alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
May 18, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6947

APPOINTMENTS BY THE VICE

PRESIDENT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

Chair, on behalf of the Vice President,

pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 6968(a), appoints

the following Senators to the Board of

Visitors of the U.S. Naval Academy:

The Senator from Oregon [Mr. HATFIELD], from the Committee on Appropriations; the Senator from Arizona

[Mr. MCCAIN], from the Committee on

Armed Services; the Senator from

Maryland [Ms. MIKULSKI], from the

Committee on Appropriations; and the

Senator from Maryland [Mr. SARBANES], at large.

The Chair, on behalf of the Vice

President, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 4355(a),

appoints the following Senators to the

Board of Visitors of the U.S. Military

Academy:

The Senator from Mississippi [Mr.

COCHRAN], from the Committee on Appropriations; the Senator from Texas

[Mrs. HUTCHISON], from the Committee

on Armed Services; and the Senator

from Nevada [Mr. REID], from the Committee on Appropriations.

The Chair, on behalf of the Vice

President, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 9355(a),

appoints the following Senators to the

Board of Visitors of the U.S. Air Force

Academy:

The Senator from Montana [Mr.

BURNS], from the Committee on Appropriations; the Senator from Idaho [Mr.

KEMPTHORNE], from the Committee on

Armed Services; the Senator from

South Carolina [Mr. HOLLINGS], from

the Committee on Appropriations; and

the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON],

at large.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, for

a very important negotiating session, I

suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I

ask unanimous consent that the order

for the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

RECESS UNTIL 8:45 A.M.

fTOMORROW

Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I

want to report that I lost the negotiation and, therefore, 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 10 p.m., recessed until Friday, May

19, 1995, at 8:45 a.m.
EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 (First Amendment) for the period ended September 30,
2002  as  filed  with  the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the  "Report"), I, Harry Neer, Chief Executive Officer 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 Neer, Chief Executive Officer
January 3, 2003



<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from RCPI Trust's
Balance Sheet as of March 31, 2000 and RCPI Trust's Statement of Operations for
the quarter ended March 31, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety by reference
to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          19,449
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    9,691
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                38,907
<PP&E>                                         933,437
<DEPRECIATION>                                  73,747
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,082,220
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           97,821
<BONDS>                                        631,516
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     341,822
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,082,220
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,358
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                38,551
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,009
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,798
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,798
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,798
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
1 

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-24-00102-CR

__________________

EX PARTE DANIEL TROY LEBLANC

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 24DCCR0361

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Daniel Troy LeBlanc filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus seeking 

a bond reduction in Trial Cause Number 24DCCR0361. The trial court issued the 

writ but denied relief. LeBlanc filed a notice of appeal. 

The State filed a motion to dismiss LeBlanc’s appeal on the ground that the 

trial court had granted the State’s motion to dismiss the indictment in Trial Cause 

Number 24DCCR0361. The State argues the appeal was moot because LeBlanc had 

been reindicted in Trial Cause Number 24DCCR0520 and LeBlanc filed an 

application for a writ of habeas corpus in Trial Cause Number 24DCCR0520. 
2

On August 14, 2024, LeBlanc filed a notice of appeal from an order denying

relief on an application for a writ of habeas corpus for bond reduction in Trial Cause 

Number 24DCCR0520.1 The Clerk of the Court docketed the appeal from the order 

signed in Trial Cause Number 24DCCR0520 as Appeal Number 09-24-00283-CR.

The clerk’s record filed in Appeal Number 09-24-00283-CR includes a surety bond

that establishes that LeBlanc was released from custody on August 15, 2024. 

“Where the premise of a habeas corpus application is destroyed by subsequent 

developments, the legal issues raised thereunder are rendered moot.” Hubbard v. 

State, 841 S.W.2d 33, 33 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1992, no pet.).

LeBlanc’s complaints about the trial court’s order in Trial Cause Number 

24DCCR0361 would not secure his release from confinement because LeBlanc has 

posted bail in Trial Cause Number 24DCCR0520. “When a defendant has once 

given bail for his appearance in answer to a criminal charge, he shall not be required 

to give another bond in the course of the same criminal action except as herein 

provided.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 17.09;see Garcia v. State, 292 S.W.3d 

146, 151 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2009, no pet.) (Evidence of bond forfeiture was 

sufficient where the State reindicted the defendant under a new case number and 

dismissed the original cause in which the bond had been filed.). 

1We take judicial notice of the appellate record in Appeal Number 09-24-

00283-CR.
3

Accordingly, we grant the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

PER CURIAM

Submitted on August 27, 2024

Opinion Delivered August 28, 2024

Do Not Publish

Before Golemon, C.J., Johnson and Chambers, JJ.
News United States Air Force
 FIDAE Air Show, subject matter expert exchanges kick-off in ChilePublished March 28, 2014
                        
                        By Capt. Justin Brockhoff
                        
                        
                        12th Air Force (Air Forces Southern) Public Affairs
                **SANTIAGO, Chile (AFNS) --**
                Chilean President Michelle Bachelet presided over a ceremony March 25 officially marking the start of the International Air & Space Fair FIDAE 2014, one of the largest international trade and air shows in the world, being held in Santiago, Chile, until March 30.
Hundreds attended the ceremony, which took place among a sea of military and civilian aircraft displays and included a flyover by three Chilean F-16s. Following the ceremony, exhibition pavilions and aircraft were opened for the trade show portion of the FIDAE, which will be followed by the public days over the weekend.
U.S. Airmen, primarily from the Texas Air National Guard, are participating in FIDAE by hosting static displays of the C-130 Hercules and F-16 Fighting Falcon. In addition, the Airmen are participating in subject matter expert exchanges with Chilean air force partners throughout the week to build partnerships and promote interoperability between the two air forces.
These events include discussions and demonstrations on C-130 maintenance and operations, F-16 maintenance and operations, human medical factors in aviation, parachuting procedures, military civil engineering and providing medical support in a deployed area.
"U.S. military participation in these exchanges and the FIDAE air show provides an opportunity to strengthen our military-to-military relationships with regional partners," said Col. Steve Pedrotty, the director of operations for 12th Air Force (Air Forces Southern), which oversees U.S. Air Force involvement and partnerships in Central America, South America and the Caribbean. "The opportunity to meet with our Chilean air force hosts promotes interoperability, which can be applied to events ranging from exercises to humanitarian assistance operations."
One of the events that took place during FIDAE's opening day included exchanges on C-130 maintenance and operations.
"The SMEE was a great opportunity to speak with our counterparts in the (Chilean air force) about flying the C-130," said 1st Lt. Jacob Fuhrmann, a C-130 pilot from the Texas Air National Guard. "Several of their airmen visited our aircraft to talk about best practices with (auxiliary power unit) systems, and the Chileans gave us the chance to take a look inside one of their C-130s, which had a modernized, glass cockpit."
The exchange will continue to have a lasting impact well after the event, according to Maj. Josh Ritzmann, also a C-130 pilot.
"We also had the opportunity to do some cross-talk with C-130 operations and share best practices on tactical employment," he added. "The talks helped enhance our relationship with the Chilean air force and broadened the scope of both U.S. and Chilean C-130 capabilities."Chile 



AFSOUTH 



FIDAE Airshow
#### G. A. Hutcheson v. B. J. Wells et al.

(No. 1431, Op. Book No. 2, p. 143.)

Appeal from Tarrant County.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 953. *Appeal-bond from- justice’s to county court;, invalid for want of motion for new. trial; suit-*upon¡ H. recovered a judgment in justice’s, court against W. Without making any motion for new trial, W. gave notice of appeal, and filed an appeal bond. In the county-court the appeal was dismissed because there had been no motion for new trial made in the justice’s Gourt. IT. ■then instituted this suit upon the appeal bond of W. *Held,*1. That no motion for new trial having, been made in justice’s court, the appeal bond was a nullity, and there was no appeal in fact. 2. The condition- of the appeal bond was that *W.*would, “prosecute his appeal with effect, or pay and satisfy the judgment that might he rendered against the obligors on. the bond.” There was no breach of 'this condition, even had the bond-been-a-valid one, for no judgment or decree was or could have keen rendered against the obligors in the bond, because, the county court had- not acquired jurisdiction of the appeal. 3. The judgment of the justice was not suspended by this appeal bond. The plaintiff was at liberty to proceed'at once to the enforcement of his judgment, notwithstanding such appeal bond. He was not'in, any way delayed, hindered; or impeded in the collection *aflús debt by it.*Nor did the defendant acquire any right ■or benefit by the filing of itv There was¿ therefore, no-*536consideration. for the appeal bond. 4. That the justice,, in violation of law, granted an appeal, and exacted unlawfully an appeal bond, can create no legal liability upon the obligors in an illegal bond. The judgment of the county court for the defendants was affirmed.

June 9, 1880.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Con. Res. 62 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
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

              

 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
    Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring),  
That Congress supports the goals and ideals 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 Children and Families 
 Day, in order to encourage adults in the United States to support and 
 listen to children and to help children throughout the Nation achieve 
            their hopes and dreams, and for other purposes.
```
Exhibit 10.16(z) 10-K 2014 Twenty-Fourth Amendment to Employment John Hildebrandt






        
TWENTY-FOURTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT






This Twenty-Fourth Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of January 1, 2014, by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware Corporation ("Employer") and John Hildebrandt ("Executive").


Recitals


		
	A)
	On June 1, 2001 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive.




		
	B)
	Said Employment Agreement has been amended on twenty-three prior occasions;




		
	C)
	Employer and Executive now desire to further amend the Employment Agreement, as set forth hereinbelow:




Agreement


1.     Section 2.1 of the Agreement which provides:


		
	2.1
	Salary.  For Executive’s services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $316,200 during each year of the Employment Term.  Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer’s normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.


 
is hereby amended, effective January 1, 2014, to provide as follows:


		
	2.1
	Salary.  For Executive’s services hereunder, Employer shall pay as base salary to Executive the amount of $322,524 during each year of the Employment Term.  Said salary shall be payable in equal installments in conformity with Employer’s normal payroll period. Executive shall receive such salary increases, if any, as Employer, in its sole discretion, shall determine.




		
	2.
	All other terms of the Employment Agreement, as amended, shall remain unaltered and fully effective.






Executed in San Diego, California, as of the date first written above.


EXECUTIVE                        EMPLOYER
PriceSmart, INC.


John Hildebrandt                    By:                 


______________________                Name:     Jose Luis Laparte    
		
	Its: 
	CEO and President
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 06 79 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. REX WILLIAM ALLEN,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including April 2 6, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 20 2023

03/20/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0679
#### W. M. Winn v. Jno. A. Sloan & Co.

(No. 1711, Op. Book No. 2, p. 367.)

Appeal from McLennan County.

Opinion by

Quinan, J.

§ 1103. *Citation; amendment of.*A citation may be amended by affixing the seal of the court. This is matter of form. [Cartwright v. Chobert, 3 Tex. 261.]

§1101. *Attachment bond; condition for payment of cost; amendment of.*An attachment bond which is not conditioned for the payment of the costs is not in compliance with the law [R. S. 158], and such defect is not a matter of form, and cannot be amended, nor can a defective attachment bond be supplied by filing a sufficient bond at a day subsequent to the issuance of the writ.

§ 1105. *Same; conditions of the bond.*The law prescribes the conditions of the bond to be given, and declares that attachments issued without such bond shall be abated. One of the conditions is that plaintiffs and their sureties shall pay such damages and costs as shall be adjudged against *them*for wrongfully suing out the ■attachment. The condition in the bond in this case is that John A. Sloan & Co. and their sureties “ shall pay all such damages and costs as shall be adjudged against *him,”*etc. The defendant was entitled to be secured against the damages he might recover against John A. Sloan & Co. The sureties here are sureties only for John A. Sloan, and this is not a substantial compliance with *622the requirement of the law. [Drake on Attach. 132: Jones v. Anderson, 7 Leigh, 308.]

May 14, 1881.

§ 1108. *Pleading; defective petition on a draft.*Appellees sued appellant on a draft accepted by him payable to one Keating or order. No assignment was shown from Keating to them of the draft, nor was it alleged in their petition that they were the owners or holders of the-draft. *Held,*that the petition did not show a good cause of. action in appellees, and that appellant’s demurrer to the petition should have been sustained.

§ 1107. *Variance between allegata and probata.*The draft declared on was one for $418.45. It was not filed with and made a part of the petition. The draft read in evidence over the objection of the defendant was one for $400.45. *Held,*that- there was a fatal variance between the draft declared upon in the petition and the one read in evidence.

Eeversed and remanded.
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 on Form 10-QSB (the "Report") of China
Cable and Communication, Inc. (the "Company") for the quarter ended September
30, 2004, Raymond Ying-Wai Kwan, the Chief Executive Officer, hereby 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 the undersigned knowledge and
belief:

     (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.


Date:  November 19, 2004                    /s/  Raymond Ying-Wai Kwan
                                            -----------------------------------
                                                 Raymond Ying-Wai Kwan
                                                 Chief Executive Officer
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 461 

To exempt children of certain Filipino World War II veterans from the 

numerical limitations on immigrant visas and for other purposes. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 5, 2013 

Ms. HIRONO (for herself, Mr. REID, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. 

SCHATZ, and Mr. BEGICH) introduced the following bill; which was read 

twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To exempt children of certain Filipino World War II veterans 

from the numerical limitations on immigrant visas and 

for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘Filipino Veterans 

5 Family Reunification Act of 2013’’. 

6 SEC. 2. EXEMPTION FROM IMMIGRANT VISA LIMIT. 

7 Section 201(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality 

8 Act (8 U.S.C. 1151(b)(1)) is amended by adding at the 

9 end the following: 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 461 IS

1 ‘‘(F) Aliens who— 

2 ‘‘(i) are eligible for a visa under paragraph 

3 (1) or (3) of section 203(a); and 

4 ‘‘(ii) have a parent (regardless of whether 

5 the parent is living or dead) who was natural6 ized pursuant to— 

7 ‘‘(I) section 405 of the Immigration 

8 Act of 1990 (Public Law 101–649; 8 

9 U.S.C. 1440 note); or 

10 ‘‘(II) title III of the Act of October 

11 14, 1940 (54 Stat. 1137, chapter 876), as 

12 added by section 1001 of the Second War 

13 Powers Act, 1942 (56 Stat. 182, chapter 

14 199).’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on DSK6VPTVN1PROD with BILLS