alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
S6290 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 8, 1995

APPOINTMENTS BY THE VICE

PRESIDENT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Chair, on behalf of the Vice President,

pursuant to 22 U.S.C. 276h–276k, as

amended, appoints the Senator from

New Mexico [Mr. BINGAMAN] as a member of the Senate Delegation to the

Mexico-United States

Interparliamentary Group during the

first session of the 104th Congress, to

be held in Tucson, AZ, May 12–14, 1995.

The Chair, on behalf of the Vice

President, in accordance with 22 U.S.C.

1928a–1928d, as amended, appoints the

following Senators as members of the

Senate delegation to the North Atlantic Assembly Spring Meeting during

the first session of the 104th Congress,

to be held in Budapest, Hungary, May

25–29, 1995:

The Senator from Alaska [Mr. MURKOWSKI]; the Senator from Colorado

[Mr. BROWN]; the Senator from New

Hampshire [Mr. GREGG]; the Senator

from Texas [Mrs. HUTCHISON]; the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. JOHNSTON];

the Senator from Arkansas [Mr.

PRYOR]; and the Senator from Hawaii

[Mr. AKAKA

RECESS UNTIL 9:15 A.M.

].

fTOMORROW

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, if

there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous

consent that the Senate stand in recess

under the previous order.

There being no objection, the Senate,

at 6:22 p.m., recessed until Tuesday,

May 9, 1995, at 9:15 a.m.

Executive nominations received by

NOMINATIONS

fthe Senate May 8, 1995:

CIVIL LIBERTIES PUBLIC EDUCATION FUND

LEO K. GOTO, OF COLORADO, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE

BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CIVIL LIBERTIES PUBLIC

EDUCATION FUND FOR A TERM OF 2 YEARS. (NEW POSITION).

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

PATRICK M. RYAN, OF OKLAHOMA, TO BE U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA FOR

THE TERM OF 4 YEARS, VICE VICKI MILES-LAGRANGE,

RESIGNED.

CONFIRMATIONS

fExecutive nominations confirmed by

the Senate May 8, 1995:

U.S. INSTITUTE OF PEACE

HARRIET M. ZIMMERMAN, OF FLORIDA, TO BE A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE U.S. INSTITUTE OF PEACE FOR A TERM EXPIRING JANUARY 19, 1999.

THE ABOVE NOMINATION WAS APPROVED SUBJECT TO

THE NOMINEE’S COMMITMENT TO RESPOND TO REQUESTS TO APPEAR AND TESTIFY BEFORE ANY DULY

CONSTITUTED COMMITTEE OF THE SENATE.

THE JUDICIARY

MAXINE M. CHESNEY, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

ELDON E. FALLON, OF LOUISIANA, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT

JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA.

CURTIS L. COLLIER, OF TENNESSEE, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE.

JOSEPH ROBERT GOODWIN, OF WEST VIRGINIA, TO BE

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF

WEST VIRGINIA.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

JOE BRADLEY PIGOTT, OF MISSISSIPPI, TO BE U.S. ATTORNEY FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI

FOR THE TERM OF 4 YEARS.
#### Samuel J. Taylor et al. v. J. L. Tompkins.

(No. 1881, Op. Book No. 2, p. 286.)

Appeal from Denton County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1050. *Promissory note; negotiable and non-negotiable.*An indispensable quality of a negotiable promissory note is that it be for the payment of *money only.*[1 Daniel on Neg. Inst. §§ 55 to 59.] It matters not what form of words may be used, if the maker of the note has the option to discharge the same either in money or in property, it is not a negotiable note. [Hopkins v. Seymour, 10 Tex. 202.]

*589May 25, 1881.

§ 1051. *Estoppel in pais.*When one by his words or conduct voluntarily causes another to believe the existence of a certain state of things, and thereby induces him to act on that belief so as to alter his own previous position, the former is concluded from averring against the latter a different state of things as existing at the same time. This is known in law as an *estoppel in pais.*[Latham v. Pledger, 11 Tex. 439; Love v. Barber, 17 Tex. 312; Little v. Birdwell, 21 Tex. 597; Williams v. Chandler, 25 Tex. 4; Scoby v. Sweatt, 28 Tex. 713; Page v. Arnim, 29 Tex. 53; Ryan v. Maxey, 43 Tex. 192.] A party may be estopped by acts and declarations which were designed to influence another who has acted upon them, although both parties were ignorant that what is thereby represented is not true; for if one of two innocent parties must suffer, he through whose agency the loss occurred should sustain it. [Page v. Arnim, 29 Tex. 53.] But it will be observed that to work an estoppel, when both parties are ignorant of the true state of the case, the acts or declarations must be done or made with the design to influence the other to act in the particular matter. Only the parties and their privies are bound by an estoppel, and only those to whom the representations were made or intended to influence, and their privies, can avail themselves of it. [Bigelow on Estoppel, p. 484.]

Reversed and remanded.
ORIGINAL 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

DA 22-0209 

CLARKSTON FIRE SERVICE AREA #6, 

Plaintiff and Appellee, 

v. 

DAWN DAVIS LEMIEUX, STEVEN LEMIEUS 

and TRACY ELLEN SHAW, 

Defendants, 

MONTANA COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATION, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

MAY 1 6 2022 

Bowcsn Crli 

Clerk of supreme C.. 

Siata r•I • 

ORDER 

This Court reviews briefs to ensure compliance with Rules 11 and 12 of the 

Montana Rules of Appellate Procedure. After reviewing the Appellant's Brief filed on 

May 13, 2022, this Court has determined that the brief does not comply with the Rules 

and must be resubmitted. 

Montana Rule of Appellate Procedure 12(1)(i), requires that the relevant 

judgment, order(s), findings of fact, conclusions of law, jury instruction(s), ruling(s), or 

decision(s) from which the appeal is taken together with any written memorandum or 

rationale of the court, and those pages of the transcript containing any oral ruling in 

support thereof, be contained in an appellant's brief to this Court. The Appellant 

included an appendix containing only the Final Judgment in this matter, but on appeal 

challenges the District Court's decisions and analysis found in its summary judgment 

order; that order must be attached as an appendix as well. Therefore, 

IT IS ORDERED that the signed original and seven copies of the referenced brief 

be returned for revisions necessary to comply with the specified Rule; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a signed original and seven copies of the 

revised brief ordered herein be filed within ten (10) days of the date of this Order with the 

05/16/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0209
Clerk of this Court and that one copy of the revised brief be served on each counsel of 

record; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no changes, additions, or deletions other than 

those specified in this Order may be made to the brief as originally filed; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the postage costs for returning the referenced 

copies of Appellant's Brief will be billed to Appellant by the Clerk of this Court and shall 

be due and payable upon receipt; and 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the times for any subsequent briefing contained 

in M. R. App. P. 13 shall run from the date of filing of the revised brief. 

The Clerk of this Court is directed to mail a true copy of this Order to Appellant 

and to mail a true copy of this Order to all counsel upon whom the brief was served. 

DATED this 16 day of May, 2022. 

For the Court, 

Justice
#### E. Schraum et al. v. A. Nolte, Sr.

(No. 1560, Op. Book No. 2, p. 434.)

Appeal from Guadalupe County.

Opinion by

Watts, J.

§ 1156. *Limitation; debt grounded upon contract in writing; note payable “on demand” etc.; reasonable time.*“All actions of debt grounded upon any contract in writing shall be commenced and sued within four years next after the cause of such action or suit, and not after.” [Pas. Dig. 4604.] [The language of the Revised Statutes, art. 3205, is different from the above, but the meaning is the same. — Ed.] The rule is well settled that a note payable on demand is payable immediately; that no special demand is necessary, but that the statute of limitations commences to run from the date of the note. [Cook v. Cook, 19 Tex. 436.] So, also, when a party received and receipted for a sum of money to be returned with interest “when called on” so to do, this created a cause of action from its date, and the statute commenced to run from that time. [Berry v. Griffith, 1 Har. & Gill (Md. R.) 440.] With regard to notes and bills payable “after sight” or “after notice,” the statute does not begin to run from the date of the bill or note; but the necessity is the same of making the presentment or notice in a reasonable time, as it is in making a demand in a reasonable time in notes payable “after demand.” [Angell on Lim. § 97.] What this reasonable time is depends upon the circumstances of each particular case; and in this respect no definite rule has been laid down. The question is one of fact for the jury, and not of law for abstract judicial decision. [Wallace v. Agrey, 4 Mason C. C. R. 336.] It is held that if no cause for delay can be shown, the demand is barred, unless made within the period of the statute of limitations, and the right of action is extinguished by the delay. [34 Penn. St. 12; 36 Mich. 487; 24 Am. Rep. 605; 40 Vermont, 540; 10 Pick. 120; 22 Ohio St. 27.] In this case the note sued upon *658was made payable “after a six months’ notice is given.” Note dated April 26, 1872. Suit filed November 4, 1879. *Held,*that the notice must have been given within a reasonable time after the date of the note, and that unless this was shown to have been done, the note was barred, and that this question of reasonable time should have been submitted to the jury under proper instructions from the court.

April 27, 1881.

Reversed and remanded.

Note.— On a second trial of this case in the court below, the plaintiff again recovered judgment, and upon appeal the judgment was affirmed without any written opinion, the court holding that the demand of the plaintiff was not barred by limitation, the evidence showing that the “ six months’ notice” had been given within a reasonable time.— Ed.
Exhibit 3.1

** **

**CERTIFICATE OF FORMATION**

** **

**OF**

** **

**AMERICAN HONDA RECEIVABLES LLC**

 

This Certificate ofFormation of American Honda Receivables LLC(the “**Company**”),dated as of March 16, 2011, is duly executed and filed to form a limited liability company in accordance with the Delaware LimitedLiability Company Act (6 Del. C. §18-201, et seq.).

 

1.          Name.The name of the limited liability company is American Honda Receivables LLC.

 

2.          RegisteredOffice.   The address of its registered office in the State of Delaware is c/o The Corporation Trust Company, 1209 Orange Street,in the City of Wilmington, County of New Castle, 19801.

 

3.          RegisteredAgent.   The name and address of its registered agent for service of process in the State of Delaware is The Corporation TrustCompany, 1209 Orange Street, in the City of Wilmington, County of New Castle, 19801.

** **

**IN WITNESS WHEREOF**,the undersigned has executed this Certificate of Formation of American Honda Receivables LLC as of the 16th day of March, 2011.

** **
#### P. H. Allen v. City of Paris.

(No. 1198, Op. Book No. 2, p. 28.)

Appeal from Lamar County.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 885. *Nuisance; special damage.*Where city authorities, in grading a street, created a mud hole in front of plaintiff’s residence, which for the time being was a nuisance, but was filled up and abated soon after it was made, and the plaintiff proved no special damage resulting to him from the mud hole, it was held that he could not recover. The court said: “The nuisance was but temporary in its character, resulting, perhaps necessarily, from the lawful act of the city in filling up and grading its streets; it was common to him and to his neighbors, and he had not shown that any special damage resulted to him therefrom, nor furnished any guide by which, if damage had resulted to him specially, the amount could be definitely fixed by the court.” [Addison on Torts, 194; Wood on Nuisance, §§ 472-754.]

§ 886. *Municipal corporation; authority to grade streets, etc.*“Authority to establish grades for streets, and to graduate them accordingly, involves the right- to make changes in the surface of the ground which may affect injuriously the adjacent property owners; but where the power is not exceeded there is no liability unless created by statute, and then only in the mode and to the extent provided, from the consequences of its being exercised and properly carried into execution. On the other hand, the owner of the property may take such *507measures as lie deems expedient to keep surface water off from him, or turn it away from his premises on to the street; and on the other hand, the municipal authorities may exercise their power in respect to the gradation, improvement and repair of streets, without being liable for the consequential damages caused by surface water to adjacent property.” [Dillon on Munic. Corp. § 709.]

May 6, 1880.

§ 887. *Damages; must be proved.*In a suit for special damages it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove the damage specially done him by the act of the defendant, separate from such damage as may have resulted to him otherwise, and for which the defendant is not accountable.

§ 888. *Damage to realty; measure of.*In a suit for damage done to a town lot by ditching adjacent to it, it was held competent for the defendant to prove that the lot had been benefited by the ditching. Where land is taken absolutely, the benefit to the land adjoining cannot be offset against the value of the land taken. [R. R. Co. v. Faris, .] But where the land is not taken absolutely, but is only damaged, the benefit resulting to one portion of the'land by the act complained of may be offset against the injury resulting from the same act to another portion of the land.

Affirmed.
News United States Air Force
 DAF COVID-19 Statistics - 09/21/2021Published Sept. 21, 2021
                        
                        By Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Below are current **coronavirus disease 2019** statistics for Department of Air Force personnel:

Sept. 21, 2021
Current as of 2p.m., Sept. 20, 2021:
**DAF TOTAL STATS*****CASES**
   **HOSPITALIZED**
   **RECOVERED**
   **DEATHS**Military
   41,648
   18
   39,147
   3Civilian
   12,743
   22
   11,793
   81Dependents
   11,503
   3
   10,879
   6Contractors
   3,807
   10
   3,622
   28**Total**
   69,701
   53
   65,441
   118







*These numbers include all of the cases that were reported since our last update on Sept. 14.



**DAF TOTAL VACCINATED*****ACTIVE DUTY**
   **DAF** AD/GUARD/RESERVE**% Partially Vaccinated
   18.4%
   15.1%% Fully Vaccinated
   72.1%
   68.5%*Civilian statistics are unaccounted for.
**These numbers include U.S. Space Force.LR 



USAF 



AF 



COVID-19 



COVID-19 STATS
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL
INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10 - Q AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1999
<CASH>                                          44,896
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               14,410,178
<ALLOWANCES>                                   175,000
<INVENTORY>                                 10,658,145
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            25,889,992
<PP&E>                                      75,352,966
<DEPRECIATION>                              29,802,706
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              82,515,983
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       24,686,845
<BONDS>                                     40,471,655
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     2,191,168
<OTHER-SE>                                  12,931,133
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                82,515,983
<SALES>                                     23,359,056
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            23,459,056
<CGS>                                       21,952,643
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               21,952,643
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                28,167
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             985,384
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,764,396)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (607,900)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,156,496)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,156,496)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.29)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.29)



</TABLE>
#### G. W. Thompson & Co. v. W. C. Miller.

(No. 2031, Op. Book No. 2, p. 370.)

Appeal from McLennan County.

June 22, 1881

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 1109. *Opinion of ivitness not competent to prove damage.*In an attachment suit, a witness for defendant ■was permitted to testify, over objections made by plaintiff, that, in the opinion of witness, the defendant had been damaged $1,000 by reason of the suing out of the attachment. *Held,*that this was error for which the judgment must be reversed. The opinion of a witness as to the amount of damage sustained is not admissible. The general rule which pervades all our law is, that the witness is to testify only to facts; his opinion is not to be given, for it is the opinion of the jury on the testimony which forms the verdict and decides the case. [Clardy v. Callicoate, 24 Tex. 172; 2 N. Y. 514; 2 Allen, 428; 2 Sedgwick on Dam. 632.]

Eeversed and remanded
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

I,
Philip Z. Weisberg, certify that:

1. the
accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 (the "Report"), fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

2. the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of FX Alliance Inc. at the dates and
for the periods indicated.

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to FX Alliance Inc. and will be retained by FX Alliance Inc. and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

The
undersigned expressly disclaims any obligation to update the foregoing certification except as required by law.

/s/ PHILIP Z. WEISBERG Philip Z. Weisberg Chief Executive OfficerMarch 29, 2012


The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as a part of the Report or as a separate
disclosure document.

---



QuickLinks
#### A. Dutton v. J. E. Norton.

(No. 2769, Op. Book No. 4.)

Appeal from. Somervell County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 357. Appeal, *notice of; no particular form of words necessary to constitute.*Where the transcript from the justice’s court on appeal to the county court contained the following entry from his docket: “December 10th, A. D. 1882. Motion for new trial presented by defendant. Service of same waived by plaintiff, and said motion overruled by the court and notice of appeal given in open court,” it was contended that the notice of appeal was insufficient, because it does not state by whom such notice was given. *Held, the*objection was hypercritical. There is no particular form of words required to constitute a notice of appeal. If it is manifest that the entry shows with reasonable certainty that the party dissatisfied with the judgment had announced in open court his intention to take the case to the appellate court, it is sufficient. [Rev. Stats, art. 1610.]1

1 § 358. *Appeal bond; when it sufficiently describes the judgment appealed from.*Where an appeal bond gives correctly the substance and legal effect of the judgment, and is sufficiently accurate in its description of the judgment to identify it as the judgment intended to be appealed from, it is a valid appeal bond in this respect, although it may fail in some respects to describe the judgment fully. [Herndon v. Bremond, 17 Tex. 434; Hub v. Johnson & Co. (Ct. App.) *post,*p. 336.]

§ 359. *Transcript;preparation of, for appeal.*Where the record in the court below is voluminous, counsel of parties could, and should, under rule 82, governing district and county courts, agree upon the papers necessary to be embraced in the transcript, or, when practicable, and *153which is better, if the facts are few, should prepare an agreed case, under the provision of art. 1114, Rev. Stats.

May 16, 1883.

§ 360. *Replead; parties required to, when.*When the pleadings have multiplied until it is troublesome and difficult to understand the issues, the court should require the parties to replead under rule 2 for district and county courts.

Reversed and remanded.

1

 No notice of appeal is now required to be given in open court. [Acts 18th Leg. p. 91.]
News United States Air Force
 AF updates officer, enlisted voluntary force management eligibility listsPublished April 4, 2014
                        
                        By Debbie Gildea
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Select Airmen in specific categories who were not formerly eligible for fiscal year 2014 force management voluntary separation are now being offered voluntary separation. These individuals will not be subject to involuntary programs in fiscal 2014.
Officers from 33 Air Force specialty codes by year group and enlisted Airmen from seven AFSCs by grade are now eligible to apply for voluntary force management programs, such as voluntary separation pay, limited active-duty service commitment waivers and more, Air Force Personnel Center officials said April 3. In addition, officers in 70 AFSCs by year group and enlisted members in 178 AFSCs by grade are no longer eligible to apply for voluntary programs, and they will not meet an involuntary board in FY14.
As with all voluntary force management programs, being eligible to apply does not guarantee that an Airman will be approved, said Col. Joe Atkins, the operations division chief. Air Force mission needs will determine how many Airmen are approved.
The changes are the result of already approved retirements and separations, as well as adjustments to the overall manpower requirements, Atkins said.
"After recalculations and taking into consideration voluntary separations and retirements, it was clear that personnel reductions were no longer necessary in some AFSC year groups," he said.
Go to https://www.afpc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-140403-077.pdf to see the officer AFSCs by year group added to the eligibility list.
Go to https://www.afpc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-140403-082.pdf to see the officer AFSCs by year group removed from the eligibility list.
Go to https://www.afpc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-140403-083.pdf to see the enlisted AFSCs by grade added to the eligibility list.
Go to https://www.afpc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-140403-084.pdf to see the enlisted AFSCs by grade removed from the eligibility list.
For more information about fiscal 2014 force management programs and other personnel issues, including the updated eligibility matrices, visit myPers. To get to the force management page, select "Search All Components" in the keyword drop down menu, and enter "Active Duty: FY14 Force Management Program" in the search window.force shaping 



force management 



Fiscal 2015 



MyPers 



voluntary seperation 



personnel