alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 EOD specialists build bilateral relationsPublished July 24, 2014
                        
                        By Senior Airman Jose L. Hernandez-Domitilo
                        
                        
                        35th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **MISAWA AIR BASE, Japan (AFNS) --**
                "Fire in the hole! Fire in the hole! Fire in the hole!"
The sound of from a nearby explosion follows and is slowly overshadowed by the resonating splashes of the Pacific Ocean. 
It is just another day on the job if you ask any of Misawa Air Base's explosive ordnance disposal team members here -- but not an entirely regular morning. At the team's side are fellow Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Forces, or JMSDF, and U.S. Navy members, partaking in a joint bilateral exercise at the Draughon Bombing Range, July 15. 
Master Sgt. Cary Gibson, the 35th Civil Engineer Squadron EOD flight chief, explained that the objective of the training exercise was to demonstrate their ability to gain access to vehicles suspected as vehicle-borne improvised explosive devices.
Working with the Japanese EOD team, the Airmen demonstrated how U.S. military EOD experts operate. The U.S. team demonstrated their ability to utilize vehicle access explosive tools that have been perfected during the last decade at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Tools the Japanese don't necessarily have access to, Gibson said.
For U.S. Navy Lt. j.g. Jehu Humphries, the officer in charge of EOD Mobile Unit 5, working bilaterally with the Japanese service members is nothing new, as they have always had a long standing relationship with their EOD counterparts. 
"The EOD community is very tight knit," Humphries said. "Any chance we can get to work together with fellow EOD members from different units, we are open to it."
While a language barrier exists between Japanese and American forces, there is a foundation for the way they all communicate, and that's EOD. 
"Our units are more similar than you'd think," Humphries said. "With EOD, we speak a very common language. If we hint at what we are talking about, then there's already an understanding of what that is."
The beauty of the community is no matter what nationality or branch of service, there is an immediate connection anytime EOD members get together, Humphries said. It is the commonality of having the same mission of saving lives and protecting people. 
"It is important for the Japanese to get out here and train with us," said Tech. Sgt. Ryan Manzi, an EOD craftsman with the 35th CES. "The range gives us the ability to demonstrate our capabilities for their awareness." 
In addition to exhibiting techniques at the range, the Misawa AB team also works closely with the students at the local Japanese EOD school, allowing their Japanese counterparts to apply their skills on and off the range. 
"What I enjoy most is meeting new people and building friendships," Manzi said. "We hope we can continue to work with them in the future."EOD 



Misawa Air Base 



Japan 



Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces 



Navy
AMENDMENT
TO STOCK PURCHASE AGREEMENT  This
amendment to the Stock Purchase Agreement, dated August 7, 2014and amended May
23, 2014 (“Amendment”) is made as of the 7th day of August, 2014, by
and between mCig, Inc., a Nevada Corporation (“Purchaser”) andPatrick J. Lucey
and Katherine J. Nichols (“LUCEY”), Chad A.Shaffer and Sara F. Shaffer (“SHAFFER” and collectively
with LUCEY and Purchaser, the “Parties”).  WHEREAS, the Parties entered into that certainStock
Purchase Agreement, dated August 7, 2014 and amended May 23, 2014(“Agreement”); WHEREAS,the Parties have determined to amend
one provision of the Agreement NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the
mutual promises, covenants and conditions hereinafter set forth, the parties
hereto hereby agree as follows: 1.Paragraph 1.1(d) shall be modified solely to read:Legacy
Management and Control. Each of LUCEY and SHAFFER shall execute appropriate
agreements of up to ten (10) years to permit of LUCEY and SHAFFER to permit
them to continue to assist in making all day to day business decisions as
employees or consultants to Vapolution, Inc., a California corporation and
report to the Board of Directors. LUCEY and SHAFFER agree that they will resign
all positions held on the Board of Director and simultaneously appoint the
designee of mCig to the Board of Directors. In the event the obligations
pursuant to paragraph 1.1(e) are triggered, mCig shall cause its designee to
resign in favor or the designee of LUCEY and SHAFFER. 2.Miscellaneous.  All capitalized terms used herein and
not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement as
amended.  Except as modified herein, all covenants, terms and conditions of the
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect, which covenants, terms and
conditions the parties hereby ratify and affirm.  This Amendment may be
executed in several counterparts, each one of which shall constitute an
original and all collectively shall constitute but one instrument.  SIGNATURES ON
FOLLOWING PAGE         1|Page
 Amendment
to Stock Purchase Agreement, dated
January 23, 2014 and amended May 23, 2014 by and between mCig andPatrick J. Lucey and Katherine J.
Nichols, Chad A.Shaffer and Sara F. Shaffer


---



IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this AMENDMENT as of the EffectiveDate.   Dated: AUGUST 7, 2014  /s/Patrick J. Lucey ____________________________ Patrick J. Lucey, Seller Dated: AUGUST 7, 2014  /s/Katherine J. Nichols ____________________________ Katherine J. Nichols, Seller Dated: AUGUST 7, 2014  /s/Chad A. Shaffer ____________________________ Chad A. Shaffer, Seller Dated: AUGUST 7, 2014  /s/Sara F. Schaffer ____________________________ Sara F. Schaffer, Seller    Dated: JANUARY22, 2014 /s/Paul Rosenberg _____________________________ Paul Rosenberg, Purchaser


2|Page
 Amendment
to Stock Purchase Agreement, dated
January 23, 2014 and amended May 23, 2014 by and between mCig andPatrick J. Lucey and Katherine J.
Nichols, Chad A.Shaffer and Sara F. Shaffer
EXHIBIT 32.1


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


In  connection with the quarterly report of Rockport Healthcare Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2004, as filed with the
Securities  and  Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Harry
M. Neer, Chief Executive Officer and President 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.



/s/  Harry M. Neer
--------------------------------------
Harry M. Neer,
Chief Executive Officer and President
August 16, 2004


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


<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.39

                   SECOND AMENDMENT TO SECURED LOAN AGREEMENT

      THIS SECOND AMENDMENT TO SECURED LOAN AGREEMENT (this "Amendment"), is
dated as of July 31, 2003 and amends the Secured Loan Agreement (as amended
pursuant to the Amendment to Secured Loan Agreement dated as of May 28, 2003
(the "First Amendment"), the "Secured Loan Agreement"), dated as April 22, 2003,
into by and among Diomed Holdings, Inc., a Delaware corporation, with
headquarters located at One Dundee Park, Andover, MA 01810 (the "Company"),
Diomed, Inc., a Delaware corporation and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the
Company ("Diomed"), each entity named on the signature page hereto as a Lender
(each, a "Lender") and Gibralt US, Inc., a Colorado corporation (the "Designated
Lender"). Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have their
respective meanings set forth in the Secured Loan Agreement, unless the context
clearly indicates otherwise.

      In consideration of the premises and the mutual covenants contained herein
and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which
are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to amend the Secured Loan Agreement
and the Class D Notes issued thereunder as follows:

      1. Section 1(e) of the Secured Loan Agreement is hereby amended by
deleting the phrase "July 31, 2003" in the first sentence thereof and inserting
in lieu of such phrase "November 15, 2003."

      2. Section 2(a) of the Class D Notes is hereby amended by deleting the
phrase "July 31, 2003" in the first sentence thereof and inserting in lieu of
such phrase "November 15, 2003."

      3. Section 2(b) of the Class D Notes is hereby amended by deleting the
phrase "July 31, 2003" in the first sentence thereof and inserting in lieu of
such phrase "November 15, 2003."

      4. All other terms and conditions of the Secured Loan Agreement and the
Class D Notes shall remain in full force and effect.

                            [Signature page follows.]

<PAGE>

      IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed by the Lenders,
Diomed and the Company as of the date set forth above.

                                        COMPANY:

                                        Diomed Holdings, Inc.

                                        By:  ___________________________________
                                        Name:  James A. Wylie, Jr.
                                        Title: Chief Executive Officer

                                        DIOMED:

                                        Diomed, Inc.

                                        By:  ___________________________________
                                        Name:  James A. Wylie, Jr.
                                        Title: Chief Executive Officer

                                        LENDER

                                        Gibralt US, Inc.

                                        By:  ___________________________________
                                        Name:  Johnny Ciampi
                                        Title: Authorized Person
No. 11,707.

#### The State, for the Use of Bringham, Commissioner of Drainage, *v.*Turvey et al.

*Deaihage.*— Complaint.—Exhibit.—In an action to enforce an assessment made under the drainage act of April 8th, 1881, B. S. 1881, section 4273, *et seq.,*the complaint is bad if the assessment made by the commissioner charged with the execution of the work, or a copy thereof, is not filed with the complaint or made a part'thereof.

From the Benton Circuit Court.

*A. W. Reynolds*and *E. JB. Sellers,*for appellant.

*D. Smith,*for appellee.

Black, C. —

The court below sustained a demurrer to the complaint in a suit brought to collect an assessment for a drain. The proceeding for drainage was in the White Circuit Court, the lands affected being in White and Benton counties, that of the petitioner for drainage being in White county. Said proceeding was had, and the assessment sued on was made, under the act of April 8th, 1881, E. S. 1881, section 4273, *et seq.*

Counsel for the appellant are correct in insisting that the White Circuit Court had jurisdiction of all the lands to be affected, though some of them were situated in Benton county, and that the commissioner charged with the construction of the drain had authority to make, his assessments against said lands in both counties. This court has so construed the statute. *Shaw*v. *State, etc.,*97 Ind. 23; *Crist*v. *State, ex rel.,*97 Ind. 389.

But we observe a fatal defect in,the complaint. The assessment made by the commissioner charged with the execution of the work, or a copy thereof, was not filed with the complaint, or made a part thereof, as was necessary, this assessment constituting the lien, to enforce which was the object of the suit. See the cases above cited; also, *Roberts*v. *State, ex rel.,*97 Ind. 399; *Neiman*v. *State, ex rel.,*98 Ind. 58.

The judgment should be affirmed.

*600Filed Jan. 23, 1885.

Per Curiam. — It is ordered, upon the foregoing opinion, that the judgment be affirmed, at the costs of the appellant.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 79 (Friday, May 12, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4904]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from South Carolina [Mr. Graham] is recognized for 5 minutes.

  [Mr. GRAHAM addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in 
the Extensions of Remarks.]

                          ____________________
```
110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 62

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Whereas research shows that spending time together as a 

family is critical to raising strong and resilient kids; 

Whereas strong healthy families improve the quality of life 

and the development of children; 

Whereas it is essential to celebrate and reflect upon the important role that all families play in the
2

•HCON 62 EH 

lives of children and their positive effect for the Nation’s 

future; 

Whereas the fourth Saturday of June is a day set aside to 

recognize the importance of children and families; and 

Whereas the country’s greatest natural resource is its children: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress supports the goals and ideals 

3 of a National Children and Families Day. 

Passed the House of Representatives March 6, 

2007. 

Attest:

Clerk. 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 62

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Chilother purposes. Nation achieve their hopes and dreams, and for to children and to help children throughout the adults in the United States to support and listen dren and Families Day, in order to encourage
#### Cullers & Henry v. F. M. More.

(No. 2273, Op. Book No. 3, p. 805.)

Appeal from Grayson County.

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

§ 197. *Principal and agent.*Where a defendant is sued individually, and seeks to defend upon the ground that he made the contract as the agent of another, and is, therefore, not liable in the action, the burden of proof is upon him to show not only that he was acting as such agent in the contract, but that at the time of making the contract he-informed the other party that he was so acting, and also that he disclosed to such other party the name of the principal for whom he was acting. [Sydnor & Bone v. Hurd, 8 Tex. 98. ]

Reversed and remanded.
#### EXXON CORPORATION v. TOWNSHIP OF EAST BRUNSWICK.

March 27, 1984.

Petition for certification denied. (See 192 *N.J.Super.*329)
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350,
Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of ZaZa Energy Corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge, that: the Annual
Report on Form 10-K, for the period ended December 31, 2011 (the "Form 10-K") of the Company fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in the Form 10-K.

Dated:
June 14, 2012



Dated:
June 14, 2012



The
foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Form 10-K pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K and
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and, accordingly, is not being
filed as part of the Form 10-K for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not incorporated by reference into any filing of the
Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

---



QuickLinks
422 A.2d 1169

#### Wash. Ind. Dev. Corp. et al. v. Ciaffoni, Appellant.

Argued April 11, 1979.

E. J. Julian, for appellant; Phillip J. Binotto, Jr., for appellees.

Before CERCONE, P. J., and WIEAND and HOFFMAN, JJ.

Order affirmed.
#### T. & P. R. R. Co. v. T. J. Williams.

(No. 2214, R. Book No. 4, p. 209.)

Appeal from Grayson County.

May 3 1882.

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

§ 249. *Joint owner; suit by.*One of several joint owners cannot maintain a suit to recover his undivided .or individual interest in property destroyed. [Stachely v. Pierce, 28 Tex. 328.]

.§ 250. *Damages; measure of for property destroyed.*The measure of damages for property destroyed is the market value of the property at the time and place where destroyed. [Masterson v. Goodlett, 46 Tex. 406.] Anri in such cases it is the duy of the court to instruct the jury as to what is the legal meaning of market value. [R. R. Co. v. LeGierse, 51 Tex. 203.]

Reversed and remanded.
P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that th i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shedan d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e li m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCUIT

N o. 08- 20275 Su m m ar y Cal endar UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t if f

- A pp el l ee v. AL FR ED O AR ZAT E- D AVAL O S D e fe nda nt - Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 4: 07- C R - 476- 2 B ef oreD AV IS, G A R Z Aan d P RA D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IAM: * A l f redo A rzat e- D ava l os (A rzat e) p l ead ed gu il t y t o conspi racy t o ha rbor i l l egal al i en s. H e w as s e n te n ce d to 33 m on t h s of i m pri sonm en t , t h e l ow est possibl e t erm un der t h e app l i cabl e gu i del i n es s en t en ci n g ran ge. A r z a te a p p e a ls h is c o n v ic tio n b u t m a k e s n o a r g u m e n t w ith re g a r dto h is se nt enc e. Arzate se eks t o havehi s pl ea se tas i de, as se r t i ng t hatitw as United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I LE D May 1, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20275

2 u n k n o w in ga n d , th u s , in v o lu n ta r yd u eto th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s fa ilu r e to co m p ly w ithth e re q u ire m e n ts o f F ED . R . C RIM . P . 11 du ri n g h i s rea rra i gn m en t. W h en , as here, a defen da n tdoes n otob j ectt o R u l e 11 error s i n t h e di st ri ct c o u r t, p la ine r r o rre v ie w a p p l i e s . Se eUni t e d St at e sv . Vonn , 535 U . S. 55, 59 ( 200 2) . To sh ow pl ai nerr or, t h e app el la n t m u st sh o w an err or th at i s c l ear or o b v io u s a n d th a t a ffe c ts h is s u b s ta n tia l rig h ts . Un i t ed S t ate s v. B ak er , 538 F. 3d 3 2 4 , 3 3 2 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ), cer t . den i ed , 1 29 S. Ct . 9 62 ( 20 09 ) . I f t he a ppe l l ant m a k e s s u c h as h o w in g , t h is c o u r t h a s t h ed is c r e tio n t o c o r r e c t th e e r r o rb u t o n ly if its er i ous ly af

fec t s t he fair nes s, i n te gr i t y, orpubl i cr eput at i on o f j udi c i al p r o c e e d in g s . I

d. Arza t e has fail ed t o s how t hat , butf ort he ass erted R ul e 1 1 e r r o r s , h e w o u ldn o t h a v e p le a d e dg u i l ty . S ee Un i t ed S t ate s v. D om i ngu ez B enit ez , 5 42 U . S. 7 4, 8 3 ( 20 04) . N or h as hes ho w n t hat , t ak e n t o ge t he r , t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s om i s s i o ns ha d ac um ul at ivee f fe c ts uf f i c i e ntt o und e r m i ne c o n fid e n c e in t h e o u tc o m e o f th e p r o c e e d in g . Se ei d. A ccor di n gl y, he h as fai l ed to s h o w th a t h is p le aw a s u n k n o w in ga n din v o lu n ta r y . I d. AF F I RMED.
#### J. B. M. Hunter v. Mary F. Nichols and M. B. Nichols.

(No. 1493, Op. Book No. 2, p. 291.)

Error from ' Limestone County.

February 23, 1881.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 1054. *Writ of error; service of citation; husband and wife.*Where husband and wife are parties to a judgment which the opposite party desires to remove to the appellate court for revision by writ of error, the husband is a necessary party defendant, although the matter involved is the separate property of the wife, and he must be served with citation in error. The appellate court acquires no jurisdiction in such case, where the husband has not been served with citation, and the cause will not be continued in the appel ate court for the service of such citation, but the case will be dismissed. [R. S. 1034; Chambers v. Shaw, 16 Tex. 143; Crunk v. Crunk, 23 Tex. 604; Cannon v. Hemphill, 7 Tex. 184; McIntire v. Chappell, 2 Tex. 378.] The transcript in this case having been prematurely filed in the court of appeals before the writ of error had been perfected by service of citation upon the defendants in error, the court of appeals had no jurisdiction of the case, and it was therefore dismissed and stricken from the docket. [R. S. 1410.]

Dismissed.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 478 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 478

      To clarify that the revocation of an alien's visa or other 
            documentation is not subject to judicial review.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 2013

 Mr. Grassley (for himself, Mr. Chambliss, and Mr. Roberts) introduced 
the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee 
                            on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
      To clarify that the revocation of an alien's visa or other 
            documentation is not subject to judicial review.

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

SECTION 1. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF VISA REVOCATION.

    Section 221(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1201(i)) is amended by striking ``There shall be no means of judicial 
review'' and all that follows and inserting the following: 
``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including section 2241 of 
title 28, United States Code, any other habeas corpus provision, and 
sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, no court has jurisdiction to 
review a revocation under this subsection or to hear any claim arising 
from such a revocation.''.

SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE.

    The amendment made by section 1 shall--
            (1) take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act;
            (2) apply to all visas issued before, on, or after such 
        date; and
            (3) apply to any claim pending on, or filed after, the date 
        of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```