alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
|   | 1. | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended May 23, 2011 (the “Quarterly Report”) complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a) or 780(d)); and |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: June 29, 2011  |   | /s/ Theodore Abajian                                                      |
|---------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                      |   | Theodore Abajian                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|                      |   | Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
#### DONNA PRESTEL v. MARK BENNETT.

February 6, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 60 

Expressing support for the goals of Veterans Educate Today’s Students 

(VETS) Day, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 7, 2007 

Mr. PALLONE submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was 

referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Expressing support for the goals of Veterans Educate 

Today’s Students (VETS) Day, and for other purposes. 

Whereas the United States has, in the course of its history, 

fought in many wars and conflicts to defend freedom and 

protect the interests of the Nation; 

Whereas millions of men and women have served the Nation 

in time of need as members of the Armed Forces; 

Whereas the service of veterans has been vital to the Nation, 

and the sacrifices made by veterans and their families 

should not be forgotten with the passage of time; 

Whereas children throughout the Nation would benefit from 

programs that provide education about veterans and that 

instill a patriotic appreciation of the sacrifices made by 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•HCON 60 IH 

veterans to defend freedom and to protect the interests 

of the Nation; 

Whereas efforts are being made throughout the Nation to devote November 10, or another date as may be designated, 

to an event known as Veterans Educate Today’s Students 

Day; and 

Whereas schools that participate in Veterans Educate Today’s Students Day set aside a portion of the school day 

for the study, recognition, and appreciation of veterans: 

Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That the Congress— 

3 (1) recognizes the importance of veterans to the 

4 United States; 

5 (2) expresses support for the goals of Veterans 

6 Educate Today’s Students Day; 

7 (3) urges teachers, civic leaders, and veterans 

8 to carry out programs that educate children about 

9 the service of veterans and the sacrifices made by 

10 veterans and their families; and 

11 (4) encourages the people of the United States 

12 to participate in local and national activities recog13 nizing Veterans Educate Today’s Students Day and 

14 other events that foster education about the impor15 tance of veterans to the Nation. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
#### ELAINE WHALEN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BOROUGH OF SAYREVILLE, MIDDLESEX COUNTY.

March 27, 1984.

Petition for certification denied. (See 192 *N.J.Super.*453)
May 14, 2013

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

SMART MEALS, INC., Appellant

NO. 14-12-00638-CV V.

RON C. BISHOP, Appellee

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the 

judgment signed by the court below on April 5, 2012. Having considered the 

motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that each party shall pay its costs by reason of this appeal.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

                  RAMSAY HEALTH CARE, INC. CHANGES ITS NAME TO
                    RAMSAY YOUTH SERVICES, INC. (NASDAQ:RYOU)

CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA, JANUARY 4, 1999 . . . Ramsay Health Care, Inc.
(NASDAQ:RHCI) announced today that it has changed its name effective January 1,
1999 to Ramsay Youth Services, Inc. The Company's stock will continue to trade
on the NASDAQ stock market under the new ticker symbol of "RYOU".

Commenting on the name change, Luis E. Lamela, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Ramsay Youth Services, Inc. stated, "Our new name reflects our final
transformation from a psychiatric hospital company to a youth services company.
We are excited about the future of our Company in the dynamic and growing youth
services industry."

Ramsay Health Care, Inc. is a provider and manager of specialized education and
treatment services for at-risk and troubled youth. The Company through its youth
care division operates and manages residential treatment facilities, group homes
and services contracts in 8 states and Puerto Rico. Ramsay's educational
division manages five Charter/Contract Schools serving over 500 students in five
counties throughout the State of Florida.

Except for historical information contained herein, the matters set forth in
this news release are forward-looking statements as defined under the safe
harbor provisions of the private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
Forward-looking statements involve known and unknown risks and uncertainties.
Actual operations and results may differ materially from those expected in the
forward looking statements made by the Company. Please refer to Ramsay's filings
with the Securities Exchange Commission for additional information.

Contact:   Isa Diaz
           Vice President Corporate Relations
           (305) 569-4626
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE BALANCE
SHEETS AS OF JUNE 30, 1995, AND STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE AND
SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 1995, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                                 <C>
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                   DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                      JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                        Sep-30-1995
<PERIOD-TYPE>                       9-MOS
<CASH>                              465,416
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                       327,656
<ALLOWANCES>                        8,797
<INVENTORY>                         158,525
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                    973,575
<PP&E>                              6,532,818
<DEPRECIATION>                      (1,823,471)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                      5,875,113
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>               2,003,355
<BONDS>                             0
<COMMON>                            13,622
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>              0
<PREFERRED>                        2,136
<OTHER-SE>                         3,856,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>       5,857,113
<SALES>                            719,024
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   887,078
<CGS>                              0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      314,431
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   1,690,639
<LOSS-PROVISION>                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 91,029
<INCOME-PRETAX>                    (1,209,021)
<INCOME-TAX>                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                (1,209,021)
<DISCONTINUED>                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                    0
<CHANGES>                          0
<NET-INCOME>                       (1,209,021)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (0.07)
        


</TABLE>
#### Silverstein et al. *v.*Central Furniture Co., Inc.

[No. 18,984.

Filed December 17, 1958.]

*167*Gambill, Dudley, Cox, Phillips & Gambill,*of Terre Haute, for appellants, Elsa A. Silverstein, and Arthur Justin and Elsa A. Silverstein as Co-Executors of the Estate of David Silverstein, deceased.

*Dix, Dix, Patrick & Ratcliffe,*of Terre Haute, for appellants Mollie Solomon, Joseph Solomon, Trustee under the will of Mollie Solomon, deceased, and Joseph Solomon, Executor of the Estate of Mollie Solomon, deceased.

*Harold J. Bitzegaio*and *Hansford C. Mann,*both of Terre Haute, for appellee.

Pfaff, J.

Appellee corporation brought this action seeking to have certain documents adjudged to constitute a mortgage given by it rather than a deed and lease back to it with option to purchase, and for other relief.

Trial to the court resulted in a finding and judgment for appellee.

The sole error properly assigned here is the overruling of appellants’ motion for a new trial which *168includes the grounds that the decision is not sustained by sufficient evidence and that the decision is contrary to law.

Appellee has filed an answer brief in which it does not attempt to answer appellants’ contentions as to these grounds. We feel here, as we did in *Warren Company, Inc.*v. *Exodus*(1944), 114 Ind. App. 563, 53 N. E. 2d 546, that the administration of justice would be best served in this appeal if the court has the benefit of an answer brief on the merits.

Final action on this appeal is continued and appellee is given forty-five (45) days in which to file an answer brief on the merits *amicus curiae*and appellants are given twenty (20) days after the filing of such brief for reply.

Crumpaeker, P. J., and Kelley, J., concur.

Note. — Reported in 154 N. E. 2d 526.
Sample specimen (1 of 50)

                             MEDIA TRADE CERTIFICATE
                             -----------------------
                             FOR THE "INFO" CHANNEL
                             ----------------------

The "Info" Channel creates, for Hotels, Motels, Condominiums, and Apartment
Complexes, and Timeshare Properties, closed circuit information and advertising
channels. The "Info" Channel is currently running in properties in Florida,
Pennsylvania, and New Jersey.

This prepaid Media Trade Certificate is valued at $ 10,000.00 in advertising on
The "Info" Channel. When you present this signed, valid Media Trade Certificate,
the "Info" Channel will honor the airtime as follows:
-    The actual cost of an advertisement at the tie of placement, based on their
     current  rate  sheets.
-    As  of  June  1, 2002, The "Info" Channel rate sheet is valid for 10, 30
     second ad-spots  in  a  fifteen  minute  program  in  10  of  their
     properties.
-    The  ad-spots  will run for 4 times per hour, 96 times per day for one full
     year.

This Media Trade Certificate is subject to the following conditions:
-    It  is  fully  transferable
-    All  collateral  material  must  be  provided  to The "Info" Channel by the
     Advertiser.
-    The  "info"  Channel  reserves the right to refuse an advertisement that is
     not  suitable  for  their  program.
-    The  "Info"  Channel reserves the right to refuse a Media Trade Certificate
     from an advertiser previously or currently paying cas for ad-spots on their
     program.
-    An  ad-spot  will  be  subject  to  availability  in a particular property.

The "Info" Channel will only honor, original, signed Media Trade Certificates.
No photocopies will be accepted.

Media Tra Cerificate    #1-9
                      ---------------
Expiration Date         8/31/2003
                      ---------------

Sold To:                        NAME OF COMPNAY:       _________________________
                                CONTACT:               _________________________
                                ADDRESS:               _________________________
                                CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE: _________________________

AUTHORIZED SIGNATURES: _________________________________________
                       Representative, FRLS, LTD - Frank Roma
#### W. A. Lockhart v. O. P. Bowles.

(No. 509, Op. Book No. 1, p. 651.)

Appeal from Bexar County.

June 15, 1878.

Opinion by

Ector, P. J.

§ 844. *Judgment by default; garnishment.*It is error to render judgment by default when a plea is on file, even if the plea is defective. An insufficient or defective answer should be excepted to so that proper amendment may be made. If not excepted to, the irregularity -will be deemed waived. The failure to call the garnishee before rendering judgment by default vitiates the judgment. [Culbertson v. Ellison, 20 Tex. 102.]

Beversed and remanded.
v391552_ex10-5 -- Converted by SECPublisher 2.1.1.8, created by BCL Technologies Inc., for SEC Filing

 


Exhibit 10.5
## In The Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06

- 14

- 00239

- CR

MARK EUGENE ENGLE, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 354th District Court

Hunt County, Texas Trial Court No. 29,110

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.2 

### O R D E R Court reporter Julie Vrooman recorded the trial court proceedings in cause number 06

- 14

- 00239

- CR , styled Mark Eugene Engle v. The State of Texas , trial court cause number 29,110 in the 354th Judicial District Court of Hunt County, Texas. The reporter’s record was originally due in this matter January 29, 2015. That deadline was extended twice by th is Court on Vrooman’s request, resulting in the most recent due date of April 1, 2015. Vrooman has now filed a third request seeking an additional extension of the filing deadline. The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure establish that “trial and appellate courts are jointly responsible for ensuring that the appellate record is timely filed.” T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 35.3(c). The Rules further instruct that an “appellate court may enter any order necessary to ensure the timely filing of the appellate record.” Id. In furtherance of our responsibilities established by the Rules, we find we must take steps to ensure that the record in this case is filed in a reasonable amount of time. Therefo re, we overrule Vrooman’s third request for an extension of the filing deadline and hereby order her to file the reporter’s record in cause number 06

- 14

- 00239

- CR, styled Mark Eugene Engle v. The State of Texas , trial court cause number 29,110 in the 354th Judicial District Court of Hunt County, Texas, to be received by this Court no later than Wednesday, April 22,
2015. If the reporter’s record is not received by April 22, we warn Vrooman that we may begin contempt proceedings and order her to show cause wh y she should not be held in contempt of this
Cour t for failing to obey its order

.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT
Date: April 14, 2015
#### C. P. Shattuck v. H. N. McCartney et al.

(No. 1079. Op. Book No. 2, p. 724.)

Appeal from McLennan County.

October 19, 1881.

Opinion by

Winkler, J.

§ 557. *Estoppel in pais.*Generally, when one seeks to bind another by estoppel *in pais,*the law requires that the party should have acted upon a knowledge of the facts, and that his actions influenced the other party to act as he did [Scoby v. Sweatt, 28 Tex. 713], and must operate mutually between the parties. [Lewis v. Castleman, 27 Tex. 407.] If the representations were made,, whether with a full knowledge of the facts or not, he is estopped from denying the truth of the representations, unless he show fraud in obtaining the representations by the other party. [Johnson v. Hamilton, 36 Tex. 270; Watson v. Hewitt, 45 Tex. 472.] As to what a party pleading an estoppel *in pais*may prove, see Page v. Arnim, 29 Tex. 53; and as to measure of damages, see Warren v. Ashcroft, 50 Tex. 427.

§ 558. *Charge of the court; preponderance of evidence.*Where the court told the jury that whenever there arises a reasonable doubt as to the preponderance of evidence, then the defendant is entitled to the doubt, *held*error. In civil cases the law is that, where there is a conflict in the testimony, the jury must decide in favor of the preponderance of the testimony, they being the judges of its weight and credibility; but the court can give them no aid when the jury are unable to determine whether there is a preponderance of evidence one way or the other. N

Reversed and remanded.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 23 Introduced in House (IH)]

110th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. J. RES. 23

 Proposing an amendment the Constitution of the United States relative 
 to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting 
 the United States Government from engaging in business in competition 
                           with its citizens.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            February 7, 2007

    Mr. Paul (for himself and Mr. Miller of Florida) introduced the 
following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

 
 Proposing an amendment the Constitution of the United States relative 
 to abolishing personal income, estate, and gift taxes and prohibiting 
 the United States Government from engaging in business in competition 
                           with its citizens.

    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 
within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:

                              ``Article --

    ``Section 1.  The Government of the United States shall not engage 
in any business, professional, commercial, financial, or industrial 
enterprise except as specified in the Constitution.
    ``Section 2.  The constitution or laws of any State, or the laws of 
the United States, shall not be subject to the terms of any foreign or 
domestic agreement which would abrogate this amendment.
    ``Section 3.  The activities of the United States Government which 
violate the intent and purposes of this amendment shall, within a 
period of three years from the date of the ratification of this 
amendment, be liquidated and the properties and facilities affected 
shall be sold.
    ``Section 4.  Three years after the ratification of this amendment 
the sixteenth article of amendments to the Constitution of the United 
States shall stand repealed and thereafter Congress shall not levy 
taxes on personal incomes, estates, and gifts.''.
                                 <all>
```
News United States Air Force
 Air Force Learning Professionals "Communities of Practice” on "The Air Force Starts Here" podcastPublished Nov. 5, 2021
                        
                        
                        Air Education and Training Command Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                A look at the **Air Force Learning Professionals** “Communities of Practice” is the focus of the latest episode of "The Air Force Starts Here," released Nov. 2.
On episode 58 of the podcast, Dan Hawkins from the **Air Education and Training Command** public affairs teams talks with Dana Horn from the Headquarters AETC/A3BP Learning Professionals branch about how her team is accelerating change in line with Air Force Chief of Staff **Gen. Charles Q. Brown, Jr.**’s **Action Order A: Airmen** and advancing force development across the Air Force with the recent launch of their learning professionals communities of practice.
Topics discussed include the why and how the Communities of Practice on MilSuite have been formed to support the continuous learning of learning, how the communities of practice came about after collaboration with others on the AETC staff revealed a gap in developmental information, the collaborative aspect of development, and much more.
The professional development podcasts are designed to help communicate and inform Total Force Airmen across the globe on relevant, timely topics related to the recruiting, training, education and development fields and can be listened to on the government network on the **AETC website**, or via mobile application as well as on **Apple Podcasts** and **Spotify**.
Future episodes are set to cover a wide range of topics, including innovation and much more.AFWN 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



AETC 



Air Education and Training Command 



podcast 



Air Force Learning Professionals 



The Air Force Starts Here 



communities of practice
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**91 CA 14-00356**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

KAREN MARKS, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
MICHAEL ALONSO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

BARTH SULLIVAN BEHR, BUFFALO (ANDREW J. KOWALEWSKI OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
SPADAFORA & VERRASTRO, LLP, BUFFALO (RICHARD E. UPDEGROVE OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (James H. Dillon, J.), entered November 26, 2013. The order denied the motion of defendant for summary judgment.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Same Memorandum as in Marks v Alonso ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Feb. 13, 2015]).

Entered: February 13, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court