alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 233 

AN ACT 

To designate the Rocksprings Station of the U.S. Border 

Patrol located on West Main Street in Rocksprings, 

Texas, as the ‘‘Donna M. Doss Border Patrol Station’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 233 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Donna M. Doss Memo3 rial Act of 2021’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

5 Congress finds the following: 

6 (1) A native of the State of Washington, Agent 

7 Donna Marie Doss— 

8 (A) proudly and honorably served her 

9 country as an Agent of the U.S. Border Patrol 

10 for more than 15 years; 

11 (B) began her service with the U.S. Border 

12 Patrol in 2003; and 

13 (C) graduated as part of the 569th Session 

14 of the Border Patrol Academy with Class 584 

15 on June 6, 2005. 

16 (2) Agent Doss— 

17 (A) served on a Drug Enforcement Admin18 istration Task Force on the southern border for 

19 3 years before being assigned to the northern 

20 border; 

21 (B) was promoted to Supervisory Border 

22 Patrol Agent in Laredo Border Patrol Sector, 

23 where she was named an Operations Officer in 

24 2016; and 

25 (C) relocated to Abilene, Texas in 2017, 

26 where she served as a Resident Agent. 
3 

†S 233 ES

1 (3) On February 2, 2019, Agent Doss re2 sponded to a call for assistance from the Texas De3 partment of Public Safety near Interstate 20 in Tye, 

4 Texas. While on scene, Agent Doss was struck and 

5 killed by a passing vehicle. 

6 (4) Agent Doss is survived by her husband, fa7 ther, mother, 2 stepchildren, a sister and a brother. 

8 SEC. 3. DESIGNATION. 

9 The Rocksprings station of the U.S. Border Patrol 

10 located on West Main Street in Rocksprings, Texas, shall 

11 be known and designated as the ‘‘Donna M. Doss Border 

12 Patrol Station’’. 

13 SEC. 4. REFERENCES. 

14 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

15 paper, or other record of the United States to the station 

16 described in section 3 shall be deemed to be a reference 

17 to the ‘‘Donna M. Doss Border Patrol Station’’. 

Passed the Senate October 7, 2021. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 233 

AN ACT 

To designate the Rocksprings Station of the U.S. 

Border Patrol Station’’. Rocksprings, Texas, as the ‘‘Donna M. Doss Border Patrol located on West Main Street in
JAVONNE TERRELL MURPHY,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-2238

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 7, 2016.

An appeal from an order of the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County.

John T. Brown, Judge.

Nancy A. Daniels, Public Defender, and Steven L. Seliger, Assistant Public 

Defender, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

ROBERTS, C.J., JAY and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

____________________

NO. 09-15-00319-CR

____________________

IN RE OTTO CAULEY

_______________________________________________________ ______________

Original Proceeding

1A District Court of Newton County, Texas

Trial Cause No. ND-6336

________________________________________________________ _____________

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

In his petition for a writ of mandamus, Otto Cauley asks that the Court 

compel the judge of the 1A District Court of Newton County, Texas to hold a 

hearing and make findings of fact and conclusions of law on a motion for new trial 

that Cauley says he filed in Trial Court Case Number ND-6336 on May 9, 2015. 

He identifies a case where his conviction has been affirmed on appeal and the 

mandate has issued. See generally Cauley v. State, No. 09-11-00034-CR, 2012 WL 

1448375, at *4 (Tex. App.—Beaumont Apr. 25, 2012, pet. ref’d) (mem. op., not 
2

designated for publication). “The trial court’s jurisdiction expires when a case 

becomes final or is taken to a higher court.” In re State ex rel. Sistrunk, 142 

S.W.3d 497, 503 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2004, orig. proceeding). 

Because the trial court had no jurisdiction to consider Cauley’s motion for new 

trial, the trial court did not err by refusing to hold a hearing on it. See In re 

Pettigrew, 301 S.W.3d 920, 922-23 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2009, orig. proceeding); 

see also Tex. R. App. P. 21.4(a). 

PETITION DENIED.

 

 PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 25, 2015

Opinion Delivered August 26, 2015

Do Not Publish

Before McKeithen, C.J., Horton and Johnson, JJ.
|   | INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.  |                                                                               |
|--------|-------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                |                                                                               |   |
|   | By:                                 | /s/ David F. Morris                                                                |   |
|   |                                | David F. Morris                                                                    |   |
|   |                                | Senior Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer, General Counsel and Secretary |   |
|   |                                |                                                                               |   |

----

|   | INSITUFORM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.  |                                          |
|--------|-------------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------|
|   |                                |                                          |   |
|   | By:                                 | /s/ David F. Morris                           |   |
|   |                                | David F. Morris                               |   |
|   |                                | Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary |   |
|   |                                |                                          |   |

----

|                |   |   |                  |   |
|---------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------|--------|
| /s/ Howard Kailes   |   |   | /s/ Anthony W. Hooper |   |
| Howard Kailes  |   |   | Anthony W. Hooper     |   |
| Secretary           |   |   | President             |   |

----

----

| Name              |   | Address                                          |
|-------------------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|  Ray A. Barr |   |  9 East 40th StreetNew York, New York 10016 |

----

----

|                |   |   |                  |   |
|---------------------|--------|--------|-----------------------|--------|
| /s/ Howard Kailes   |   |   | /s/ Anthony W. Hooper |   |
| Howard Kailes  |   |   | Anthony W. Hooper     |   |
| Secretary           |   |   | President             |   |
II 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2247 

To protect Federal judges, Federal prosecutors, and Federal law enforcement 

officers from violence and doxing. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 24, 2021 

Mr. HAWLEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To protect Federal judges, Federal prosecutors, and Federal 

law enforcement officers from violence and doxing. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. PROTECTING FEDERAL JUDGES, FEDERAL 

4 PROSECUTORS, AND FEDERAL LAW EN5 FORCEMENT OFFICERS FROM VIOLENCE AND 

6 DOXING. 

7 (a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

8 (1) FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER.— 

9 The term ‘‘Federal law enforcement officer’’ has the 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2247 IS

1 meaning given the term in section 115 of title 18, 

2 United States Code. 

3 (2) PERSONAL PROTECTED INFORMATION.— 

4 The term ‘‘personal protected information’’ has the 

5 meaning given the term ‘‘means of identification’’ in 

6 section 1028 of title 18, United States Code. 

7 (b) AUTHORIZATION TO LIST POST OFFICE

8 BOXES.—Section 926B of title 18, United States Code, 

9 is amended by adding at the end the following: 

10 ‘‘(g) AUTHORIZATION TO LIST POST OFFICE

11 BOXES.—Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal 

12 or State law, a Federal judge, Federal prosecutor, or Fed13 eral law enforcement officer may list a post office box in 

14 lieu of a home address for any Federal, State, or other 

15 governmental purpose, if there is a risk that the address 

16 may be made public.’’. 

17 (c) GUIDANCE.—The Attorney General, in coordina18 tion with the Secretary of the Department of Homeland 

19 Security, shall— 

20 (1) promulgate regulations and issue guidance 

21 to implement subsection (g) of section 926B of title 

22 18, United States Code, as added by subsection (b) 

23 of this section; 

24 (2) develop and implement programs to— 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2247 IS

1 (A) detect when the personal protected in2 formation of a Federal judge, Federal pros3 ecutor, or Federal law enforcement officer is 

4 made public, including online; and 

5 (B) take remedial action to quickly remove 

6 the information from the public domain; and 

7 (3) develop and implement resources for a Fed8 eral judge, Federal prosecutor, or Federal law en9 forcement officer to— 

10 (A) report that the personal protected in11 formation of the judge, prosecutor, or officer 

12 has been made public, including online; and 

13 (B) ascertain what remedial action the 

14 Federal agencies have taken. 

15 (d) APPROPRIATIONS.—There is authorized to be ap16 propriated and is appropriated— 

17 (1) $15,000,000 to the Department of Justice 

18 to carry out this section; and 

19 (2) $25,000,000 to the Department of Home20 land Security to carry out this section. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
pproved for Release by NSA on 

0-07-2013 ursuant to E.O. 1352 

REF ID:A44761 
REF ID:A44761 

-ti~ • ,, ~ ~~ fJ,-vr 

krar 1e;~, 

(l;t4...--~ _;.)kt/1i<. 

.. t&WF~~-~ 

:~~u~ . th -::-:;&& #y~ 
REF ID:A44761 ., ~. ~ 

• . ~. ... ... •.; .. ·-- ...... . . .. 

. @;fjf /OR ~731 

---· --- - ·_ . -.-h ~".L_-

~ 

~- .. ...... ·- - .. 

·llJC'~....,.Y . -

.. --- r·'/ ~I ·.;;:; J '), 7 

~~ 

£Lc 
REF ID:A44761 ... ···:··>:'""~---

.. --------··-·~ ....... 

___ ..f __ '! _~. ___ JI 

- - -.. . . .. 

:;-~~1 

s~~d~ 

~~~~ 

--

~;l~t~ - ·' :-;·r·., ---- ..
DEBORAH J. BRAMMER,

Appellant,

v.

JILL PATE,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D15-2431

_____________________________/

Opinion filed November 3, 2016.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Clay County.

Daniel Wilensky, Judge.

Markus Sermons of Law Office of David M. Goldman, PLLC, Jacksonville, for 

Appellant.

Jill Pate, pro se, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

MAKAR, KELSEY, and WINSOR, JJ., CONCUR.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 21, 2016

No. 04-16-00409-CR

Adam MARROQUIN,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 186th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014CR4359

Honorable Jefferson Moore, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file the appellant’s brief is granted. We order 

appellant to file the appellant’s brief by January 13, 2017.

_________________________________

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

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

court on this 21st day of November, 2016.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-7011

BRETT C. KIMBERLIN,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WARDEN,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-04-2881-AW)

Submitted: February 22, 2006 Decided: March 8, 2006

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brett C. Kimberlin, Appellant Pro Se. Tamera Lynn Fine, OFFICE OF

THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Brett C. Kimberlin filed a petition under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 (2000), which the district court construed as a motion under

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Although the district court construed the § 2241 petition as a

§ 2255 motion, Kimberlin clearly intended to file a § 2241

petition. Kimberlin asserts on appeal that § 2255 is inadequate

and ineffective to test the legality of his detention and contends

that his claims should be considered in the context of his § 2241

petition. Because Kimberlin does not meet the standard set forth

in In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000), we affirm the

denial of relief. 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.

AFFIRMED
Exhibit 99.1

           CERTIFICATION 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 Annual Report of Arc Communications Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December 30, 2002, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned Chief Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 that:

(1)   the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      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
      as of and for the periods covered in the Report.


                    /s/ Steven Meyer
                    -----------------------
                    Steven Meyer,
                    Chief Executive Officer
                    Arc Communications Inc.
ii----.~~~~=================--=-- ----. - REF ID: A67 582 ::2 O - 71 b ;__.;.,~ / 

FILE 9'/ 

' Jun 4? &11\ar7 Int.ial.ligenc• Cub hnd .... Land~ at. ~ 

1. A -11 .Uita17 intelliaence 1"W1d baa be9U obt.a ln.t trca t.b• Direct.or 

.t Intelli&cu:• to caY•r upendit.vu :r-~red ror eecr.t ct' emer1eney P\ll"cha••• 

ud•r the ;>rodeione ot AGA0-3 U) (7 *1' 47) GlD-11. •ubjecti Use at ltilltor.r 

fat ell ig«ne9 1\Jnd •I dat.41d 12 "tltq 194 7 • 

I. fb• Chi•t, rt.cal Section• Sta.tt, ia authorised to di•buree tuncla t.o 

,pt0Pft'l1 allthor!H«l iN!ld.duala onl7 upon receipt ot a written request tor e;>eoitic 

lt..-. met tund• approv•d 'b,y th• Ch.let_. inq Seeurit;r AC912c7, and er.mta.inin& the 

fallow.lna certitiea.te dped b7 a D1rla1on Ch1eta 

-X cert.1!7 that proposed upenditurt ill in accordance "1th AGAO-S l2J 

(7 ~ 4?) ?LG!Ii-Y, llUbJi-cts U•• ot Military Intelligeno• Funde.u 

). AA 1tendsed receipt. aGat be turniahed the Chiet1 Fiae.U Section. Stat't, 

tor all it-. purohaeed. 

Declassified and Approved for Release by NSA on 02-21-2014 pursuant to E.O. 13526, FOIA Case# 0 

,. . ... .4.-~(J; ,j, 7~~· ~
X .,. _. I .. C' 

. .•• 

:. ./ 

CCG 

REF ID:A66836 

UNITED STATES AIR 

HEADQUARTERS 

FORCE SECURITY SERVICE 

• 

BROCKS AIR FORCE BASE, TEXAS 

SUBJECT: Letter of Appreciation 

THRU: 

TO: 

Director 

Armed Forces Securit:yAgenc:y 

Washington 25, D. c. 

Mr .. William F. Friedman 

Armed Forces Security Agency 

Washington 25, D. c. 

1. I would like to express my appreciation and that of the 

entire Air Force Security Service for ;your most interesting 

presentations made both to the Communications Security Of'ficers 1 

Conference and to personnel or this Command during the week 

12 - 16 March. 

2. I am SUl"e that there is not an individual who was 

privileged to attend your lectures, who does not feel richer for 

having made your acquaintance and shared in your vast fmld of 

lr.nowledge. Your years ot experience, tempered by your patience and 

willingness to assist others in avoiding unnecessary- pitfalls, haw 

contributed to the high standards of' security within the United 

States. 

3. We, in the Air Force Security Service, are looking forward 

to many more occasions when it will be possible for us to again 

participate in meetings in which you so willingly assist in training 

the future generation. 

ROY 

~N"t, • LINN 

Brigadier neral, USAF 

Commanding 

@'pp roved for Release bv NSA on 10-25-2013 pursuant to E .0. 1352\3 

i '· -
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-10348

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FREDERICK ODHIAMBO OPIYO,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:10-CR-181-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, PRADO, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Frederick O. Opiyo, federal prisoner # 39194-039, appeals the district 

court’s dismissal of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 60(d) motion 

challenging the revocation of his supervised release which resulted in a 

sentence of 24 months of imprisonment. Rule 60 does not provide a 

jurisdictional basis for relief from a criminal judgment. See United States v. 

Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994). To the extent that Opiyo’s motion may 

 

* 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

November 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-10348 Document: 00513767747 Page: 1 Date Filed: 11/21/2016
No. 16-10348

2

be deemed as a challenge to the result of his prior 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceeding, 

it is a second or successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Rich, 141 F.3d

550, 551-53 (5th Cir. 1998). Opiyo has not obtained authorization to file such 

a motion, which we would deny because his claims do not satisfy the standard 

for a successive motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h).

Although the district court denied Opiyo’s motion on the merits, the 

district court should have denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction. See Early, 

27 F.3d at 142. We can, and therefore do, AFFIRM on the alternative basis

that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the unauthorized motion. See 

id.

 Case: 16-10348 Document: 00513767747 Page: 2 Date Filed: 11/21/2016
<PAGE>   1
                                                                     EXHIBIT 15



Fleming Companies, Inc.
1945 Lakepointe Drive, Box 299013
Lewisville, Texas 75029

We have made a review, in accordance with standards established by the American
Institute of Certified Public Accountants, of the unaudited interim financial
information of Fleming Companies, Inc. and subsidiaries for the 12-week and
28-week periods ended July 14, 2001, and July 8, 2000, as indicated in our
report dated August 20, 2001; because we did not perform an audit, we expressed
no opinion on that information.

We are aware that our report referred to above, which is included in your
Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the 12 weeks ended July 14, 2001, is
incorporated by reference in the following:

         (i)      Registration Statement No. 2-98602 (1985 Stock Option Plan) on
                  Form S-8;

         (ii)     Registration Statement No. 33-36586 (1990 Fleming Stock Option
                  Plan) on Form S-8;

         (iii)    Registration Statement No. 33-56241 (Dividend Reinvestment and
                  Stock Purchase Plan) on Form S-3;

         (iv)     Registration Statement No. 333-11317 (1996 Stock Incentive
                  Plan) on Form S-8;

         (v)      Registration Statement No. 333-28219 (Associate Stock Purchase
                  Plan) on Form S-8;

         (vi)     Registration Statement No. 333-80445 (1999 Stock Incentive
                  Plan) on Form S-8;

         (vii)    Registration Statement No. 333-89375 (Consolidated Savings
                  Plus and Stock Ownership Plan) on Form S-8;

         (viii)   Registration Statement No. 333-40660 (Dividend Reinvestment
                  and Stock Purchase Plan) on Form S-3;

         (ix)     Registration Statement No. 333-40670 (2000 Stock Incentive
                  Plan) on Form S-8;

         (x)      Registration Statement No. 333-60176 (Shelf Registration of
                  Common Stock Maintained on behalf of U.S. Transportation, LLC,
                  an affiliate of The Yucaipa Companies LLC.) on Form S-3; and

         (xi)     Registration Statement No. 333-60178 (5.25% Convertible Senior
                  Subordinated Notes Due 2009 and Shares of Common Stock
                  Issuable upon Conversion of the Notes) on Form S-3.


We also are aware that the aforementioned report, pursuant to Rule 436(c) under
the Securities Act of 1933, is not considered a part of a registration statement
prepared or certified by an accountant or a report prepared or certified by an
accountant within the meaning of Sections 7 and 11 of that Act.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Dallas, Texas
August 20, 2001
REF ID:A39730 

•• COPY 

---- •• 

Attention tit the Solicitor 

April 1 1936 

The Honorable, 

The Commissi~ of' Patents, 

Dear irr. Camnissioner : 

It is requested that. tbe patent application ot William F. 

Friedman and Frabk B. Rowlett, empl.oJ9es or the -s:Lpl ·Corps, War 

Department, relating. to improVSJBlt in Cl')'ptograph8, Serial Ho. 70,lal.21 

tiled Jlarch 23, .1936, be placed mder the pr(Jri.aions. or Section 4894, 

rmsad Statutes, as WDded.1 u.s.c., title JS, sect10n 37. The title 

in and to this :S.livmtion has bean asslped to the United States, as · represented bJ' the Secretary of war·, bJ' Assigment amcutad by said 

Friedman and Rowlett under date or April 2, 1936. 

It has been da~d that the invention is important to the 

armamaa:b and def'ense ot the United states, and it is tberetora desired 

that the application be pl.aced uiider Section 4894, Revised Statutes, 

as ananded, to. avail the.War Department of the three·"jear period in 

which to·nake. response to the Patent.Office as prar.l.dad tor bT the 

Statuter.. in question. 

It is requested that the enclosed Assignment to the Secretary Ot War of the said im'ention and application be recorded under Comnissioner•s 

Order Ho.32.$0, September S, 1933 ·- u.s. Goftrmnant Assignments and attar 

recordation that it be retumed .to Charles A. Rawe, P&tents Section, SigDal. 

Corps, Room 1713 · llDni tions Building. 

Sinceral.7 ycjurs, 

(Signed) lfal1n Craig 

COPY 

----

c. ... c. ' • -"-'". Secretary ot War 

) 

@'pproved for Release by NSA on 01-02-2014 pursuantto E.O. 1352a
99-1220.

#### State v. Dancy.

Montgomery App. No. 16340. On motion for leave to file delayed appeal. Motion denied.

Lundberg Stratton, J., dissents.