alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 638 

Recognizing the Aviation Cadet Museum in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, as 

the national aviation cadet museum of the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 30, 2017 

Mr. WOMACK (for himself, Mr. HILL, Mr. WESTERMAN, and Mr. CRAWFORD) 

submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

RESOLUTION 

Recognizing the Aviation Cadet Museum in Eureka Springs, 

Arkansas, as the national aviation cadet museum of the 

United States. 

Whereas the Aviation Cadet Museum was founded in 1994 by 

former aviation cadet and Air Force First Lieutenant 

Errol Severe; 

Whereas, from 1917 until 1965, the flying cadet and succeeding aviation cadet programs served as the primary 

production source for nearly 500,000 joint service pilots, 

navigators, and bombardiers; 

Whereas the bravery, courage, dedication, and heroism of aviators and supporting ground crews from the Army Air 

Corps and the Army Air Forces were critical factors in 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HRES 638 IH 

defeating the enemies of the United States during World 

War I and World War II; 

Whereas the Aviation Cadet Museum in Eureka Springs, Arkansas, is the only museum in the United States that exists exclusively to preserve and promote an understanding 

of the role of aviation cadets in the 20th century; and 

Whereas the Aviation Cadet Museum is dedicated to— 

(1) celebrating the spirit of the United States; and 

(2) recognizing the teamwork, collaboration, patriotism, and courage of the men who trained for and fought 

in, as well as those individuals on the home front who 

mobilized and supported, the national aviation effort: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives recog2 nizes the Aviation Cadet Museum in Eureka Springs, Ar3 kansas, as the national aviation cadet museum of the 

4 United States. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 829 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 829

 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Shadow 
  Wolves should be preserved and fostered as one unit, located on the 
                         Tohono O'odham lands.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 19, 2006

 Mr. Souder (for himself, Mr. Shadegg, Mr. King of Iowa, Mr. Grijalva, 
and Mr. Cole of Oklahoma) submitted the following resolution; which was 
             referred to the Committee on Homeland Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the Shadow 
  Wolves should be preserved and fostered as one unit, located on the 
                         Tohono O'odham lands.

Whereas in 1972, the 92nd Congress created a specialized unit of Customs Patrol 
        Officers known as the Shadow Wolves to patrol the international land 
        border within the Tohono O'odham sovereign Indian nation in Arizona;
Whereas the Shadow Wolves are Native Americans who combine modern technology 
        with traditional tracking techniques to identify, track and arrest 
        illegal drug smugglers along the 76 miles of border and within the 2.8 
        million acres of the Tohono O'odham nation;
Whereas although never constituting more than 21 specialized agents, the Shadow 
        Wolves have consistently succeeded in seizing over 100,000 pounds of 
        illegal narcotics annually;
Whereas the Shadow Wolves are a singular example of a unit that is uniquely 
        suited to meet the special challenges in border protection present in 
        their area in a way that no other unit or combination of units could be 
        expected to match; and
Whereas the Federal Government should take all reasonable steps to prevent the 
        loss of such a vital asset for the securing of our borders and the fight 
        against illegal narcotics trafficking: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved,  That it is the sense of the House of Representatives 
that the Shadow Wolves should be preserved and fostered as one unit, 
located on the Tohono O'odham lands, so that they might continue to 
apply their unique abilities in helping the United States to protect 
its borders.
                                 <all>
```
#### QUINN, Respondent, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

December 31, 1914.)

Action by Joseph F. Quinn against the City of New York. W. E. C. Mayer, of New York City, for appellant. J. A. Allen, of New York City, for respondent.

No opinion. Judgment and order reversed, with costs, and complaint dismissed, with costs, upon the ground that there is no evidence to justify a finding of negligence on the part of the defendant. Settle order on notice.
#### ROTHSCHILD et al., Respondents, v. MORRICE et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

February 11, 1915.)

Action by Morris H. Rothschild and another against David Morrice. Jr., and another.

H. D. Estabrook, of New York City, for appellants. J. R. Abney, of New York City, for respondents.

No opinion. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Order filed.
226 So.2d 522

#### PLANTATION PIPE LINE COMPANY v. KAISER ALUMINUM AND CHEMICAL CORPORATION.

No. 49944.

Oct. 1, 1969.

In re: Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 222 So.2d 905.

The application is denied. According to the facts of this case the result is correct.

SANDERS, J., is of the opinion a writ should be granted.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion a writ should be granted.

BARHAM, J.,

is of the opinion the writ should be granted for the reasons assigned in the Court of Appeal dissent.
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

Linda Guillermina Pedroza

,

Appellant

,

v.

Tenet Healthcare Corp.

,

Appellee

. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 1 6

- 00 221

- C V

Appeal from the

County Court at Law No. 5

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2015CCV01210 )

O R D E R

Pending before the Court is Appellee’s motion to strike volume 2 o f the supplemental

clerk’s record filed on January 24, 2018. The motion to strike is GRANTED. Further, Appellant

is instructed that she may not cause any additional supplemental clerk’s records to be filed

without first obtaining leave of court by filing a motion to supplement the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 2 2 nd day of February , 2018

.

PER CURIAM

Before McClure , C.J., R odriguez and Palafox , JJ.
#### Jewish Memorial Hospital et al., Appellants, v David Axelrod, as Commissioner of Health of the State of New York, et al., Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on May 22, 1980, unanimously affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. (See *Jewish Mem. Hosp. v Whalen,*47 NY2d 331.) No opinion. Concur—Birns, J. P., Sullivan, Markewich, Silverman and Yesawich, JJ.
#### § 182.635 Drug-free workplace.

Drug-free workplace means a site for the performance of work done in connection with a specific award at which employees of the recipient are prohibited from engaging in the unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of a controlled substance.
§ 1128.625 Allowability of program income as cost sharing or matching. ( a ) *OMB guidance.* OMB guidance in 2 CFR 200.307(e)(3) specifies that, with the prior approval of the Federal awarding agency, recipients may use program income to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of their awards.
( b ) *Award terms and conditions* — ( 1 ) *General.* A DoD Component's general terms and conditions must include the wording appendix F to this part provides as Section D of FMS Article VI if, in FMS Article VII of those terms and conditions, the DoD Component specifies that recipients dispose of program income using either: ( i ) The cost sharing or matching alternative described in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of § 1128.720; or
( ii ) A combination alternative, as described in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of § 1128.720, that includes use of at least some program income as cost sharing or matching.
( 2 ) *Exception.* A DoD Component may reserve Section D of FMS Article VI if FMS Article VII of those terms and conditions does not provide that recipients will use any program income as cost sharing or matching.
§ 603.1340 Technology investment agreement. A TIA is a special type of assistance instrument used to increase involvement of commercial firms in the DOE research, development and demonstration (RD&D) programs. A TIA, like a cooperative agreement, requires substantial Federal involvement in the technical or management aspects of the project. A TIA may be either a type of cooperative agreement or a type of assistance transaction other than a cooperative agreement, depending on the intellectual property provisions. A TIA is either: ( a ) A type of cooperative agreement with more flexible provisions tailored for involving commercial firms (as distinct from a cooperative agreement subject to all of the requirements in 10 CFR Part 600), but with intellectual property provisions in full compliance with the DOE intellectual property statutes (*i.e.*, Bayh-Dole statute and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2182 and 5908, as implemented in 10 CFR 600.325); or
( b ) An assistance transaction other than a cooperative agreement, if its intellectual property provisions vary from the Bayh-Dole statute and 42 U.S.C. §§ 2182 and 5908, which require the Government to retain certain intellectual property rights, and require differing treatment between large businesses and nonprofit organizations or small businesses.
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 177 (Tuesday, September 13, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 62968]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21967]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Research, Engineering and Development Advisory Committee Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the 
Research, Engineering & Development Advisory Committee meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on October 6, 2016--9:00 a.m. to 4:30 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Federal Aviation 
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Round Room (10th Floor), 
Washington, DC 20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Chinita A. Roundtree-Coleman at (609) 
485-7149 or Web site at chinita.roundtree-coleman@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Pursuant to section 10(a) (2) of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. App. 2), 
notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Research, Engineering and 
Development (RE&D) Advisory Committee. The meeting agenda will include 
receiving from the Committee guidance for FAA's research and 
development investments in the areas of air traffic services, airports, 
aircraft safety, human factors and environment and energy. Attendance 
is open to the interested public but seating is limited. With the 
approval of the chairman, members of the public may present oral 
statements at the meeting. Persons wishing to attend the meeting, 
present statements, or obtain information should contact the person 
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the 
public may present a written statement to the Committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC on September 6, 2016.
Chinita A. Roundtree-Coleman,
Computer Specialist.
[FR Doc. 2016-21967 Filed 9-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                           1,454
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   33,896
<ALLOWANCES>                                       228
<INVENTORY>                                      3,907
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                62,917
<PP&E>                                         392,393
<DEPRECIATION>                                  97,359
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 484,080
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          104,698
<BONDS>                                        191,900
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           584
<OTHER-SE>                                     142,049
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   484,080
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               521,945
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  366,917
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,218
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,535)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       145
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,680)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,680)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.13)
        

</TABLE>
#### Leonard Paulle *vs.*H. M. Wallis.

Argued July 5, 1894.

Reversed July 13, 1894.

No. 8719.

Advertizing notice of sale on mortgage foreclosure.

When a mortgage with power of sale covers several separate, distinct tracts of land, lying in different counties, the notice of foreclosure sale need be published only in a newspaper in any one of such counties.

Appeal by defendant, H. M. Wallis, from an order of the District Court of Anoka County, *Seagrare Smith,*J., made-February 8, 1894, overruling his demurrer to the complaint.

*McNeir <£ Bacon,*for appellant.

*J. L. Dobbin,*for respondent.

Gileillan, C. J.

The question presented by the complaint and demurrer is: When a mortgage with a power of sale is upon separate tracts of land, lying in different counties, can it be foreclosed under the power, and all the tracts sold, upon a notice of sale published in only one of the counties? The publication of notice in a newspaper is necessary only because the statute requires it, and, if the publication be as required by the statute, it is sufficient

The statute (1878 G. S. ch. 81, § 5) provides that the notice shall be published “in a newspaper printed and published in the county where the premises intended to bé sold or some part thereof are situated.” Similar terms are used in providing where the sale shall be (section 7): “The sale shall be * * * in the county in which the premises to be sold or some part thereof are situated.” A construction which would require, in a case where there are separate tracts in different counties, that the notice shall be published in-each county, would also require a sale in each county of the land lying within it. But it is manifest there is to be but one sale, and one notice published. The terms of the statute are too clear to admit any other meaning.

We understand from counsel that the court below construed the statute to mean that when the mortgaged premises constitute one tract, as one farm, situated part in each of two or more counties, a *193publication in one of those counties will suffice; but if they consist of separate, distinct tracts, lying in different counties, there must be a publication in each of those counties.

That interpretation requires a reconstruction of the statute, leaving out words that are used, and bringing in other words. We see no reason calling for that. ' The statute must be taken as it reads.

No other ground for setting aside the foreclosure is sufficiently stated in the complaint

Order reversed.

Collins and Buck, JJ., took no part.

(Opinion published 59 N, W. 999.)
228 So.2d 481

#### Patrick HEBERT and Cyril Hebert v. The CITY OF NEW IBERIA, Louisiana.

No. 50236.

Dec. 11, 1969.

In re: Patrick Hebert and Cyril Hebert applying for writs of certiorari, prohibition and mandamus.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Edward A. de la Houssaye, III, Judge of the Sixteenth Judicial District Court for the Parish of Iberia, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 23rd day of February, 1970, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Judge of said Court and the respondent through its attorney shall show cause, in this court, on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.
222 So.2d 882

#### Allie McGee WEST, Individually and for her minor children v. RYDER TRUCK LINES, INC., et al.

No. 49747.

June 9, 1969.

In re: Allie McGee West, individually and for her minor children applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, Parish of St. Landry. 218 So.2d 106.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.
Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
 
 I, Terry R. Lazar, Chief Financial Officer of PureSafe Water Systems, Inc. (the “Registrant”), hereby certify that the Form 10-Q of PureSafe Water Systems, Inc. for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2010 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.
 
 
 Date:  November 19, 2010
/s/ Terry R. LazarTerry R. LazarChief Financial Officer
IV 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 350 

Permitting official photographs of the House of Representatives to be taken 

while the House is in actual session on a date designated by the Speaker. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 22, 2017 

Mr. HARPER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on House Administration 

RESOLUTION 

Permitting official photographs of the House of Representatives to be taken while the House is in actual session 

on a date designated by the Speaker. 

1 Resolved, That on such date as the Speaker of the 

2 House of Representatives may designate, official photo3 graphs of the House may be taken while the House is in 

4 actual session. Payment for the costs associated with tak5 ing, preparing, and distributing such photographs may be 

6 made from the applicable accounts of the House of Rep7 resentatives. 

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.2



STRATEX NETWORKS, INC.



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In
connection with the periodic report of Stratex Networks, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), I, Carl A. Thomsen, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my knowledge:



(1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and



(2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company at the dates and for the periods indicated.



|                        |  |  |  |                                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | ---------------------------------------
|                        |  | 
|Date: February 12, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/    Carl A. Thomsen                 
|                        |  |  |  |                                        
|                        |  |  |  | Carl A. Thomsen Chief Financial Officer
#### § 1108.325 Real property.

*Real property* means land, including land improvements, structures and appurtenances thereto, but excluding moveable machinery and equipment.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE O F FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME E XPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED M ARY ALEXANDER , A ppellant ,
v. Case No

. 5D 23 -1 99 LT Cas e No. 22

- CC

- 196 T ERRY L. ROBERTS , A ppellee

.

_

_______________________________/ D ecision filed April 25, 2023 Appeal from the C ounty Court for Nassau County , Robert M. Foster , Judge. Mary Alexander, Jacksonville , pro se. No Appearance for Appellee.

P ER CURIAM. A FFIRMED.

EDWARDS, HARRIS an d BOATWRIGHT , JJ. , concur.
228 So.2d 314

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Wade RICKS, Jr. v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 50235.

Dec. 2, 1969.

In re: Wade Ricks, Jr. applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Not considered. See Rule XII of the rules of this Court.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk September 4, 2012

s0827 

# Order

September 4, 2012

145235

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145235

COA: 308604

Washtenaw CC: 11

- 001057

- FH

BRANDON BERNARD FORTSON,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 16, 2012 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded

that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.