alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

SOCIAL POSITIONING INPUT §

SYSTEMS, LLC, § Case No: 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP

§ 

Plaintiff, § PATENT CASE

§

vs. § 

§

VALVE CORPORATION, §

GEARBOX SOFTWARE, LLC, §

§ JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Defendants. §

___________________________________ §

PLAINTIFF’S RULE 7.1(a) CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1, Plaintiff Social Positioning Input Systems, LLC, states that 

Patent Asset Management, LLC is the parent corporation and that no publicly held corporation 

owns 10% or more of its stock.

Dated: November 30, 2023 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Randall Garteiser

Randall Garteiser

 Texas Bar No. 24038912 

 rgarteiser@ghiplaw.com

GARTEISER HONEA, PLLC

119 W. Ferguson Street

Tyler, Texas 75702

Telephone: (903) 705-7420

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 8 Filed 11/30/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 96
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above document 

has been served to all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic 

service via the Court’s CM/ECF system on.

/s/ Randall Garteiser

Randall Garteiser

Case 2:23-cv-00422-JRG-RSP Document 8 Filed 11/30/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 97
# C_2017191EN.01003201.xml

| 16.6.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 191/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.6.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 191/32

---

Opening of winding-up proceedings of an insurance undertaking

Decision to withdraw the authorisation of ‘INTERNATIONAL LIFE Life Insurance SA’ and open winding-up proceedings

(Publication in accordance with Article 280 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II))

(Publication in accordance with Article 280 of Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II))

(2017/C 191/05)

| Insurance undertaking | ‘INTERNATIONAL LIFE Life Insurance SA’, registered office at Kifisias 7 & Neapoleos 2, 15123 Marousi, General Commercial Register (GEMI) No 000954901000, Tax Identification Number (TIN) 094327788, Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) 213800HFA633NACOEZ72 |
| --- | --- |
| Date, nature of the decision and date of entry into force | Decision No 230/1/15.5.2017 of the Credit and Insurance Committee of the Bank of Greece concerning:






  (a) | the final withdrawal of the authorisation of the insurance undertaking and its placing under winding-up proceedings; |

Insurance undertaking

‘INTERNATIONAL LIFE Life Insurance SA’, registered office at Kifisias 7 & Neapoleos 2, 15123 Marousi, General Commercial Register (GEMI) No 000954901000, Tax Identification Number (TIN) 094327788, Legal Entity Identifier (LEI) 213800HFA633NACOEZ72

Date, nature of the decision and date of entry into force

Decision No 230/1/15.5.2017 of the Credit and Insurance Committee of the Bank of Greece concerning:

(a)

the final withdrawal of the authorisation of the insurance undertaking and its placing under winding-up proceedings;

| (b) | the prohibition of the free disposal of its assets; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the prohibition of the free disposal of its assets;

| (c) | the termination of the work of the appointed Insurance Administrator. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the termination of the work of the appointed Insurance Administrator.

Entry into force: as of the adoption date (15 May 2017)

End of validity: not specified

Competent authorities

Bank of Greece

| Address | : | E. Venizelou 21 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 10250 Athens |
| GREECE |

Address

:

E. Venizelou 21

10250 Athens

GREECE

Supervisory authorities

Bank of Greece

| Address | : | E. Venizelou 21 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 10250 Athens |
| GREECE |

Address

:

E. Venizelou 21

10250 Athens

GREECE

Insurance liquidator

Sotirios Vasilopoulos (father’s name: Ilias), appointed by decision 231/1/15.5.2017 of the Credit and Insurance Committee

Applicable law

Greek law in accordance with Articles 109, 110, 114, 226 and 235 of Law 4364/2016.

---
Jordon Louis DONGARRA, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES

No. 19-5066

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
Exhibit 32


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

         Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer
of EarthShell Corporation (the "Company") for the purposes of 18 U.S.C.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of his knowledge:

(1)  The Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended
     September 30, 2003 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 such report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated November 11, 2003

By: /s/ Simon K. Hodson
     ------------------
      Simon K. Hodson
      Chief Executive Officer


By: /s/ D. Scott Houston
   --------------------
      D. Scott Houston
      Chief Financial Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION 

THE DAILY WIRE, LLC et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 

OF STATE et al., 

Defendants.

 Civil Action No. 6:23-cv-00609-JDK

PLAINTIFFS’ STATEMENT ON DISCOVERY 

The Court’s June 13, 2024, Preliminary Injunction Scheduling Order (“Order”), ECF No. 

62, set today as a deadline for the parties to notify the Court if there were any disputes regarding 

Defendants’ responses to Plaintiffs expedited Requests for Production and Interrogatories. After 

multiple conferrals Plaintiffs are pleased to report that the parties have tentatively resolved their 

various disagreements to an extent that Court intervention is not currently required. 

While there was general disagreement related to discovery as applied to the State 

Department, i.e., beyond GEC, Plaintiffs are hopeful that an agreement, in principle, concerning 

the provision of relevant discovery, coupled with continued good faith conferrals and practices, 

will address any issues. 

Dated: July 1, 2024

KEN PAXTON

Attorney General

BRENT WEBSTER

First Assistant Attorney General

/s/ Jenin Younes 

JENIN YOUNES

Lead Attorney

NY Bar No. 5020847 

NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE

jenin.younes@ncla.legal

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 67 Filed 07/01/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 2081
2 

RALPH MOLINA

Deputy Attorney General for Legal Strategy 

RYAN D. WALTERS

Chief, Special Litigation Division

/s/ Susanna Dokupil (by permission) 

SUSANNA DOKUPIL

Attorney in Charge 

Special Counsel

Texas Bar No. 24034419 

JONATHAN STONE

Special Counsel

Texas Bar No. 24071779 

AMY HILTON

Special Counsel 

Texas Bar No. 24097834 

JACOB E. PRZADA

Special Counsel

Texas Bar No. 24125371 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS

Special Litigation Division

P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 

Austin, Texas 78711-2548 

Tel.: (512) 463-2100 

susanna.dokupil@oag.texas.gov 

jonathan.stone@oag.texas.gov 

amy.hilton@oag.texas.gov 

jacob.przada@oag.texas.gov 

Counsel for the State of Texas

MARGOT J. CLEVELAND

Michigan Bar No. 83564 

NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE

margot.cleveland@ncla.legal

ZHONETTE M. BROWN

D.C. Bar No. 463407 

NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE

zhonette.brown@ncla.legal 

MARGARET A. LITTLE

Connecticut Bar No. 303494 

peggy.little@ncla.legal 

NEW CIVIL LIBERTIES ALLIANCE

1225 19th Street NW, Suite 450

Washington, DC 20036 

Tel.: (202) 869-5210 

Counsel for Plaintiffs The Daily Wire 

Entertainment LLC and FDRLST Media LLC

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 67 Filed 07/01/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 2082
3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On July 1, 2024, I electronically submitted this document to the clerk of the court of the 

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas using the court’s electronic case filing system. I 

certify that I have served all parties electronically or by another manner authorized by Federal Rule 

of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2).

/s/ Margot J. Cleveland

Case 6:23-cv-00609-JDK Document 67 Filed 07/01/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 2083
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30782 Summary Calendar

JAMES KNOX POLK, JR., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus DETENTION CENTER OF NATCHITOCHES PARISH; CRAWFORD FICKLIN; OTIS SHIELDS; DEAN DOVE; FAYE LEWIS, Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 00-CV-293

-------------------- February 20, 2002 Before GARWOOD, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * James Knox Polk, Louisiana prisoner # 337496, appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Polk filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that while he was a pretrial detainee, the defendants housed him with convicts who attacked him. We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de

novo , applying the same standard as would the district court.No. 01-30782 -2- Melton v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n of Am. , 114 F.3d 557, 559 (5th Cir. 1997). For at least a portion of the time that Polk was housed at the Natchitoches Parish Detention Center, he was a pretrial detainee. “ The State owes the same duty under the Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment to provide both pretrial detainees and convicted inmates with basic human needs, including medical care and protection from harm during their confinement.” Hare v. City of Corinth , 74 F.3d 633, 650 (5th Cir. 1996)(en banc). A prison official is not liable under § 1983 unless the prisoner shows that the official exhibited deliberate indifference to his conditions of confinement or serious medical needs. Farmer v. Brennan , 511 U.S. 825, 837-43 (1994). The prisoner must show that the official: (1) was aware of facts from which an inference of an excessive risk to the prisoner’s health or safety could be drawn; (2) drew an inference that such potential for harm existed; and (3) disregarded that risk by failing to take reasonable measures to abate it. Id. at 837, 847. A pretrial detainee’s claim based upon a jail official’s “episodic act or omission” is also evaluated under the standard of subjective deliberate indifference enunciated in Farmer
. Hare 74 F.3d at 648. The record shows that, the defendants met their burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact, thereby entitling them to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986); see also F ED . R. C IV . P. 56(c). The incarceration records and the defendants’ affidavits show that the defendants responded to Polk’sNo. 01-30782 -3- complaints as to specific individuals by repeatedly moving him to different dormitories. Polk makes only conclusory allegations of the defendants’ liability to support his claims. See Koch v. Puckett , 907 F.2d 524, 530 (5th Cir. 1990). The district court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The district court’s judgment dismissing Polk’s § 1983 complaint is AFFIRMED.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

TRUESIGHT COMMUNICATIONS LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD and 

SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, 

INC.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 2:23-cv-00643-JRG

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER

In accordance with the Joint Motion to Amend Scheduling Order (Dkt. No. 24), it is hereby 

ORDERED that the following schedule of deadlines is in effect until further order of this Court:

Original Date Amended Date Event

June 12, 2024 (2 Weeks After 

Scheduling Conference)

June 20, 2024 *File Proposed Docket Control Order and 

Proposed Discovery Order

The Proposed Docket Control Order and 

Proposed Discovery Order shall be filed as 

separate motions with the caption indicating 

whether or not the proposed order is opposed 

in any part. 

Case 2:23-cv-00643-JRG Document 24-1 Filed 06/12/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 267
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Rudolph Harris, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

June 19, 1973.

*Jesse Zaslav*for appellant. *Frank S. Hogan, District Attorney (David L. Levinson*and *Anthony J. Girese*of counsel), for respondent.

*Per Curiam.*

Absent proof that the defendant desk clerk was aware that the premises were to be used for purposes of prostitution, which proof was not herein adduced, the mere knowing rental of a room to parties known not to be married to each other does not constitute a violation of the Penal Law.

Accordingly, as recognized by the respondent, reversal is required.

The judgment of conviction should be reversed on the law and the facts, complaint dismissed, and fine remitted.

Concur — Lupiano, J. P., Fine and Frank, JJ.

Judgment of conviction reversed, etc.
Kathleen K. JOHNSON, Individually and as Trustee of the Annabell M. Palmer Family Trust, et al., Petitioners, v. UBS AG.

No. 19-989.

Supreme Court of the United States.

March 23, 2020

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 307
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 308
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 309
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 310
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 311
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 312
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 313
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 314
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 315
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 316
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 317
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 318
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 319
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 320
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 321
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 16 of 28 PageID #: 322
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 17 of 28 PageID #: 323
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 18 of 28 PageID #: 324
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 19 of 28 PageID #: 325
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 20 of 28 PageID #: 326
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 21 of 28 PageID #: 327
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 22 of 28 PageID #: 328
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 23 of 28 PageID #: 329
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 24 of 28 PageID #: 330
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 25 of 28 PageID #: 331
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 26 of 28 PageID #: 332
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 27 of 28 PageID #: 333
Case 2:23-cv-00637-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 06/21/24 Page 28 of 28 PageID #: 334
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7966

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

VERNELL BROWN RANDOLPH,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Jerome B. Friedman,

District Judge. (4:04-cr-00024-JBF; 4:06-cv-00007-JBF)

Submitted: March 22, 2007 Decided: March 29, 2007

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vernell Brown Randolph, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Vernell Brown Randolph seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

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 any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Randolph has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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
INDIANA, petitioner, v. Robert BOWMAN, et al.

No. 17-1472.

Supreme Court of the United States

Oct. 1, 2018.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Indiana, Second District denied.
AO 399 (01/09) Waiver of the Service of Summons

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for the

__________ District of __________

)

)

)

)

)

Plaintiff

v. Civil Action No.

Defendant

WAIVER OF THE SERVICE OF SUMMONS

To:

(Name of the plaintiff’s attorney or unrepresented plaintiff)

I have received your request to waive service of a summons in this action along with a copy of the complaint,

two copies of this waiver form, and a prepaid means of returning one signed copy of the form to you. 

I, or the entity I represent, agree to save the expense of serving a summons and complaint in this case. 

I understand that I, or the entity I represent, will keep all defenses or objections to the lawsuit, the court’s

jurisdiction, and the venue of the action, but that I waive any objections to the absence of a summons or of service. 

I also understand that I, or the entity I represent, must file and serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 within

60 days from , the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the

United States). If I fail to do so, a default judgment will be entered against me or the entity I represent.

Date:

Signature of the attorney or unrepresented party

Printed name of party waiving service of summons Printed name

Address

E-mail address

Telephone number

Duty to Avoid Unnecessary Expenses of Serving a Summons

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires certain defendants to cooperate in saving unnecessary expenses of serving a summons

and complaint. A defendant who is located in the United States and who fails to return a signed waiver of service requested by a plaintiff located in

the United States will be required to pay the expenses of service, unless the defendant shows good cause for the failure.

“Good cause” does not include a belief that the lawsuit is groundless, or that it has been brought in an improper venue, or that the court has

no jurisdiction over this matter or over the defendant or the defendant’s property. 

If the waiver is signed and returned, you can still make these and all other defenses and objections, but you cannot object to the absence of

a summons or of service. 

If you waive service, then you must, within the time specified on the waiver form, serve an answer or a motion under Rule 12 on the plaintiff

and file a copy with the court. By signing and returning the waiver form, you are allowed more time to respond than if a summons had been served.

60 days from , the date when this request was sent (or 90 days if it was sent outside the

United States). If I fail to do so, a default judgment 

 Eastern District of Texas

Hanshow Technology Co., Ltd. et al.

SES-imagotag SA et al.

2:23-CV-00617

Mr. Hao Tan (Arch & Lake LLP)

01/05/2024

01/09/2024

SES-imagotag SA

/s/C. Gregory Gramenopoulos

C. Gregory Gramenopoulos

Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner, LLP

 901 New York Avenue, NW

 Washington, DC 20001-4413

c.gregory.gramenopoulos@finnegan.com

(202) 408-4000

Case 2:23-cv-00617-RWS-RSP Document 9 Filed 01/11/24 Page 1 of 1 PageID #: 314
III 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 629 

To authorize the production of records by the Committee on Armed Services. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 1 (legislative day, DECEMBER 30, 2012), 2013 

Mr. REID (for himself and Mr. MCCONNELL) submitted the following 

resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

To authorize the production of records by the Committee 

on Armed Services. 

Whereas, the United States Air Force has initiated an independent review of the case of Major General John D. 

Lavelle, who has been nominated to be advanced posthumously on the retired list to the rank of general; 

Whereas, the Committee has received a request from the Secretary of the Air Force that those conducting the independent review of Major General Lavelle’s nomination be 

given access to the Committee’s executive session documents relating to Major General Lavelle’s 1972 nomination to the rank of lieutenant general on the retired list 

of the Air Force; 

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States 

and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no eviVerDate Mar 15 2010 23:12 Jan 01, 2013 Jkt 029200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SR629.ATS SR629

srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with 
2 

•SRES 629 ATS 

dence under the control or in the possession of the Senate can, by administrative or judicial process, be taken 

from such control or possession but by permission of the 

Senate; 

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or 

in the possession of the Senate is needed for the promotion of justice, the Senate will take such action as will 

promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges 

of the Senate: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the Chairman and Ranking Minority 

2 Member of the Committee on Armed Services, acting 

3 jointly, are authorized to provide, under appropriate secu4 rity procedures, records from the Committee’s executive 

5 sessions relating to Major General John D. Lavelle’s 1972 

6 nomination to those persons conducting the independent 

7 review of Major General Lavelle’s case on behalf of the 

8 Air Force. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with