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

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1891 

To provide for the inclusion on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall of 

the names of the soldiers who died on Flying Tiger Flight 739 on 

March 16, 1962. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 18, 2019 

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

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To provide for the inclusion on the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall of the names of the soldiers who died on 

Flying Tiger Flight 739 on March 16, 1962. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Flying Tiger Flight 

5 739 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 1891 IS

1 SEC. 2. INCLUSION ON THE VIETNAM VETERANS MEMO2 RIAL WALL OF THE NAMES OF THE SOLDIERS 

3 WHO DIED ON FLYING TIGER FLIGHT 739 ON 

4 MARCH 16, 1962. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than one year after the 

6 date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense 

7 shall authorize the inclusion on the Vietnam Veterans Me8 morial Wall in the District of Columbia of the names of 

9 the 93 soldiers who died on Flying Tiger Flight 739 when 

10 it crashed in the Pacific Ocean en route to Vietnam on 

11 March 16, 1962. 

12 (b) REQUIRED CONSULTATION.—The Secretary of 

13 Defense shall consult with the Secretary of the Interior, 

14 the American Battle Monuments Commission, and other 

15 applicable authorities with respect to any adjustments to 

16 the nomenclature and placement of names pursuant to 

17 subsection (a) to address any space limitations on the 

18 placement of additional names on the Vietnam Veterans 

19 Memorial Wall. 

20 (c) NONAPPLICABILITY OF COMMEMORATIVE WORKS

21 ACT.—Chapter 89 of title 40, United States Code (com22 monly known as the ‘‘Commemorative Works Act’’), shall 

23 not apply to any activities carried out under subsection 

24 (a) or (b). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
Case 1:07-cv-03347-DC Document 26 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03347-DC Document 26 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03347-DC Document 26 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-03347-DC Document 26 Filed 08/05/2008 Page 4 of 4
### EZNE‘IIGENERAL OF-XAS

Honorable John Allen Chairman, Conservationand Reclamation Committee, House of Representatives State Capitol Building Austin, Texas 78711 Opinion No. M-351 Re: House Bill No. 176, 61st Legislature,amending Article 7468, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925; effect on fiftyyear protection clause Dear Mr. Allen: in the Constitution.

As Chairman of the Coneervatlonand Reclamation Committee you have submitted to us House Bill No. 176, and asked our opinion as to whether or not its effectwill be to supersede the existlng'flfty-yearprotection clause set out in Section 49(d) of Article III of the Constitutionof Texas. This constitutionalprovisionwas adopted November 6, 1962, and as amended November 8, 1966, regulates the acquisition and development of water storage facilities, flltration, treatment and transportationof water, atd enlargement of reservoirs. The pertinentproviso reads:

....provlded. however, the Texas Water DevelopmentFund or any other state fund provided for water development, transmission, transfer or filtration shall not be used to financeany projectwhich contemplatesor results In the removal from the basin of origin of any surfacewater necessary to supply the reasonable foreseeable future water requirements for thenext ensuing fifty-yearperiod within the rixer basis of origin, except on a temporary, interim basis. House Bill No, 176 amends presentArticle 7468, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, 1925, by adding thereto the words 'or for any other beneficialuse." Article 7468 provides the purposes for which water may be stored.

You have advised that thewords "beneficialuse" resulted in some concern among members of the House as to whether or not the Water Development Board could transfer

-1Y42-**Hon.** John Allen, page 2(M-351)

water from East Texas basins to other basinsand thus circumvent the fifty-yearprotection clause in the Constltution.
It is the opinion of this office that the mere addition of the words 'orfor any other beneficialuse" could not legallybe used to violateor circumvent the fifty-year period restrictionwritten into the Constitutionof Texas by Section 49(d) of Article III.

Furthermore,we have been assuredby counsel for the Texas Water Development Board that there is no intent on the part of the Texas Water Development Board to use this language as an overriding constructionof the constitutional fifty-year restriction.

SUMMARY Amendment to Article 7468, Revised Civil Statutes of Texas, by House Bill No. 176 by adding,,the

words, "or for any other beneficial does not override the fifty-yearprotecF&'clause In Article III, Section 49(d) of the Constitutionof Texas.

rney General of Texas Prepared by Vlnce Taylor AssistantAttorney Qeneral APPROVED: OPINION COMMITTEE Kerns Taylor, Chairman George Kelton,Vice-Chairman John Grace Fisher A. Tyler Roland Allen Houghton Brownlee W. V. Geppart Staff LegalAssistant -1743-
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 1 of 22
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 2 of 22
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 3 of 22
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 4 of 22
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 5 of 22
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 6 of 22
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 7 of 22
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 8 of 22
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 9 of 22
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 10 of 22
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 11 of 22
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 12 of 22
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 13 of 22
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 14 of 22
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 15 of 22
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 16 of 22
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 17 of 22
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 18 of 22
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 19 of 22
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 20 of 22
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 21 of 22
Case 7:07-cv-03305-KMK-LMS Document 1 Filed 04/24/2007 Page 22 of 22
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-30-2000
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,181
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      4,532
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                24,534
<PP&E>                                          34,913
<DEPRECIATION>                                  20,841
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  41,374
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,977
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         6,550
<OTHER-SE>                                      19,236
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    41,374
<SALES>                                         40,786
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                40,786
<CGS>                                           32,792
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   39,091
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     7
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 132
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,556
<INCOME-TAX>                                       560
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                996
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       996
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.40
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.40


</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-03493-CM Document 5-11 Filed 05/04/2007 Page 1 of 1
#### CASSIDY v. CHEEK

No. 576PA82.

Case below: 58 N.C. App. 742.

Petition by plaintiff for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 7 December 1982.
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 22

- 00480

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 2

Denton County, Texas Trial Court No. CV

- 2022

- 03594

- JP

Before Sudde rth, C.J.; Kerr and Birdwell, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### J ACQUELINE 

### W

ALDROUP 

### , Appellant

V



### . S OMERSET 

### A PARTMENTS 

### , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT Appellant ’ s brief was du e on May 12, 2023

. On May 23, 2023, we notified her
that her brief had not been filed as the Texas Rules of Appellate Pro cedure requi re . See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a)

. We warned that we coul d dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless , within ten days, A ppellant filed a brief and a n accompanying motion reasonably explaining the brief’s untimel iness

. See Tex. R. App. P. 10. 5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). More than twenty day s have passed, but w e have not received a
response.
Because A ppellant has failed to file a brief , we dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42. 3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam
Deliv ered : June 22, 2023
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-22 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-03345-RJS Document 32-22 Filed 09/04/2008 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:06-cv-15054-AKH Document 3 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 1
Case 7:07-cv-03232-CS-LMS     Document 28      Filed 09/10/2008     Page 1 of 1
|   | 1. | The      annual report of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2008,      as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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. |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      April 30, 2009 | By:    | /s/       Jerry      L. Calvert                                    |
|---------------------------|--------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                 |   | Jerry      L. CalvertPresident      and Chief Executive Officer         |
|                      |   |                                                                    |
| Date:      April 30, 2009 | By:    | /s/       Kitty      B. Payne                                      |
|                 |   | Kitty      B. PayneExecutive      Vice President/Chief FinancialOfficer |

----
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 34-14 Filed 04/24/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 7:07-cv-03432-CS-MDF Document 34-14 Filed 04/24/2008 Page 2 of 2
1 The Honorable Nanette K. Laughrey, United States District Judge for the

Western District of Missouri, adopting the report and recommendation of the Honorable Sarah W. Hays, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-1091

___________ United States of America, * * Appellee, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * Western District of Missouri. * James L. Flippen, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: February 13, 2001 Filed: February 16, 2001

___________ Before WOLLMAN, Chief Judge, BOWMAN and MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. James L. Flippen pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm, an offense established by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (1994). As provided for in his plea agreement, he appeals the denial of his motion to suppress evidence. For reversal, he argues that the District Court 1 erred in finding that the officer who detained him and-2-

discoveredthe firearm (a loaded .45 caliber Ruger) on his person had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Instead, Flippen contends, he was simply a victim of racial profiling. Having reviewed the case, we are satisfied that Flippen's claims lack substance andthat his motion to suppress was properly denied. We agree with the District Court, for the reasons stated in that court's thorough and well-reasoned opinion, that the investigative stop leading to discovery of the firearm was proper under Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 (1968). No error of fact or law appears, and an opinion by this Court in this well-traveledarea of the law would add nothing of value to what the District Court has writt en. Accordingly, without further discussion the order of the District Court is AFFIRMED. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
EXHIBIT 32.2


                            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 DigitalFX International, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Lorne Walker, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:


     (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.




----------------------------------
Lorne Walker
Chief Financial Officer
March 15, 2007
# USS Oklahoma Sailor Accounted for from WWII (Boudreaux, R.)

/ Published Nov. 21, 2023
WASHINGTON, 
The Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency (DPAA) announced today that Navy Mess Attendant 1st Class Ralph M. Boudreaux, 20, of New Orleans, killed during World War II, was accounted for on July 26, 2021.

On Dec. 7, 1941, Boudreaux was assigned to the battleship USS *Oklahoma*, which was moored at Ford Island, Pearl Harbor, when the ship was attacked by Japanese aircraft. The USS *Oklahoma* sustained multiple torpedo hits, which caused it to quickly capsize. The attack on the ship resulted in the deaths of 429 crewmen, including Boudreaux.

From December 1941 to June 1944, Navy personnel recovered the remains of the deceased crew, which were subsequently interred in the Halawa and Nu’uanu Cemeteries.

In September 1947, tasked with recovering and identifying fallen U.S. personnel in the Pacific Theater, members of the American Graves Registration Service (AGRS) disinterred the remains of U.S. casualties from the two cemeteries and transferred them to the Central Identification Laboratory at Schofield Barracks. The laboratory staff was only able to confirm the identifications of 35 men from the USS *Oklahoma* at that time. The AGRS subsequently buried the unidentified remains in 46 plots at the National Memorial Cemetery of the Pacific (NMCP), known as the Punchbowl, in Honolulu. In October 1949, a military board classified those who could not be identified as non-recoverable, including Boudreaux.

Between June and November 2015, DPAA personnel exhumed the USS *Oklahoma* Unknowns from the Punchbowl for analysis.

To identify Boudreaux’s remains, scientists from DPAA used dental and anthropological analysis. Additionally, scientists from the Armed Forces Medical Examiner System used mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis.

Boudreaux’s name is recorded in the Courts of the Missing at the Punchbowl, along with the others who are missing from WWII. A rosette will be placed next to his name to indicate he has been accounted for.

Boudreaux will be buried on Jan. 29, 2024, in Slidell, Louisiana.

For family and funeral information, contact the Navy Casualty office at (800) 443-9298.

DPAA is grateful to the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of the Navy for their partnership in this mission.

For additional information on the Defense Department’s mission to account for Americans who went missing while serving our country, visit the DPAA website at www.dpaa.mil, find us on social media at www.facebook.com/dodpaa or https://www.linkedin.com/company/defense-pow-mia-accounting-agency.
#### REDEVELOPMENT COMM. v. COX

No. 188 P.C.

Case below: 39 N.C. App. 259.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 February 1979.
#### Lloyd LASHER v. METROPOLITAN STRUCTURES.

No. 90 C 5042.

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, E.D.

Jan. 17, 1991.

*1451Anthony Pinelli, Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff.

Howard L. Kastel, Timothy L. Moore-head, McDermott, Will & Emery, Chicago, Ill., for defendant.

ORDER

BUA, District Judge.

Plaintiff Lloyd Lasher alleges that defendant Metropolitan Structures (“Metropolitan”) terminated his employment in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621*et seq.*Metropolitan denies the claim and moves for summary judgment. Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Because genuine issues of material fact exist in this case, the court denies Metropolitan’s motion for summary judgment.

Lasher had worked for Metropolitan since 1980 and attained the position of general superintendent. In the summer-fall of 1988, he was winding down a job at the Fairmont Hotel. On September 6, 1988 he was called into his supervisor’s office, told his employment was terminated, and asked to leave that day. “Project completed— Lack of work” was the reason given for his termination.

In order to indirectly prove discrimination, a plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case. The plaintiff must show that “(1) he belongs to the protected class, (2) that his job performance was sufficient to meet his employer’s legitimate expectations, (3) that he was discharged in spite of his performance, and (4) that the employer sought a replacement for him.” *Dale v. Chicago Tribune Co.,*797 F.2d 458, 462 (7th Cir.1986), *cert. denied,*479 U.S. 1066, 107 S.Ct. 954, 93 L.Ed.2d 1002 (1987). If the plaintiff provides a prima facie case, his employer must respond with a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its action. Should one be given, the plaintiff must establish that the employer’s reason was a mere pretext. *Bechold v. IGW Systems, Inc.,*817 F.2d 1282, 1284-1285 (7th Cir.1987).

Lasher satisfies the prima facie case requirement. In response, Metropolitan has proffered a non-discriminatory reason for the termination — lack of work. Lasher contends that this reason is a pretext. And, based upon the information provided in the parties’ motions, the court cannot conclusively determine that the reason was not a pretext. The court is not convinced that job opportunities did not exist in Chicago. Work was completed at the Fairmont Hotel which Lasher could or possibly should have performed. Moreover, this does not appear to have been a general layoff situation. Opportunities may have already been in the pipeline that belie the company’s lack of work rationale. Metropolitan also appears to have had work in California; yet, the offer was never made to relocate Lasher to California.

As these and other issues of fact remain, the court is loath to grant summary judgment. Accordingly, Metropolitan’s motion for summary judgment is denied.
#### STATE v. EPPLEY

No. 32 PC.

Case below: 30 N.C. App. 217.

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 5 October 1976. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 5 October 1976.