alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# DOD Supports Women, Peace and Security Act, Official Says

By xxxTERRI MOON CRONKDOD NEWS

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
#### Leslyne Batson et al., Respondents, v Ira D. Sussman, Appellant.

[774 NYS2d 782]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and property damage, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), dated October 30, 2002, which denied his motion, inter alia, to vacate an ex parte order of the same court dated April 29, 2002, which, among other things, granted the plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time to effect service of process pursuant to CPLR 306-b.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the motion which was to vacate so much of the ex parte order dated April 29, 2002, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time to effect service of process pursuant to CPLR 306-b and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order dated October 30, 2002, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and so much of the ex parte order dated April 29, 2002, as granted the plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of time to effect service of process pursuant to CPLR 306-b is vacated.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court should not have granted relief pursuant to CPLR 306-b. Accordingly, that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to vacate the portion of the ex parte order granting the plaintiffs such relief should have been granted.

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be decided in light of our determination. Ritter, J.P., Florio, Smith and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
No. 86-859.

#### Kovac *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001002396                
<NAME>                        Million Dollar Saloon, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         266738
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    10743
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               361916
<PP&E>                                         3506458
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1455778
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 3464978
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          258714
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       5219
<OTHER-SE>                                     2689720
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   3464978
<SALES>                                        2605627
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               2936044
<CGS>                                          1507790
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  919462
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             49976
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                595326
<INCOME-TAX>                                   125000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            470326
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   470326
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.09
        

  

</TABLE>
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-11-00196-CV

TIM P. DITTMAN AND DEBBIE L. DITTMAN

v.

ANTHONY A. CERONE AND OOTZIE PROPERTIES - HOU, LLC FORMERLY 

NAMED OOTZIE OF TEXAS, LLC

On Appeal from the

80th District Court of Harris County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2008-06679

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged 

against appellants.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 31, 2013
NEY GENERAL EXAS

August 9, 1965

HonorableRobert S. Calvert OpinionNo. C-479 Comptroller of Public Accounts Austin, Texas Re: Whether youmay lawfullymake a cash refund on certain unused cigarette tax Bear Mr. Calvert: stamps. You ask the Attorney General if youmay issuea State warrant to redeem at their face value certain cigarette tax stamps. The 59th Legislature,Regular Session, approved a claim of the C. B. Preston Estate for redemption in cash of 7,820 cigarette tax stamps issuedby this State between June, 1952 and March, 19%. of $303.42. These stampshave a net value

You further advise us that as of September 1, 1959 the cigarette tax ratewas changed from 5 cents to 8 cents per package and at that time a new design of stampswas introduced. Further, you state that all stamps of the 5 cents denominationwere recalledby the State and replacedwith the new stampsand that the old stampswere declaredby the State to be void after 60 days from such declaration. Our opinion is thatyou are prohibited from redeeming or paying for these stamps in any manner. Art. 7.08, Subd. (4)of Title 122A, Taxation General, in its pertinentportion, reads as follows:

"(4) The Comptroller'ishereby authorized to change the design of the stamp as often as he may deem such change necessary to thebest enforcement of the provisions of this Chapter, and the Treasurer is hereby required to redeemat face value any unused cigarette tax stamps lawfully issued,prior to such change in the design,which are in the possession of any bona fide owner,by exchangingat face value cigarette tax stamps of the new design. Provided,

-2269-HonorableRobert S. Calvert,page 2 (C-479)

that whenever a change ismade in the design of the stamps every person holding stamps of the old design shall be required to send them to the Treasurer for exchange at face value for stamps of the new design. Such exchange shallbe made within sixty (60)days after the date of the Issue of the new design of stamps and it shallbe unlawful for any person to have in his possessionany stamps of an old design after sixty (60)days from the date of issue of a new design;

. . . "Any personwho shall have in his possession any ci arette sixty 'i

60) tax stamps of the old design after days from the date of Issue of a new design of stamps shallbe guilty of a felony and shallbe punished as set out in Article 7.37 of this Chapter." Since the stamps in questionwhich were Issuedbetween June, 1952 and March, 1954were supersededby the change in design and declaration of the Comptroller in 1959 pursuant to the above quoted statutoryauthority then these provisions clearly bar redemption of the stamps. SUMMARY Refund for cigarette tax stampspurchased prior to September 1, 1959may not now be made. Yours very truly, WAGGONER CARR AttorneyGe era1 of Texas

I A WEA:rm APPROVED: 

## m:w ,1-,$ G&J A&iitanteittorney General OPINION COMMITTEE W.V. Geppert, Chairman Malcolm quick H. Grady Chandler George Black Paul Phy APPRCVED FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: T. B. Wright
-2270-
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rufus D. Cisco, Appellant.

[632 NYS2d 351]

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court’s sentence commitment to defendant was subject to the condition that defendant return to court for sentencing. Because defendant failed to appear for sentencing, the court was not bound by the commitment and was free to impose a greater sentence without giving defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea *(see, People v Shannon,*175 AD2d 614, 614-615; *People v Thompson,*174 AD2d 1007, *lv denied*78 NY2d 1082).

Defendant’s contention that the sentence is harsh and excessive is without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Cunningham, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6288

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

XUYEN THI VU,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CR-95-354-A)

Submitted: September 9, 1999 Decided: September 14, 1999

Before ERVIN, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Xuyen Thi Vu, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Andrew Spencer, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on

January 5, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on January 7, 1999. Pursuant to Rules

58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the

date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as

the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v.

Murray, 806 F.3d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Xuyen Thi Vu seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 1999).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Vu, No. CR-95-354-A (E.D. Va.

Jan. 7, 1999).* We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
```

[Congressional Bills 115th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1156 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

115th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1156

   To repeal changes made by health care reform laws to the Medicare 
    exception to the prohibition on certain physician referrals for 
                   hospitals, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 16, 2017

Mr. Sam Johnson of Texas (for himself, Ms. Jackson Lee, Mr. Schweikert, 
 Mr. Womack, Mr. Franks of Arizona, Mr. Farenthold, Mr. Sessions, Mr. 
 Gosar, Mr. Mullin, Mr. Carter of Texas, Mr. Bucshon, Mr. Valadao, Mr. 
Meadows, Mr. Wenstrup, Mr. Flores, Mr. Thornberry, Mr. Fortenberry, Mr. 
 Bridenstine, Mr. Poe of Texas, Mr. Babin, Mrs. Walorski, Mr. Rokita, 
Mr. Mooney of West Virginia, Mr. Williams, Mrs. Brooks of Indiana, Mr. 
Cole, Mr. Russell, Mr. Hensarling, Mr. Olson, Mr. Crawford, Mr. Barton, 
Mr. Banks of Indiana, Mr. Carter of Georgia, Mr. Hill, Mr. Harris, Mr. 
  Gonzalez of Texas, and Mr. Costello of Pennsylvania) introduced the 
   following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and 
  Commerce, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a 
 period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for 
consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the 
                          committee concerned

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To repeal changes made by health care reform laws to the Medicare 
    exception to the prohibition on certain physician referrals for 
                   hospitals, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Patient Access to Higher Quality 
Health Care Act of 2017''.

SEC. 2. REPEAL OF HEALTH CARE REFORM PROVISIONS LIMITING MEDICARE 
              EXCEPTION TO THE PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN PHYSICIAN 
              REFERRALS FOR HOSPITALS.

    Sections 6001 and 10601 of the Patient Protection and Affordable 
Care Act (Public Law 111-148; 124 Stat. 684, 1005) and section 1106 of 
the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010 (Public Law 
111-152; 124 Stat. 1049) are repealed and the provisions of law amended 
by such sections are restored as if such sections had never been 
enacted.
                                 <all>
```
<!--/* //NOSONAR */-->
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	Launch of the India-U.S. Defense Acceleration Ecosystem (INDUS-X) 
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4870" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/Joint/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/55/INDOPACOM2018_100x100.png?ver=J6xEsvouw9aaqHcHjhoIIQ%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">Launch of the India-U.S. Defense Acceleration Ecosystem (INDUS-X) </h1>
    </div>
    

    <div> <span class="date">/ Published June 22, 2023</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text"></span>
    <p>WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Department of Defense and the Indian Ministry of Defense launched the India-U.S. Defense Acceleration Ecosystem (INDUS-X) today at a catalyst event hosted by the U.S.-India Business Council. Launched against the backdrop of Prime Minister Modi’s State Visit to the White House and at a time of historic momentum for the relationship between the United States and India, INDUS-X will vitalize our defense industrial cooperation and unlock new innovations in technology and manufacturing. INDUS-X will create jobs for working families in both countries and promote global peace, security, and prosperity.<br />
<br />
The event convened representatives from more than 30 U.S. and Indian start-ups, as well as government, business, academic, and thought leaders, for wide-ranging discussions to advance cutting-edge technology cooperation between our nations’ defense industrial ecosystems.<br />
<br />
Following the launch event, the U.S. Department of Defense and the Indian Ministry of Defence welcomed an ambitious collaboration agenda that outlines the initiatives INDUS-X stakeholders intend to spearhead. These initiatives complement existing government-to-government collaboration and include joint prize challenges for start-ups, roundtable events, mentor-protégé initiatives between major primes and start-ups, and the formation of a Senior Advisory Group.<br />
<br />
In engagements throughout the day, U.S. and Indian officials affirmed that INDUS-X will catalyze innovation and help equip both countries’ armed forces with the capabilities they need to defend a free and open Indo-Pacific.</p>
<br />
</div>
    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
June 11, 2015 

Mr. James Duisenberg 

James Duisenberg d/b/a Tap Productions 

495 Tabor Drive Unit #3 

Scotts Valley, CA 95066 

Dear Mr. Duisenberg: 

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It 

explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days. 

Why We Can Not Process Your Request 

We entered your May 26, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-

1892), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does 

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request 

any further, you must send us all of the following: 

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief. 

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request. 

What You Should Do 

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your 

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2 

If We Do Not Hear From You 

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you 

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

Brenda Robeson 

Program Analyst, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division 

Enclosure
#### James C. Herring, plaintiff in error, *vs.*Saulsbury, Respess & Company, defendants in error.

Where the defendant contests the execution based on the foreclosure of a factor’s lien, a forihcoming bond is unnecessary unless he desires to replevy the property levied on.

Factors’ lien. Bond. Before Judge Hill. Twiggs Superior Court. April Term, 1874.

For the facts of this case, see the decision.

J. D. Jones, by Z. D. Harrison, for plaintiff in error. '

E. E. Best, for the defendants.

Warner, Chief Justice.

This was a proceeding to foreclose a lien on personal property, as provided by tiie 1991st section of the Code. The defendant filed an affidavit, alleging that the execution which had been levied on his property was proceeding illegally, because it was not stated in the affidavit foreclosing the lien that the same was made within one year after it became due; that certain described property, which liad been levied on, was not subject to levy in such a proceeding to enforce a factor’s lien; that $40 00 claimed therein as counsel fees cannot be collected in this manner by the enforcement of a factor’s lien. When the case came on for trial the counsel for plaintiff made a motion to dismiss the defendant’s affidavit on the ground *397that no forthcoming bond had been taken in the case by the sheriff, which motion the court sustained, and dismissed the defendant’s affidavit, whereupon the defendant excepted. The fourth paragraph of the section of the Code before cited, declares that if the defendant in such execution, or any creditor of such defendant, contests the amount or justice of the claim, or the existence of such lien, he may file his affidavit of the fact, setting forth the ground of such denial, which affidavit shall form an issue to be returned to the court and tried as other causes. The sixth paragraph declares that the defendant *may*replevy the property by giving bond and security in double the amount claimed, for the payment of the eventual condemnation money. In this class of cases (he law does not require the defendant to give a forthcoming bond to the shcrififj but if he desires to replevy the property levied .on, he 'must give bond and security for the payment of the eventual condemnation money. The defendant may, or may not replevy the property levied on, at his option, but whether he does so or not, he is entitled to contest the plaintiff’s claim and lien on the grounds stated in his affidavit, provided the same are sufficient in law for that purpose. The only question decided in this case was, that the defendant had no standing in court because he had not given a forthcoming bond to the sheriff, and dismissed his affidavit. This decision of the court was error.

Let the judgment of the court below be reversed.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# Mattis, Indonesian Counterpart Reaffirm Defense Relationship

DoD News, Defense Media Activity

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

More News
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT AGUSTIN JOSENDE ALVAREZ, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2507 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ________________________________ ) Opinion filed March 29, 2019. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County; Thomas P. Barber, Judge. Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Maureen E. Surber, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

### Ashley Moody , Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. NORTHCUTT, KELLY, and ATKINSON, JJ., Concur.