Ackerman introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To require that reimbursement provided to members of the Armed Forces 
who purchased their own protective body armor when military-issue body 
armor was unavailable include reimbursement for the cost to deliver the 
                       body armor to the member.

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

SECTION 1. REIMBURSEMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES WHO PURCHASED 
              PROTECTIVE BODY ARMOR DURING SHORTAGE OF DEFENSE STOCKS 
              OF BODY ARMOR.

    Any reimbursement provided by the Secretary of Defense to a member 
of the Armed Forces for the cost of protective body armor purchased by 
the member, or by another person on behalf of the member, for use by 
the member while deployed in connection with Operation Noble Eagle, 
Operation Enduring Freedom, or Operation Iraqi Freedom shall include 
reimbursement for any costs incurred by the member, or by another 
person on behalf of the member, to deliver the body armor to the 
member.
                                 <all>
```
73952 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 239 / Friday, December 12, 2014 / Notices 

Affected Public: Private Sector: 

Businesses and other for-profits. 

Estimated Annual Burden Hours: 

125,000. 

Dawn D. Wolfgang, 

Treasury PRA Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29094 Filed 12–11–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

Performance Review Board Members 

AGENCY: Corporate Senior Executive 

Management Office, Department of 

Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 5 

U.S.C. 4314(c)(4) agencies are required 

to publish a notice in the Federal 

Register of the appointment of 

Performance Review Board (PRB) 

members. This notice announces the 

appointment of persons to serve on the 

PRB of the Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

DATES: Effective Date: December 12, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: Corporate Senior Executive 

Management Office, Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20420. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Contact Tia N. Butler, Executive 

Director, Corporate Senior Executive 

Management Office (052), Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue 

NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461– 

7865. (This is not a toll free number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

membership of the Department of 

Veterans Affairs Performance Review 

Board is as follows: 

Gina Farrisee (Chair) 

A. Jacy Thurmond, Jr. 

Danny Pummill 

Patricia C. Vandenberg 

Ron Walters 

Arthur Gonzalez 

Elisa Basnight 

Georgia Coffey 

Signing Authority 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or 

designee, approved this document and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. Jose 

D. Riojas, Chief of Staff, Department of 

Veterans Affairs, approved this 

document on December 9, 2014, for 

publication. 

Dated: December 10, 2014. 

William F. Russo, 

Acting Director, Office of Regulation Policy 

& Management, Office of the General Counsel, 

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2014–29262 Filed 12–11–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
#### J. L. Vandivier, et al., *v.*Winchester Building & Accumulating Fund Association.

Usurious Interest — Who May Recover.

Usurious interest paid can only he recovered hy the person who pays it. A surety when sued upon a note cannot plead usury paid hy his principal either as a set-off or counterclaim.

APPEAL FROM CLARK CIRCUIT COURT.

January 10, 1876.

Opinion.

Usurious interest paid can only be recovered back by him who paid it. Consequently a surety, when sued upon a note, cannot plead usury paid by his principal on the note as either a set-off or counterclaim. Fie may plead it as partial payment, and in that way get the benefit of the payment, but it devolves on him to prove the alleged payment; and if he offers no evidence to sustain the allegations of his answer, and the cause is submitted on the pleadings, judgment must be rendered for the plaintiff for the full' amount of the debt sued for, if the alleged payment of usury be the only defense. Nor will the burden of proof be thrown upon the plaintiff by an allegation in the answer that the fact of payment .of usury is within the knowledge of the plaintiff alone.

The rule of chancery practice which casts upon a party the proof of facts alleged or presumed to be exclusively within his knowledge, did not devolve upon the complaining party the duty to disprove a matter of avoidance pleaded in the answer. The note sued upon made out the plaintiff’s case, and if the defendant wished to reach the plaintiff and compel disclosures in support of the defense, he should have taken the course pointed out by the code of practice, or have taken the depositions of its officers. The court had power to set aside the submission and allow further preparation, but we are unable to see that there was any abuse of discretion in not doing so.

The record of the term does not show upon what ground the motion to set aside the submission was based, but this appears in the proceedings of the next term. The ground relied upon as appears by the affidavit of the appellant was that the cause was prematurely submitted by mistake of his counsel, but in what that mistake consisted is not stated. We infer, however, that the mistake referred to was the belief of counsel that the answer contained a set-off or *576counterclaim. This court cannot say that there is error in refusing to set aside a submission because one of the parties has misinterpreted his own pleading. There may possibly be cases in which such a course would be proper, but we can hardly imagine one in which this court would reverse the judgment of an inferior court for refusing to do so.

*L. B. Grigsby, for appellants. James Simpson, for appellee.*

There having been no evidence of the alleged payment of more than ten per cent, interest, the other and more important question argued by counsel does not arise in this case.

Judgment *affirmed.*
### C OURT OF 

### A PPEALS FOR THE



### F IRST 

### D ISTRICT OF 

### T EXAS AT 

### H OUSTON



### O RDER ON 

### M OTION

Cause Number: 01

- 16

- 00589

- CV

Trial Court Cause

Number: 13

- FD

- 0848

Style: Winnie Stacey Alwazzan

v. Isa Ali Alwazzan and International Agencies Co., Ltd.

Date motion filed * : December 11, 2019

Type of motion: Motion to Extend Time to File Response

Party filing motion: Appellee

Document to be filed: Response to Appellant's Motion for En Banc Reconsideration

Is appeal accelerated? Yes No

If motion to extend time:

Original due date: December 11, 2019

Number of previous extensions granted: 0

Date Requested: 16 days

Ordered that motion is:

Granted

If document is to be filed, document due: December 27, 2019

Absent extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant additional motions to extend time

The Court will not gra nt additional motions to extend time.

Denied

Dismissed ( e.g. , want of jurisdiction, moot)

Other: _____________________________________

Judge's signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

Acting individually Acting for the Court

Date: December 12, 2019
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
The schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Dean
Witter Diversified Futures Fund II L.P. and is qualified in its entirety
by references to such financial instruments.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                      12,723,646
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   63,760<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              13,172,362<F2>
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                13,172,362<F3>
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,180,586<F4>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               348,932
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                831,654
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            831,654
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   831,654
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>Receivables include interest receivable for DWR of $46,619 and due
from DWR of $17,141.
<F2>In addition to cash and receivables, total assets include net unrealized
gain on open contracts of $384,956.
<F3>Liabilities include redemptions payable of $525,091, accrued brokerage
commissions of $34,476, accrued management fees of $32,925 and accrued
transaction fees and costs of $2,550.
<F4>Total revenues include realized trading revenue of $827,347, net
change in unrealized of $224,763, and interest income of $128,476.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
11074.

#### Southern Railway Company *v.*Corley.

Decided May 5, 1920.

Action for damages; from city court of Atlanta — Judge Reid. October 25, 1919.

*McDaniel & Black,*for plaintiff in error.

*William E. Arnaud,*contra.

Stephens, J.

While a servant assumes the ordinary risks of his employment, which include not only such dangers as are within his knowledge but such as he can discover and foresee by the exercise of ordinary care, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that an employee of a railroad company, while riding on top of a moving train upon a car higher than the other cars in the train and higher than those generally used by the railroad company, could discover and foresee the danger of being injured by coming in contact with an overhead bridge in the yard of the company, although he was aware of the extra height of the car upon which he was riding but without knowledge that on the high car he could not clear the bridge, and even though it appears that he was familiar with the railroad yard including the bridge and the distance of the bridge from the top of the cars ordinarily used by the company. The questions as to the negligence of the railroad and whether the servant could have avoided the consequences thereof by the exercise of ordinary care are for the jury. *Stirk*v. *Central Railroad & Banking Co.,*79 *Ga.*495 (5 S. E. 105).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Jenkins, P. J., and Smith, J., concur.*
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING OF O PINION ON E N B ANC R ECONSIDERATION

Appellate case name: In the Interest of J.J.G., L.K.G., H.A.G., and A.G.G

Appellate case number: 01

- 16

- 00104

- CV

Trial court case number: 2014

- 00610J

Trial court: 313th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: October 2, 2017

Party filing motion: M.G., appellant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED GRANTED.

Judge’s signature: /s /

___ Evelyn v. Keyes

________________________________________

Acting Individ ually Acting for the Court

The en banc court consists of: Chief Justice Radack and Justices Jennings, Keyes, Higley, Bland,

Massengale, Brown, Lloyd, and Caughey. Justice Jennings voted to grant the motion for the

reasons expressed in his dissenting opinion.

Date: November 14, 2017
#### The State *v.*Land.

Criminal *Law.—Indictment for Desecration of*Salhath.—Indefiniteness.—An indictment for hunting on Sunday, which alleged that “on or about the 1st day of October, A. D. 1871,” the defendant, etc., “said 1st day of October, 1871, being then and there the first day of the week, commonly called Suii- • day,” was bad, for not being definite as to the time of the offence.

APPEAL from the Boone Circuit Court.

Pettit, J.

This was an indictment for hunting on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday.

A general motion was made to quash the indictment, which was sustained, and exception was taken.

The prosecution was under .sec. 1, 2 G. & H. 481, and the motion covered all legal insufficiencies of the indictment.

The State has appealed and assigned for error the sustaining of the motion to quash. We cannot learn from the record on what particular ground the motion was sustained, but if there is a good and sufficient cause for it, we must sustain the ruling below. The indictment does not show that the hunting was done on the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday.

The language is this: “On or about the 1st day of October, A. D. 1871, at the county and State aforesaid, was then and there found unlawfully hunting; the said istdayof October, 1871, being then and there the first day of the week, commonly called Sunday.” When time, as in this case, is of the *312essence of the crime or misdemeanor, the indictment must show that the violation of' law was at that time. This indictment does not do so.

*R. B. F. Pierce*and *J. C. Denny,*Attorney General, for the State.

To transpose the language in the indictment, it reads thus : October ist, 1871, was the first day of the week, and on or about that day the defendant was found hunting. On or about, when the day is essential to the commission of the offence, does not mean, in a penal statute or prosecution, the very day. The court committed no error in quashing the indictment.

The judgment is affirmed.
#### THE STATE ex rel. CHASE v. HAWES et al., Appellants.

In Banc,

November 3, 1903.

The judgment in this case is reversed on the authority of State ex rel. Rife v. Hawes, reported at page 360 of this volume.

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit Court. — He». *S. P. ■ Spencer,*Judge.

Reversed.

*G. W. Bates*and *Win. F. Woerner*for appellants.

*A. A. Paces on*for respondent.

GANTT, J.

Relator was appointed a regular patrolman on June 27, 1882, for a term of four years, which he fully served. He was permitted to hold over until October 17, 1895, when he was dropped. He claims reappointment, by implication, every four years. The circuit court gave him judgment for salary from October 17, 1895, to June 27, 1897. This was error. [State ex rel. Rife v. Hawes, p. 360 of this volume.]

The judgment of the circuit court is reversed and the writ quashed.

All concur.
1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

GLORIA SULLIVAN, et al., ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) CIVIL ACTION NO 08-0155-KD-N 

vs. ) 

 ) 

AUSTAL, USA, LLC, ) 

Defendant. ) 

 ORDER 

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Austal, USA, LLC’s Motion to Award 

$60,000.00 in Attorney Fees (and non-taxable costs) against Gloria Sullivan (Doc. 628), Plaintiff 

Gloria Sullivan’s Opposition (Doc. 708) and Defendant Austal’s Reply (Doc. 715). Upon 

consideration of the pleadings, the Court finds that fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1927 or 42 U.S.C. § 

1988 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5 are not appropriate. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Austal’s 

Motion (Doc. 628) is DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this the 2nd day of March 2012.

/s/ Kristi K. DuBose 

KRISTI K. DuBOSE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:08-cv-00155-KD-N Document 744 Filed 03/02/12 Page 1 of 1
NIST NCSTAR 1, WTC Investigation, Chapter 9, Recommendations 1

Table 9–2b. Model Codes Affected by the Recommendations. 

Affected Model Code Group Recommendation 

International Building Code 1. Increased Structural Integrity 

2. Enhanced Fire Endurance of Structures 

3. New Methods for Fire Resistant 

Design of Structures 

4. Improved Active Fire Protection 

5. Improved Building Evacuation 

6. Improved Emergency Response 

7. Improved Procedures and Practices 

8. Education and Training 

1–24, 26–29 

International Existing Building Code NFPA 

101 – Life Safety Code 

7. Improved Procedures and Practices 26 

International Fire Code NFPA 1 – Fire 

Prevention Code 

7. Improved Procedures and Practices 26 

National Fire Protection Association, 

NFPA 5000 – Building Construction and 

Safety Code and NFPA 101 – Life Safety 

Code 

1. Increased Structural Integrity 

2. Enhanced Fire Endurance of Structures 

3. New Methods for Fire Resistant 

Design of Structures 

4. Improved Active Fire Protection 

5. Improved Building Evacuation 

6. Improved Emergency Response 

7. Improved Procedures and Practices 

8. Education and Training 

1–24, 26–29