alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Vermont City Builds on Guard's Partnership with Senegal

/ Published March 28, 2024

BURLINGTON, Vt. - The Burlington City Council voted unanimously March 25 to forge a sister-city relationship with Thies-East, Senegal, bolstering the cultural, academic, environmental and commercial ties between Vermont and Senegal.

The collaboration is set to open up a myriad of exchange opportunities, enriching both communities through shared experiences and knowledge. The agreement leverages their unique strengths for mutual benefit, aiming to deepen the bonds between the two regions.

Maj. Patrick Enriquez, director of the Vermont National Guard State Partnership Program, played a pivotal role in advocating for this initiative. Since 2008, the Vermont National Guard and Senegal have been closely linked through the Department of Defense National Guard Bureau State Partnership Program. 

Enriquez, alongside representatives from Green Across the World, a nonprofit that establishes international student exchanges, delivered compelling testimony before the council, highlighting the potential benefits of this sub-national diplomatic endeavor.

The partnership with Thies-East represents a new chapter in Vermont's commitment to fostering international friendships and cooperation. It builds on a foundation of longstanding ties with Senegal through the National Guard's engagement, promising a future rich in cultural and educational exchanges, environmental collaborations, and commercial ventures.

The National Guard has been building international relationships through the State Partnership Program for more than 30 years, and it now includes partnerships with 100 nations around the globe. Seventeen such pairings exist between African nations and state National Guard elements, with 16 in the USAFRICOM area of responsibility. 

Vermont is partnered with three nations, including North Macedonia, Senegal, and most recently, Austria.

“From my perspective, the SPP is one of the most significant initiatives that I’ve ever been a part of,” Army Maj. Gen. Gregory Knight, the Vermont Guard’s adjutant general, said last year. “At its foundation, it’s about trust. The relationships we’ve built are enduring and mutually beneficial.”
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 21.1


                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

        The following entities are corporations in which Raytel Medical
Corporation ("RMC") has an ownership interest:

        NAME OF CORPORATION                             STATE OF INCORPORATION

        Raytel Cardiac Services, Inc.                          Delaware
        Raytel Cardiovascular Labs, Inc. ("RCL")               Delaware
        Raytel Imaging Holdings, Inc. ("RIH")                  Delaware
        Raytel Management Holdings, Inc. ("RMH")               Delaware

        The following entities are corporations in which RIH has an ownership
interest:

        NAME OF CORPORATION                             STATE OF INCORPORATION

        Raytel Imaging East, Inc. ("RIE")                      Delaware
        Raytel Imaging Mid-Atlantic, Inc. ("RIMA")             Delaware
        Raytel Imaging West, Inc. ("RIW")                      Delaware
        Raytel Medical Imaging, Inc. ("RMI")                   Delaware
        Raytel Imaging Network, Inc.                           Delaware

        The following entities are corporations that RMH has an ownership
interest:

        NAME OF CORPORATION                             STATE OF INCORPORATION

        Raytel California Physician Services, Inc.             Delaware
        Raytel Texas Physician Services, Inc. ("RTPS")         Delaware

        RMI is the sole general partner and RMC is the sole limited partner of
Medical Imaging Partners L.P. ("MIP"), a Delaware limited partnership.

        RTPS is the sole general partner and RMH is the sole limited partner of
Raytel Southeast Management, L.P., a Texas limited partnership.

        RCL is the sole general partner and RGH is the sole limited partner of
Northern California Heart Center, Ltd., a California limited partnership.

        The following entities are partnerships in which RIE, RIMA, RIW or MIP
have an ownership interest:

                                                         STATE OF
        NAME OF CORPORATION                     OWNER    ORGANIZATION

        CIFMI Joint Venture                      RIW     California
        Five East 82nd Street Imaging Venture    RIE     New York
        Forest Hills Imaging Venture             RIE     New York
        Mass. Mobile Imaging Venture             MIP     Massachusetts
        MRI Diagnostic Partners I, L.P.-1986     RIMA    Pennsylvania
        MRI Building Partners I, L.P.-1986       RIMA    Pennsylvania
        Orlando Diagnostic Center                RIMA    California
        San Louis Obispo Medical 
              Imaging Center                     RIW     California
UNIT LETTERHEAD

DD MMM YY

MEMORANDUM FOR NGB-SL-JOM

SUBJECT: Joint Credit – Bulk Discretionary Point Submission

1. I have verified, through the review of official documentation (orders, OPRs/LOEs, Award 

narratives/citation, and/or official memo), that the following individuals have met the 

requirements set forth in CJCSI 1330.05, Enclosure B, for the award of Discretionary Points.

2. Joint Exercises: I certify the following individuals meet the CJCSI 1330.05, Enclosure B 

criteria for JCS-J7 approved joint exercises at the annotated participation level (participant, 

planner, leader). 

ANG or 

ARNG

SSN

(No 

dashes) Grade Last, First MI Exercise Start Date (MM/DD/YYYY)

Stop Date

(MM/DD/YYYY) Role

3. Point of contact is ____________, (###) ###-####/DSN ###-####, email ____________.

SIGNATURE BLOCK

O-6/GS-15 level, or higher
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6616

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus GLENN ALBERT STEWART, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., District Judge. (CR-97-53, CA-00-138-5) Submitted: June 12, 2003 Decided: June 20, 2003 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Glenn Albert Stewart, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Grimes Johnston, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Glenn A. Stewart seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. SeeMiller-El v. Cockrell , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stewart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Stewart’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
Exhibit 32.1

                            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 Quarterly  Report of RADVision Ltd. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period  ending June 30,  2004 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, Gad Tamari, Chief
Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 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 result of  operations of the
Company.


/s/Gad Tamari*
--------------
Gad Tamari
Chief Executive Officer
August 9, 2004


     * The originally  executed copy of this Certification will be maintained at
the Company's offices and will be made available for inspection upon request.
Exhibit  99.1


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

In  connection  with  the  filing  of  GSI  Technologies  USA  Inc.,  a Delaware
corporation  (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended July 31, 2003,
as  filed  with  the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Gilles Addison, President and CEO of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant  to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss.1350),
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.


Dated:  October 23rd, 2003




By:  /s/  Gilles Addison
------------------------
Gilles  Addison
President and CEO


<PAGE>
# Deployed units celebrate 371st birthday

/ Published Dec. 14, 2007

CAMP VICTORY, Iraq - The National Guard turned 371 on Dec. 13, and the occasion was not forgotten at Camp Victory, Iraq. At the Al-Faw Palace a ceremony was held to commemorate the event.

The event featured keynote speakers including Maj. Gen. Harold Cross, the adjutant general for Mississippi, and Brig. Gen. Mike Nevin, commander of the 177th Military Police Brigade, Michigan Army National Guard. Also in attendance were Soldiers from the oldest National Guard unit, 1st Battalion, 181st Infantry Regiment who trace their lineage back to Dec. 13, 1636, as well as the youngest unit, the 193rd Brigade Liaison Battalion, which was activated in June.

"Before there was a country, our forebears volunteered to defend, protect and serve their homes and communities," Nevin said. "Since then, a lot of things have changed. The equipment, the uniforms, the tactics, the doctrine, it all continues to change and constantly get better. But the people have not changed."

Cross spoke about the history of the Guard.

"On this date, in the Massachusetts Bay colony the governor of Massachusetts called forth those that would be brave enough to pick up a weapon and accouter themselves in some sort of uniform to provide security," Cross said. "It started a long tradition in what is now the United States of America to call on that courage, call on that small percentage, that real infinitesimal number of people in the population, that had courage to stand up to a threat but would also come back and have character and peace. These we now call our Citizen-Soldiers."

Quoting John F. Kennedy and Thomas Paine, among others, and invoking the can-do spirit of famed National Guardsman Teddy Roosevelt at one point, Cross praised the sacrifice of the modern-day "Minutemen," and said that today the Guard has a unique role both at home and abroad.

"Today 15 governors have called forth their National Guard to fight an ice storm in the Midwest, to fight fires in the West, to be on alert along the southwesternn border. With the 23,000 National Guardsmen in Iraq and the over 30,000 that are in CENTCOM, that still leaves plenty of National Guardsmen back home for the protection of our homeland," Cross said.

The ceremony was capped off when members of the oldest and youngest National Guard units were joined by the oldest and youngest National Guard servicemembers in attendance, and cut the birthday cake with a saber, celebrating year 371 for the Guard and looking toward the future.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-02-00699-CV

Ron Clark Ford, Inc., Appellant

v.

Motor Vehicle Board, Texas Department of Transportation

and Ford Motor Company, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 353RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. GN-200537, HONORABLE SCOTT H. JENKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

On March 10, 2003, appellant filed an unopposed motion to dismiss this cause with 

prejudice. The parties have informed this Court that they have settled their dispute. We will grant 

appellant=s motion; the appeal is dismissed with prejudice.

 

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Justices Kidd, Patterson and Puryear

Dismissed on Appellant=s Motion
Filed: March 20, 2003
**EXHIBIT 10.17**

 

**WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF ORAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN DR. DAVID C. COLLINS AND**

**LEARNING TREE INTERNATIONAL INC.**

 

As announced in the Company’s Form 8-K filed on September 27, 2005, Dr. David C. Collins will remain as Chairman of the Board with anannual compensation of one dollar per year. 

 

The Chairman isexpected to spend approximately 25% of his time on his duties, which include special projects and overseeing (with the concurrence of the Nominating and Governance Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors) a charitable budget for LearningTree of $200,000. Prior to October 2005, the Chairman was employed on a full time basis as the Chief Executive Officer of Learning Tree.
#### RICHARD WANZER et al., Appellees, *vs.*PHINEAS HARDY et al., Appellants.

APPEAL IN EQUITY PROM THE OIROUIT COURT OP RACINE COUNTY.

This was an appeal in equity from an order of the court below, denying a motion made by the defendants to suppress a deposition taken in the cause under a commission issued out of said court. • •

Several objections were taken to the commission and the deposition as returned. The commission contained the following words: “and you are further required'to certify the age of said witnessand tho commissioner omitted to certify his age in his certificate, but it was stated in the witness’s answer to one of she interrogatories.

Another objection was, that the commission does not certify that the witness was duly sworn before giving his testimony. The caption to the deposition states that the witness appeared before the commissioner, *“*and after being duly sworn,”' &c., and the certificate, states that the said witness, “ having been by the said commissioner duly sworn to make true answers to the several interrogatories,” &c.

Also, that the commission, after the title of the cause, did not contain the words “ in equity.”

• And because the commission did not contain the names of all ■the parties. The commission entitled, the cause *Bichard Wanzer et al. vs. Phineas Hardy et al.*

*H. S.*Saunders, for the appellants.

*■John W. Garey,*for the appellees.

*By the Court,*

Cole, J.

We can see no valid objection to the admission of the deposition of John N. Knapp, and therefore are .of -the opinion that the motion to suppress his deposition was *230properly denied by the Circuit Court. The question whether the deposition shall be suppressed, is a matter of discretion *(Underhill vs. Van Cortlandt,*2 *J. C. R.*389; *Dickens*R. 50; 2 *Danl. Chy. Prac.*1145), even where an irregularity has occurred in the examination of the witness; and by *section*28, *chap.*98, *B. S.,*great discretion is given to courts in regard to the admission or rejection of depositions taken out of the state. If the objections taken to the deposition of Knapp be considered, it will be seen that they are exceedingly technical; except the objection that the commissioner does not certify that the witness was duly sworn before giving his evidence, and this objection is not sustained by the certificate of the commissioner. The commissioner distinctly certifies that the witness, after having been by him duly sworn to make true answers to the several interrogations annexed to the commission, made the foregoing answers in reply thereto.

Again; it seems to be a very rigorous rule, where a party has had the benefit of a cross-examination, to hold that a deposition should be suppressed, because the names of all the parties to the bill are not inserted in the commission. Unless the parties are so numerous as to render it inconvenient to do so, it might be more desirable to have the. names of all the parties inserted in the commission; yet we do not think in this case a court would be justified in suppressing the deposition upon that ground.

The order of the Circuit Court is affirmed, with costs.
#### Kirby vs. Martin.

1. Appeal. — The amount of the *recovery*in justice’s court exclusive of costs is the test by which to determine whether the remedy of the defeated party is by appeal or certiorari, and in no case can a party resort to either at his election.

2. Same — Replevin.— In an action of replevin, the amount of the recovery which is to determine whether it can be reviewed by appeal or certiorari is the value of the property and the damages found, if any, exclusive of costs. *Inman v. Gower, ante,*152.

(4 Chand., 91.)

ERROR to the Circuit Court for *Rock*County.

The case is stated in the opinion of the court.

*Matt. H.*Carpenter, for plaintiff in error.

*Wrn. M. Crozier,*for defendant in error.

Kn'O'wxton, J.

This was an action of replevin brought before a justice of the peace of Rock county by the plaintiff in error, for the recovery of a horse valued at forty dollars. The justice rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and found the value of the horse to be forty dollars, but assessed no dam*386ages, and entered the proper order for the delivery of the horse to the plaintiff.

The defendant, by writ of certiorari, removed the cause to the county court. The plaintiff objected to the jurisdiction of the court, on the ground that the cause could not be removed to said court except by appeal, as the value of the horse recovered was over fifteen dollars. The county court overruled the objection, retained the case, and reversed the judgment of the justice. Prom this judgment, error is brought to this court.

It is clear, that under our statute two remedies for the removal of causes, like the one before the court, to the county court, do not exist. It is either by appeal, or by a writ of certiorari. In the case of *Inman v. Gower,*ante, 152, this question was virtually settled. In that case, the recovery was $15, value of the property, and six cents damages ; and this court held that an appeal lay to the county court. Inasmuch as an appeal and certiorari cannot both be had in this case, the recovery being more than fifteen dollars, an appeal was the proper and only remedy. The judgment must be reversed.

Judgment reversed.
O!nngrtnn nf ifrt linift~ §faits 

ma.aqingtnn, i}Qr 20515 

Administrator Gina McCarthy 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of the Administrator 

Mail code 11 01 A 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Administrator McCarthy: 

April6, 2015 

We are writing to you regarding concerns over a pending Title V permit for the Veolia Hazardous 

Waste Incineration (HWI) facility in Sauget, Illinois. There are some serious concerns that have been 

raised to us by Veolia concerning the methods, processes, and conditions Region 5 intends to impose 

as a condition of issuing the permit. 

We are respectfully requesting that Region 5 delay issuing this permit until these concerns can be 

addressed. As time is of the essence on this matter we are requesting a telephone conference call to 

discuss this matter before April 9. 

Our specific concerns are outlined below: 

1. Rulemaking - Attached you will find information provided to us from Veolia officials and 

their attorneys regarding EPA Region 5's position that the Veolia HWI facility install very 

expensive and yet unverified monitors on its stacks or its fence line (Xact technology) that we 

understand comes from a sole source supplier (Cooper Environmental Services) and is·not 

being used anywhere else in the United States or the world. It is our belief that if the Xact is 

now EPA's preferred monitoring system, it should be applied through Congressional 

rulemaking. Why is Veolia being required to install Xact monitors versus other proven 

monitoring systems? 

2. Sole Source- Why is Region 5 requiring Veolia to contract solely with Cooper Environmental 

Services in order to finalize Veolia's Title V permit? It is our understanding that Veolia has 

offered to install ambient fence-line monitoring equipment that has been proven, tested, and is 

currently in use in numerous other places in the United States and the world. However, Veolia 

does not believe that the Cooper Xact technology meets Method 29 standards, and they should 

not be the only facility in the world forced to install it and perfect it at their expense. 

PAINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 
Again, we are requesting a telephone conference call on this matter before April 9. If you have any 

further comments or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us Mark Ratto with Representative 

Bost at 202-225-5661, Robert Frederick with Representative Davis at 225-2371, or Chris Sarley 

with Representative Shimkus at 225-5271 . 

Mike Bost 

Member of Congress 

Sincerely, 

Rodney Davis 

Member of Congress
Exhibit 32

                                             CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                              AS ADOPTED PURSUANT BY
                                   SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In  connection   with  the  Quarterly   Report  of  Green  Clover  Luck
Corporation,  on Form 10-QSB for the period  ending March 31, 2003 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  Daniel L. Hodges, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to ss. 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  that to the best of my
knowledge and belief:

         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 result of  operations of the
Company.


Date: April 19, 2004

/s/ Daniel L. Hodges
Daniel L. Hodges
President
(Principal Executive & Accounting Officer)


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.