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

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 80 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1033]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

   TRIBUTE TO THE CENTENARIANS OF THE WASHINGTON AND JANE SMITH HOME

                                 ______

                           HON. BOBBY L. RUSH

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                          Monday, May 15, 1995
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to offer 
my sincerest congratulations to five truly wonderful women, who on 
Tuesday, the 16th of May, will receive special recognition from the 
Social Security Administration for having reached the extraordinary age 
of 100 years old.
  The recipients of this special honor are Ms. Edith Gutridge, Ms. 
Margaret Van Huben, Ms. Margaret Byrne, Ms. Anna Conner, and Ms. Ruth 
Kennedy. Each of these distinguished ladies have touched so many people 
over the years, and they are to be applauded for their achievements 
over the past century.
  I wish to extend to each of them my best wishes on this wonderful 
occasion, and am proud and honored to enter these words of commendation 
into the Record.

                          ____________________
```
# News

## U.S. Air Force LogoUnited States Air Force

# Air Force announces Guard locations for F-35A, F-15EX

              - Published  Aug. 14, 2020
              - Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs

**WASHINGTON (AFNS)  --  **
The Air Force plans to replace the **Air National Guard**’s aging **F-15C Eagles** in Florida and Oregon with the service’s newest air superiority aircraft.**Jacksonville Air National Guard Base**, Florida, will begin receiving **F-35 Lightning II**s in 2024; **Kingsley Field**, Oregon, will host the Air Force’s first **F-15EX Eagle II** formal training mission beginning in 2022; and the unit at **Portland Air National Guard Base** will become the first operational F-15EX squadron in 2023. The Air Force’s F-15Cs are aging and expected to run out of service life by the mid-2020s.The Air Force also plans to replace the remaining Air National Guard operational F-15C/D bases (**Barnes Airport**, Massachusetts, **Fresno Yosemite Airport**, California, and **Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base New Orleans**) with either F-35As or F-15EXs. **Naval Air Station Lemoore**, California, is also being considered for F-35As.  “The Air National Guard has consistently stepped up to meet the challenges of countless national contingencies over recent years,” said **Lt. Gen. Mike Loh**, Air National Guard director. “Transitioning to these new weapon systems will maintain our effectiveness as a member of the Total Air Force into the future.”The Air Force will now conduct on-the-ground site surveys at each of these locations to assess operational requirements, potential impacts to existing missions, infrastructure and manpower, and costs before deciding which aircraft will replace the F-15C mission.  The Air Force will complete the required Environmental Impact Analysis Process before making a final decision.  Currently, four active duty operational locations — **Hill Air Force Base**, Utah; **RAF Lakenheath**, United Kingdom; **Eielson AFB**, Alaska; and **Tyndall AFB**, Florida — have been identified to host the F-35A.  Additionally, three Air National Guard locations — **Burlington ANGB**, Vermont; **Dannelly Field**, Alabama; and **Truax Field**, Wisconsin; and one **Air Force Reserve** location – **Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Fort Worth**, Texas — have been identified as F-35 locations.

LRUSAFAFAir ForceANGAir National GuardF-35AF-15EXLightning IIJacksonville ANGBPortland ANGBKingsley FieldF-15C
#### R. Handel v. Z. Kramer.

(No. 1397, Op. Book No. 2, p. 699.)

Appeal from Webb County.

Opinion by

Willson, J.

§ 826. *Assignment of errors must be specific.*If parties who appeal to this court desire the determination of questions which may be involved in the cause, such questions must be specifically pointed out in the assignment of errors in accordance with the rules governing this court, and the decisions construing the same. [See Eules for Sup. Ct. Nos. 24, 25, 26; 44 Tex. 539; id. 544; 45 Tex. 234; id. 415; 46 Tex. 51; id. 162; id. 330; id. 585; 52 Tex. 266; 53 Tex. 213; id. 540; 54 Tex. 45; id. 281; id. 641; 55 Tex. 571.]

*474February 7, 1883.

§ 827. *Attachment suit; reconvention in, for wrongfully suing out writ.*This suit was by attachment, and appellant, who was defendant in the suit, pleaded in re-convention for damages, alleging that the writ had been wrongfully issued, and upon the trial requested the court to give the jury the following instructions, viz.: “The jury are further instructed that the party who resorts to an attachment process does so at his peril. No belief, however firm and sincere, that the grounds set out in his affidavit are true can affect the defendant’s right to recover against him the actual damages sustained, if in fact they are untrue. The defendant has pleaded in re-convention on a claim of actual damages for the wrongful suing out of the attachment; you are authorized, if you believe the attachment was wrongfully sued out, to give him a verdict for all damages sustained, not to exceed the amount claimed in his plea.” The court refused to give these instructions. *Held,*these refused charges would have been applicable to and were demanded by the issues and the evidence in the case, and as legal propositions are substantially correct, and it was error to refuse to give them to the jury.

§ 828. *Costs; judgment for, in appeal from justice's court.*In the justice’s court appellee recovered judgment for $177.42. On appeal by appellant to the county court the judgment of the justice was reduced to $155.20; but the county court adjudged all the costs of both courts against appellant, without assigning in the record any reason for so doing. *Held*error. Appellant was entitled to recover the costs of the county court. fR. S. 1432.]

Reversed and remanded.
#### COCHRAN-SARGENT COMPANY v. WALTER FOOTE AND ANOTHER, COPARTNERS AS FOOTE *&*HAGENSON.1

January *2,*1920.

No. 21,565.

Pleading — striking out sham answer.

Action for goods sold and delivered, the complaint alleging that defendants were indebted to plaintiff. Answer was a general denial. Motion to strike out the an|swer as sham, supported by affidavits that one of defendants had exhibited to plaintiff’s treasurer a list of defendants’ creditors, showing the amount owed to each, in which plaintiff’s debt was shown to be slightly greater than that claimed by the complaint. .The counter affidavit of one of the defendants stated that the list was prepared by their bookkeeper, had not been checked, and they did not admit ifjs correctness; that defendants’ attorney advised them they had a good defense to the action, “or at least to a portion thereof.” *Held:*The court did not err in striking out the answer as sham. [Reporter.]

Action in the district court for .Wabasha county to recover $326.21 for goods sold and delivered. From an order, 'Callaghan, J., striking out defendants’ answer as [sham, they appealed.

Affirmed.

*475*George H, Hammond,*for appellants.

*Kinney*ct *Phillips,*for respondents.

1

 Reported in 175 N. W. 538.

Per Curiam.

Appeal from an order striking out defendants’ answer as sham.

Plaintiff sued to recover for goods sold and delivered, alleging that defendants were indebted to it on account thereof. The answer was a general denial. Plaintiff moved to strike out the answer as sham, supporting the motion with affidavits. It appeared from the affidavits that, shortly before they were sued, one of the defendants had exhibited to plaintiff’s treasurer a list of creditors, showing the amount owing by defendants to each creditor, and had represented that they were having difficulty in paying their indebtedness, and proposed to make monthly payments if their creditors would grant them an extension. Plaintiff’s claim was listed at an amount slightly in excess of the amount claimed in its complaint. It also appeared that at another time and place both of the defendants had exhibited the same or a similar li|st of creditors to another person with a like request, and that it contained the same entry as respects plaintiff’s claim.

Defendants filed an affidavit made by one of them, stating that their attorney had advised them that they had a good defense to the action, “or at least to a portion thereof.” It was further stated that the list referred to in the affidavits offered by plaintiff was prepared by defendants’ bookkeeper and that they had not checked it over and did not admit its correctness. The order striking out the answer provided that defendants, if so advised, might serve and file an amended answer. Within the rule stated in Towne v. Dunn, 118 Minn. 143, 136 N. W. 562, the trial court was justified in striking out the answer as sham. Order affirmed.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TRAVIS JOHNSON,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 5 EAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 14th day of May, 2019

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is

DENIED

.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 28 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 28

    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                      regarding the right to vote.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 13, 2007

   Mr. Jackson of Illinois (for himself, Mr. Bishop of Georgia, Ms. 
Corrine Brown of Florida, Mrs. Christensen, Mr. Cleaver, Mr. Cummings, 
 Mr. Fattah, Mr. Grijalva, Ms. Kilpatrick, Mr. Johnson of Georgia, Mr. 
Meek of Florida, Ms. Norton, Mr. Rush, Mr. Stark, Ms. Woolsey, and Mr. 
Wynn) introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
    Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
                      regarding the right to vote.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled   (two-thirds of each House 
concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be 
valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when 
ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

                              ``Article --

    ``Section 1.  All citizens of the United States who are eighteen 
years of age or older shall have the right to vote in any public 
election held in the jurisdiction in which the citizen resides. The 
right to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, any 
State, or any other public or private person or entity, except that the 
United States or any State may establish regulations narrowly tailored 
to produce efficient and honest elections.
    ``Section 2.  Each State shall administer public elections in the 
State in accordance with election performance standards established by 
the Congress. The Congress shall reconsider such election performance 
standards at least once every four years to determine if higher 
standards should be established to reflect improvements in methods and 
practices regarding the administration of elections.
    ``Section 3.  Each State shall provide any eligible voter the 
opportunity to register and vote on the day of any public election.
    ``Section 4.  The Congress shall have power to enforce and 
implement this article by appropriate legislation.''.
                                 <all>
```
CLERK. COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711
September 9, 2015

RE: Writ No. WR-80,769-01 Ex parteRob:rt Bruce Read, Jr.

Dear Clerk,
Please advise me of the precise date of the Court's order denying the.applica-' tion in the above-numbered and styled cause. I**a~** in need of this specific date for federal habeas corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2254) purposes. The "whitecard" notice that I receivedfrom your office states only that the application was denied, but does not indicate the date onwhich such denial actually occurred.
Thank you for your time and kind assistance in this matter.

# ~ Robert Bruce Read, Jr. TDCJ No. 1568901 F.M. Robertson Unit 12071 FM 3522 Abilene, TX 79601 Applicant, pro se

...**~**

.. RBRj 

### I file

# fAfECfE~VED**~N** COURTOFCRliVIINAI

### APPEALS 

## SEP 14

## 2U')
Electronically Filed Intermediate Court of Appeals CAAP-18-0000657 24-APR-2019 08:48 AM
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 on Form 10-K of Franklin Street Properties
Corp. (the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Barbara J. Corinha, Vice President, Chief Operating Officer
(equivalent of Chief Financial Officer), Treasurer and Secretary of the Company,
hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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
                  operation of the Company.


Date:  March 9, 2004                     /s/ Barbara J. Corinha
                                         ------------------------------
                                         Barbara J. Corinha
                                         Vice President, Chief Operating
                                         Officer (equivalent of Chief Financial
                                         Officer), Treasurer and Secretary


A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to Franklin Street Properties Corp. and will be retained by Franklin
Street Properties Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
SOLITARIO RESOURCES CORPORATION



Exhibit 10.7



SOLITARIO RESOURCES CORPORATION



1994 STOCK OPTION PLAN



FIRST AMENDMENT



 
Pursuant to a resolution unanimously passed by the Board of Directors on December 15, 1995, and subsequently approved by appropriate regulatory authorities and an affirmative vote of the shareholders, the Company's 1994 Stock Option Plan is modified as follows:



The second sentence in Section 2 shall be amended from: 



"The number of shares of Common Stock that may be subject to options granted under this Plan shall not exceed 1,100,000 shares of Common Stock, as such Common Stock was constituted on the effective date of this Plan, or such greater number as may be approved from time to time by the shareholders of the Company."



To the Following:



"The number of shares of Common Stock that may be subject to options granted under this Plan shall not exceed 1,170,000 shares of Common Stock, as such Common Stock was constituted on the effective date of this Plan, or such greater number as may be approved from time to time by the shareholders of the Company."



No other changes to the 1994 Stock Option Plan are made as a result of this First Amendment to the Plan.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         369,680
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               10,173,572
<ALLOWANCES>                                   607,884
<INVENTORY>                                 24,241,390
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            39,826,290
<PP&E>                                      28,870,346
<DEPRECIATION>                              16,338,373
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              58,248,748
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       35,837,153
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,257
<OTHER-SE>                                  10,999,647
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                58,248,748
<SALES>                                     35,017,730
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            35,017,730
<CGS>                                       31,801,908
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               37,083,142
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              (70,576)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             325,394
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (2,461,382)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    66,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (2,527,382)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (2,527,382)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.20)
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY IN THE INTEREST OF A.E.P.

March 19, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT ORAN COX.

February 28, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 88

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas Ernest Gallo was born March 18, 1909, in Jackson, 

California, the son of Italian immigrants, graduated from 

Modesto High School in 1927, earned a degree from Modesto Junior College, and married Amelia Franzia, 

daughter of the founders of Franzia Winery in 1931; 

Whereas Ernest Gallo, with his brother Julio Gallo, founded 

E.&J. Gallo Winery at the end of the
2

•HCON 88 EH 

Prohibition Era in 1933, beginning with only $5,900 in 

savings and a winemaking pamphlet from the Modesto 

Public Library to make their first batch, growing their 

small family-owned winery into the world’s second largest 

by volume, and selling an estimated 75,000,000 cases a 

year worldwide under approximately 100 different labels; 

Whereas Ernest Gallo began his illustrious career at a young 

age, working in his parents’ vineyard while attending Modesto High School and demonstrating his entrepreneurial 

spirit early in life by traveling at the age of 17 to complete his first business deal; 

Whereas Ernest Gallo, demonstrating great vision, anticipated the growth of the wine industry and developed the 

first-of-its kind vertically integrated company, with vineyards stretching across California, an on-site bottling 

plant, and an art department to design bottles and labels, 

changing the face of California’s wine industry; 

Whereas the Gallo Winery employs 4,600 people in the State 

of California, providing critical highly-skilled employment 

opportunities in the San Joaquin Valley and greatly contributing to the economic strength of the State; 

Whereas Ernest Gallo and the Gallo Winery were bestowed 

countless awards for achievement in winemaking, including the American Society of Enologists Merit Award, the 

wine industry’s highest honor, in 1964 for outstanding 

leadership in the wine industry, the Gold Vine Award 

from the Brotherhood of the Knights of the Vine wine 

fraternity, the 1983 Distinguished Service Award from 

The Wine Spectator, and the Winery of the Year Award 

in both 1996 and 1998 by the San Francisco International Wine Competition; and 
3

•HCON 88 EH 

Whereas Ernest Gallo was widely known for his generous 

philanthropic work in the City of Modesto and throughout the state of California, including an endowment for 

the Gallo Center for the Arts in Modesto, the establishment of the Ernest Gallo Clinic and Research Center at 

the University of California at San Francisco for research into genetic, biochemical, and neurobiological aspects of alcohol abuse, and countless other healthcare and 

educational endeavors: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress honors the life of Ernest 

3 Gallo, a pioneer in the field of winemaking, dedicated phi4 lanthropist, and community leader. 

Passed the House of Representatives April 16, 2007. 

Attest:

Clerk. 
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 88

Honoring the life of Ernest Gallo.

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000773136
<NAME> RAMSAY HEALTH CARE, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                       4,113,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               29,099,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                 4,166,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            39,258,000
<PP&E>                                      99,933,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              33,706,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             156,521,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       26,491,000
<BONDS>                                     49,375,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        6,402,000
<PREFERRED>                                  3,142,000
<COMMON>                                       112,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  52,186,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               156,521,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            37,755,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               33,300,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,638,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,099,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,320,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                398,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            398,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            (3,574,000)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (3,176,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.31)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.31)
        

</TABLE>