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

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 73 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 73

Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide that the 
                    gift rule covers Members-elect.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 28, 2001

Mr. Graham (for himself, Mr. Sensenbrenner, Mr. Smith of Texas, and Mr. 
 Flake) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the 
                           Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to provide that the 
                    gift rule covers Members-elect.

    Resolved, That (a) clause 5 of rule XXV of the Rules of the House 
of Representatives is amended by adding at the end the following new 
paragraph:
    ``(g) (1) Any Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner who, while 
a Member-elect, engaged in conduct which would be in violation of this 
clause if such individual were, at the time of such conduct a Member, 
shall be subject to the provisions of this clause.
    ``(2) As used in this paragraph, the term `Member-elect' means an 
individual who is elected in a general or special election as a Member 
of, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress, but who has 
not taken the oath of office.''.
    (b) (1) The amendment made by subsection (a) shall apply to any 
individual who becomes a Member-elect after the date of adoption of 
this resolution.
    (2) As used in paragraph (1), the term ``Member-elect'' has the 
meaning given such term in clause 5(g)(2) of rule XXV of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives.
                                 <all>
```
Here's how you know
 **Official websites use .mil** .mil
 **Secure .mil websites use HTTPS** lock () https://


Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            U.S. Central Command
                CENTCOM
        Search
                    Search CENTCOM:
                        Search
                Search CENTCOM:
                    Search
    Home

    ABOUT US
    
        COMMAND PRIORITIES

    LEADERSHIP

    COMPONENT COMMANDS

    HISTORY

    POSTURE STATEMENT

    CENTCOM AOR
    
        CENTCOM COALITION

    OPERATIONS AND EXERCISES
    
        USMTM

    CIVILIAN CASUALTY REPORT

    CONTACT
    
        OPERATIONAL CONTRACT SUPPORT

    COMMUNITY RELATIONS

    THEATRE MEDICAL CLEARANCE

    INNOVATION VENDOR PORTAL

    MILITARY MEMBER INNOVATION PORTAL

    MEDIA
    
        SOCIAL MEDIA

    NEWS ARTICLES

    PRESS RELEASES

    STATEMENTS

    IMAGERY

    VIDEOS

    TRANSCRIPTS

    VISITORS AND PERSONNEL
    
        FAMILY CENTER

    FAMILY READINESS

    CENTCOM WEBMAIL

    SOCIAL MEDIA SECURITY

    ACCOUNTABILITY

    EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

    USCENTCOM UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS

    FOIA LIBRARY

    INNOVATION OASIS

    WELCOME GUIDE  Search
 Search
 All Images All ImagesCommunity RelationsOtherPreviousCommanders
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Share
  
 Small () Medium () Full Size (1.74 MB)
 
 Cyber Awareness cybersecurity Centcom U.S. Central Command
 Photo Gallery
 About UsCommand PrioritiesLeadershipComponent
   CommandsHistoryPosture Statement
   Area of
   ResponsibilityCENTCOM Coalition
   Operations And
   ExercisesOperation Inherent
   ResolveResolute Support
   MediaSocial MediaNews ArticlesPress ReleasesVideo And Imagery
   Visitors And
   PersonnelFamily ReadinessCENTCOM WebmailSocial MediaSecurityAccountabilityEmergency
   Preparedness
   ContactCommunity Relations
                    Stay Connected
                
                Privacy & Security  Inspector General  FOIA  Privacy Act
            

Hosted by Defense Media Activity - WEB.mil
#### FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF BOUND BROOK, NEW JERSEY, RELATOR, v. EDGAR T. ESTERLINE, N. JOSEPH ENGLEBERT AND JOSEPH E. JAMES, ASSESSORS OF THE BOROUGH OF LAVALLETTE, AND THE BOROUGH OF LAVALLETTE, IN THE COUNTY OF OCEAN, NEW JERSEY, RESPONDENTS.

Argued October 5, 1932

Decided July 25, 1933.

Before Justices Pabkee, Lloyd and Campbell.

For the relator, *Ira F. Smith.*

For the respondents, *Leon Beussille, Jr.*

For the Municipal Finance Commission, *William A. Stevens (Arnold Frye,*of counsel).

Per Curiam.

The petitioner is the holder of several judgments against the borough of Lavallette upon which execution had been issued without avail, and upon which thereafter a peremptory *656writ of *mandamus*was, on September 9th, 1932, awarded by this court to compel the assessing authorities of the borough to assess and raise by taxation sufficient funds to liquidate these judgments. On the evening of the same day and before the writ was served the borough council passed a resolution calling upon the Municipal Finance Commission, a body created under chapter 340 of the laws of 1931 (page 830) as amended by chapter 236 of the laws of 1932 (page 519) to function in the borough.

Under section 103 the commission shall function in the municipality upon the filing in the office of the clerk of the Supreme Court of a certified copy of a resolution such as adopted by the borough council. The resolution in question was filed with the clerk on September 13th, 1932.

The present application is for a rule on the mayor and council of the borough to show cause why an order commanding obedience to the writ of *mandamus*should not issue, and why the petitioner should not have certain moneys on deposit applied to its judgments.

Except for the fact that the Municipal Finance Commission was not functioning in the borough when the writ of *mandamus*was served, but came into control a few days thereafter, the conditions here presented do not differ from those presented in the cases of *Oak Securities Co.*v. *Township of North Bergen*and *Hourigan v. Township of North Bergen,*Nos. 221 and 222 of the October term, 1932, of the Supreme Court, already determined and reported in 11 *N. J. Mis. R.*194; 165 *Atl. Rep.*74.

This simple difference we do not regard of importance in view of the reasons expressed in the cases cited. It may be added it is difficult to see that any force would be added to the writ of *mandamus*already in existence by any order that the respondent be compelled to obey it, and as to the application of funds in bank such application would be in conflict with one of the purposes of the legislation creating the finance commission, viz., equality in liquidation of the debts of a defaulting municipality.

For the reasons given in the cases referred to, the present application is denied.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

March 11, 2019

No. 04-18-00498-CV

MWM HELOTES RANCH, LTD. and Myfe Moore,

Appellants

v.

John H. WHITE Jr., Individually; John H. White III, Individually; John H. White Jr., John H. 

White III, and Molly C. White, in their capacities as Co-Trustees of the 1983 John H. White 

Long-Term Trust F/B/O John H. White Jr., and of the 1976B Partnership Trust; TCW Helotes 

Ranch Ltd; and Tuleta White,

Appellees

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

Trial Court No. 2018CI11563

Honorable David A. Canales, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

After we granted Appellants’ first motion for an extension of time to file a reply brief, 

Appellants filed a new designation of counsel, a motion to dismiss the appeal for want of 

jurisdiction, and in the alternative, a motion for extension of time to file a reply brief. 

Appellants’ motion for extension of time to file the reply brief is GRANTED. 

Appellants’ reply brief is due on April 2, 2019. See id. R. 38.6(d). 

Appellants’ motion to dismiss is carried with the appeal.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

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

court on this 11th day of March, 2019.

___________________________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE,

Clerk of Court
#### Margaret Budd, Appellant, v. Stephen A. Walker, Executor, Respondent.

Judgment reversed; order appealed from affirmed. Opinion by

Brady, J.
##### 



EXHIBIT 21.1

CT COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND
SUBSIDIARIES

SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

|                                            |  |               
|------------------------------------------- |  | --------------
|                                            |  | STATE OF      
|                                            |  | INCORPORATION 
|                                            |  |               
|The Concord Telephone Company               |  | North Carolina
|CT Wireless Cable, Inc.                     |  | North Carolina
|Wavetel, L.L.C                              |  | Delaware      
|WebServe, Inc.                              |  | North Carolina
|Wireless One of North Carolina, L.L.C       |  | North Carolina
|CTC Long Distance Services, LLC             |  | North Carolina
|CT Cellular, Inc.                           |  | North Carolina
|CTC Exchange Services, Inc.                 |  | North Carolina
|CTC Internet Services, Inc.                 |  | North Carolina
|CT Communications Northeast Wireless Trust* |  | Massachusetts 
|CT Communications Northeast Trust*          |  | Massachusetts 
|CT Communications Northeast, Inc.           |  | Massachusetts 
|CT Services, Inc.                           |  | North Carolina
|CTC Employment Services, LLC                |  | North Carolina
|Progress Place Realty Holding Company, LLC  |  | North Carolina
|CT Global, LLC                              |  | North Carolina
|Wavetel TN, L.L.C                           |  | Delaware      
|Carolina Personal Communications, Inc.      |  | North Carolina



---



|  |                             
|- | ----------------------------
|* | Liquidated in December 2003.
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 2472

_____________________________
M ARY P OSS , Wife
, Appellant,

v.

D AVID M. P OSS , S R ., Husband
, Appellee.

___________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Co urt for Escambia County

. Jennie Kinsey

. May 23 , 2018

P ER C URIAM

.
A FFIRMED

.
B.L. T HOMAS , C.J., and W OLF and R AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________ Laura E. Keene of Beroset & Keene, Pensacola
, for Appellant.

Kenneth M. Jayne, Pensacola
, for Appellee.
#### In the Matter of the Probate of an Instrument Propounded as the Last Will, etc., of Charlotte D. Hewitt, deceased.

Decree reversed and the issues ordered to be tried before a jury at the Cayuga circuit, with costs of this appeal to abide the final award of costs in the proceeding. Opinion by

Haight, J.;

Barker aud Bradley, JJ„ concur.
# U.S. Service Members Injured in Helicopter Mishap

/ Published June 13, 2023

June 12,2023

Release Number 20230612-01

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**TAMPA, Fla**. **-** June 11th, a helicopter mishap in northeastern Syria resulted in injuries of various degrees to 22 U.S. service members. The service members are receiving treatment for their injuries and 10 have been evacuated to higher care facilities outside of the CENTCOM AOR. The cause of the incident is under investigation, although no enemy fire was reported.

-30-
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Security and defense studiesreview**
 
Volumes:
01:No 0102 | 02: No0102 | 03: No 0102 | 04: No 0102 | 05: No 0102
06:No 0102 | 07: No0102 | 08 No 2 | 09 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16
 
SuDoc Number:D 5.419:
Item Number:0378-H-15 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000529500
 
October 15, 2018
# Oct. 28: Military airstrikes continue against ISIL terrorists in Syria and Iraq

/ Published Oct. 28, 2014

October 28, 2014Release #20141033

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

**TAMPA, Fla., Oct 28, 2014** — U.S. military forces continued to attack ISIL terrorists in Syria Monday and today using attack and fighter aircraft to conduct four airstrikes.  Separately, U.S. and partner nation military forces conducted nine airstrikes in Iraq Monday and today using attack, fighter, and remotely piloted aircraft against ISIL terrorists.

In Syria, four airstrikes near Kobani destroyed four ISIL fighting positions and a small ISIL unit.  In Iraq, two airstrikes in the vicinity of Fallujah destroyed a small ISIL unit and an ISIL tank.  Four airstrikes in the vicinity of Mosul Dam destroyed a small ISIL unit, an ISIL fighting position, an ISIL vehicle and an ISIL logistics base. One airstrike west of Baghdad destroyed an ISIL-occupied building and a small ISIL unit.  One airstrike in the vicinity of Sinjar struck an ISIL fighting emplacement and destroyed six vehicles.  One airstrike northwest of Haditha destroyed an ISIL-occupied building used as a staging area.  All aircraft departed the strike areas safely.  Airstrike assessments are based on initial reports.

The strikes were conducted as part of Inherent Resolve, the operation to eliminate the terrorist group ISIL and the threat they pose to Iraq, the region and the wider international community.  The destruction of ISIL targets in Syria and Iraq further limits the terrorist group's ability to project power and conduct operations. Among the coalition nations conducting airstrikes in Iraq are the U.S., France, the United Kingdom, Australia, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands.  Coalition Nations conducting airstrikes in Syria include the U.S., Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan and Bahrain.
1210-AB32-2-1240.html[7/24/2015 9:14:50 PM]

PUBLIC SUBMISSION

As of: July 16, 2015

Received: July 09, 2015

Status: Pending_Post

Tracking No. 1jz-8jvt-3rs5

Comments Due: July 21, 2015

Submission Type: Web

Docket: EBSA-2010-0050

Definition of the Term ‘‘Fiduciary’’; Conflict of Interest Rule—Retirement Investment Advice; Notice of

 proposed rulemaking and withdrawal of previous proposed rule.

Comment On: EBSA-2010-0050-0205

Definition of Fiduciary; Conflict of Interest Rule-Retirement Investment Advice and Related Proposed

 Prohibited Transaction Exemptions; Hearing and Comment Period Extension

Document: EBSA-2010-0050-DRAFT-1735

Comment on FR Doc # 2015-14921

Submitter Information

Name: Wayne Holly

Address:

100 Corporate Woods

Rochester, NY, 14623

Email: wholly@sagerutty.com

General Comment

My firm just turned 100 years old and I fear that the proposed Fiduciary Standards will negatively impact not just

 my firm but the clients we serve. Many of the clients are smaller in asset size but require help making the best

 possible financial decisions..
**Exhibit 21**

 

The Company’s only activesubsidiaries are each either wholly owned or majority owned and are included inthe consolidated financial statements of the Company.

 

Their jurisdictions ofincorporation are as follows:

 
| **Name of Subsidiary**                          |   | **Jurisdiction of Incorporation** |
|-------------------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------|
|                                            |   |                              |
| Computer  Horizons E-Solutions (Europe) Limited |   | England and  Wales                |
| Computer  Horizons (Canada) Corp. / Corporation |   |                              |
| Computer Horizons Canada                        |   | Toronto,  Canada                  |
| Horizons Technologies, Inc.                     |   | Delaware                          |
| Strategic  Outsourcing Services, Inc.           |   | Delaware                          |
| CHC/Prince  Co., Inc.                           |   | New Jersey                        |
| G. Triad  Development Corp.                     |   | New Jersey                        |
| Integrated  Computer Management, Inc.           |   | New Jersey                        |
| CHIMES, Inc.                                    |   | Delaware                          |
| eB Networks,  Inc.                              |   | Delaware                          |
| CG Computer  Services Corp.                     |   | California                        |
| Horizon  Enterprises, Inc.                      |   | Delaware                          |
| Spargo  Holdings, Inc.                          |   | Delaware                          |
| Spargo  Holdings II, Inc.                       |   | Delaware                          |
| Chimes (UK)  Limited                            |   | England and  Wales                |
| Chimes  Netherlands B.V.                        |   | Netherlands                       |
| Chimes  Servicing Corp.                         |   | Delaware                          |
| CHC  Healthcare Solutions, LLC                  |   | Delaware                          |
| RG II  Technologies, Inc.                       |   | Maryland                          |
| Global  Business Technology Services            |   |                              |
| Private Limited                                 |   | India                             |
| GBTS  America, Inc.                             |   | Delaware                          |
| GBTS  America, LLC                              |   | Delaware                          |
| GBS Holdings  Private Limited                   |   | Mauritius                         |
| CHC  Caribbean Solutions, Inc.                  |   | Puerto Rico                       |

 

 

----
South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources 

Hazardous Waste Program 

Revision Authorization Package 

May 2015 
Nancy Morlock 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Program 

Office of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 8 

1595 Wynkoop Street, 8 P-R 

Denver, CO 80202-1129 

Dear Nancy, 

Thank you for your review and for the comment documents provided December 31 , 

2014, regarding South Dakota's July 10, 2014 draft authorization package. In response 

to that review, the following updates have been made and are being submitted as our 

final authorization package: 

1. Revision Checklists 216, 219 and 224 are being pulled from the draft 

submittal. Therefore, the final package consists of Revision Checklists 217, 

218, 220, 224, 223 (revised), 225 (no checklist), 226, 227 and 228. 

2. Revised Program Description, reflecting changes made in light of EPA's 

comments. 

3. Revised draft Memorandum of Agreement, reflecting a change requested in 

EPA's comments. 

4. Corrections made regarding dates included in the SO Attorney General's 

Statement. 

5. As requested, copies of SO Attorney General's Statements dated September 

25, 1992; April 1, 1993; and September 5, 1995. 

In addition to the revised documents (listed below), I have also enclosed our responses 

to EPA's comments, which are reflected in the final revision package. 

In total, this final revision application includes the following documents: 
• Checklists 217 through 228, as listed above (Attachment 3); • Three sets of Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD) Chapter 74:28, 

reflecting effective rule dates: September 28, 2009; October 18, 2011; and 

October 10, 2013 (Attachment 4); and 

• South Dakota Codified Laws (SDCL) 34A-11 (Attachment 5). 

Thanks and please call me or Carrie Jacobson·at 605-883-3153 if you have any 

questions. 

Sincerely, 

\Jonn; 

Vonni Kallemeyn, Administrator 

Waste Management Program 

Enclosures 

cy: Rich Williams, Office of Attorney General 

Chris Cosentini, USEPA R8 (8P-HW)
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 26, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 04-20150

Summary Calendar

 

DUKE STEWART ELLIOTT,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JAY T. MORGAN, Warden II; GLENN W. SMITH, Assistant 

Warden; PRISCILLA DALY; MICHAEL P. ODWYER, Captain; 

CYNTHIA A. WOOD, Officer; JAMES JONES,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-02-CV-1585

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

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Duke Elliott appeals a FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) and summary

judgment dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We affirm.

The district court did not err in dismissing Elliott’s

retaliation and Eighth Amendment harassment claims pursuant to rule

12(b)(6). The chronology of events alleged in the complaint do not
No. 04-20150

-2-

allow for the drawing of a plausible inference of retaliation. See

Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 25 (5th Cir. 1999). Similarly,

the allegations fall short of identifying behavior on the part of

Warden Morgan of the type necessary to state an Eighth Amendment

harassment claim. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 530 (1984).

Further, the district court did not err in its summary judgment qualified immunity determination that Elliott had not established the violation of a clearly established constitutional right

insofar as he alleged that the routine, cross-gender body cavity

searches violated his Fourth Amendment right to privacy; no such

right is clearly established under either controlling authority or

a consensus of the persuasive authority. See McClendon v. City of

Columbia, 305 F.3d 314, 323, 329 (5th Cir. 2002) (en banc). We

therefore do not reach Elliott’s argument that the district court

erred when it held, in the alternative, that, as a matter of law,

he was not entitled to the requested relief. Given that Elliott

received adequate notice of the constitutional issue dispositive of

his Fourth Amendment claim and responded thereto, we find no error

in the decision to award summary judgment to the unserved defendants. See NL Indus., Inc. v. GHR Energy Corp., 940 F.2d 957, 965

(5th Cir. 1991). 

AFFIRMED.