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

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 68 (Wednesday, April 26, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S5733]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           TRIBUTE TO CENTRAL FALLS (RI) JR./SR. HIGH SCHOOL

 Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to recognize the 
achievements of 25 students from Central Falls Jr./Sr. High School of 
Central Falls, RI.
  These students, Kelly Bianchi, Janeth Blandon, Melissa Casto, Berta 
Couto, Yolanda DaSilva, Daisy Diaz, Elizabeth Diaz, Michelle Doucet, 
Susan Freitas, Elizabeth Garstka, Martha Gutierrez, Melanie Kowal, 
Linda Layous, Rebecca Lussier, Michael Macedo, Juan Manzano, Nelci 
Paiva, Beatriz Patino, Christine Patricio, Celena Sackal, Kathleen 
Siwy, Hannah Tarawali, Helena Taveira, Agnes Wec, and Alexandra Zaldana 
have distinguished Central Falls and the State of Rhode Island through 
their selection as Rhode Island's delegation to the ``We the People . . 
. The Citizens and the Constitution'' national finals competition.
  I would also like to recognize their teacher, Mr. Bertrand Brousseau, 
who deserves much of the credit for the success of the team. The 
district coordinators, John Waycott and Charles Golden, and State 
coordinator Henry Cote also contributed a great deal of time and effort 
to help the team reach the national finals.
  This program, supported and funded by Congress, has been developed to 
educate young people about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The 
3-day national competition simulates a congressional hearing in which 
students' oral presentations are judged on the basis of their knowledge 
of constitutional principles and their ability to apply them to 
historical and contemporary issues.
  Administered by the Center for Civic Education, ``We the People . . . 
The Citizens and the Constitution,'' has provided curricular materials 
at upper elementary, middle, and high school levels for more than 
60,000 teachers, 22,000 schools, and 20 million nationwide.
  This tremendous program provides an excellent opportunity for 
students to gain a perspective about the history and principles of our 
Nation's constitutional Government. I wish these budding constitutional 
experts the best of luck and look forward to their future participation 
in our Nation's political arena.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I would like to proceed as if in 
morning business, but I would like a period longer than 5 minutes.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, would the Senator allow us to do this and 
then we will give her what time she might desire, then we will close 
out. I do not think we will be over 5 or 6 minutes.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator.

  

                          ____________________
```
IV 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. CON. RES. 47 

Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Medal of Honor Day to 

celebrate and honor the recipients of the Medal of Honor. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 30, 2007 

Mr. SKELTON (for himself, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. DICKS, and Mr. FILNER) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Supporting the goals and ideals of a National Medal of 

Honor Day to celebrate and honor the recipients of the 

Medal of Honor. 

Whereas the Medal of Honor is the highest award that can 

be bestowed to a member of the Armed Forces for valor 

in action against an enemy force; 

Whereas the Medal of Honor is awarded by the President, in 

the name of the Congress, to members of the Armed 

Forces who have distinguished themselves conspicuously 

by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of their lives 

above and beyond the call of duty; 

Whereas the United States will forever be in debt to the recipients of the Medal of Honor for their bravery and sacrifice in times of war or other armed conflict; 

mstockstill on PROD1PC62 with BILLS

2 

•HCON 47 IH 

Whereas the Medal of Honor was first awarded on March 25, 

1863, during the Civil War; 

Whereas, of the millions of men and women who have served 

in the Armed Forces in war, military operations, or other 

armed conflicts, only 3,443 members have thus far been 

awarded the Medal of Honor; 

Whereas 111 Medal of Honor recipients are still living as of 

January 1, 2007; 

Whereas it is appropriate to commemorate and honor the recipients of the Medal of Honor and to recognize their 

bravery and sacrifice for the United States; 

Whereas the designation of a National Medal of Honor Day 

would raise the awareness of the American people regarding the significance and meaning of the Medal of Honor 

and help focus the efforts of national, State, and local organizations striving to foster public appreciation and recognition of Medal of Honor recipients; and 

Whereas March 25 would be an appropriate date to observe 

National Medal of Honor Day: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) recognizes the heroism and sacrifice of 

4 Medal of Honor recipients for the United States; 

5 (2) recognizes the educational opportunity that 

6 a National Medal of Honor Day would present to 

7 the American public; and 

mstockstill on PROD1PC62 with BILLS

3 

•HCON 47 IH 

1 (3) supports the goals and ideals of a National 

2 Medal of Honor Day to celebrate and honor the con3 tributions of Medal of Honor recipients. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6380 SHAKA MACUMBA ZULU X, formerly known as Michael Wayne Montgomery, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus MICHAEL B. MOORE; LAURIE BESSINGER, Warden; DEPUTY WARDEN WESSIGNER; V. JACKSON, Prison Guard, Defendants - Appellees.

No. 96-6433
SHAKA MACUMBA ZULU X, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JOHN DOE; LAURIE BESSINGER; VAUGHN JACKSON, Captain, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., D istrict Judge. (CA-95-1605-6-3AK, CA-95-1199-CV-6-3AK)2 Submitted: October 15, 1996 Decided: November 19, 1996 Before HALL, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shaka Macumba Zulu X, Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, Andrew Frederick Lindemann, ELLIS, LAWHORNE, DAVIDSON & SIMS, P.A., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaints. We have reviewed the records and the district court's opinions accepting the magistrate judge's recommendations and find that the complaints, and these appeals, are frivolous. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Zulu X v. Moore , No. CA-95-1605-6-3AK; X v. Doe , No. CA-95-1199-CV-6-3AK (D.S.C. Feb. 28 & Mar. 13, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED3
News United States Air Force
 President announces Hagel’s resignation as defense secretaryPublished Nov. 24, 2014
                        
                        By Tech. Sgt. Jake Richmond
                        
                        
                        DOD News, Defense Media Activity
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Praising Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel’s “class and integrity,” President Barack Obama announced Nov. 24 at the White House that Hagel will leave his post.
The president said Hagel has agreed to remain in his position until a successor is nominated and confirmed. For that, Obama said, he is “extraordinarily lucky and grateful.”
“When I asked Chuck to serve as secretary of defense, we were entering a significant period of transition,” Obama said. 
That transition included the drawdown in Afghanistan, the need to prepare U.S. forces for future missions, and tough fiscal choices to keep the military strong and ready.
Last month, Obama said, Hagel came to him to discuss the final quarter of his presidency. It was then that Hagel initially determined that, having guided the department through this transition, it was an appropriate time for him to complete his service, the president added.**A Steady Hand**
“Over nearly two years, Chuck has been an exemplary defense secretary,” Obama said, crediting Hagel for providing a steady hand during the modernization of the administration’s strategy and budget to meet long-term threats, while still responding to immediate challenges such as the Islamic State group and the Ebola outbreak in West Africa.
Hagel said he is “immensely proud” of what the department has accomplished during his tenure.
“I believe we have set not only this department, the Department of Defense, but the nation on a stronger course toward security, stability and prosperity,” the secretary said.**Privileged to Serve**
Hagel called his opportunity to serve as defense secretary the “greatest privilege of my life.”
In the meantime, Hagel said, “I will stay on this job and work just as hard as I have over the last couple of years, every day, every moment, until my successor is confirmed by the United States Senate.”
The United States of America can proudly claim the strongest military the world has ever known, Obama said.
“That’s the result of the investments made over many decades, the blood and treasure and sacrifices of many generations,” he said. “It’s the result of the character and wisdom of those who lead them as well, including a young Army sergeant in Vietnam who rose to serve as our nation’s 24th secretary of defense.”Hagel 



resignation 



DOD Senior Leaders 



SecDEF Related Links
        Biography - Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel
            
            Hagel: ‘I did not make this decision lightly’
                                Nov. 24, 2014
                                Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel released his official resignation statement, Nov. 24, 2014.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 75 (Monday, May 8, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S6278]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

  SENATE RESOLUTION 116--COMMENDING THE LAKOTA AND DAKOTA CODE TALKERS

  Mr. DASCHLE (for himself, Mr. Inouye, Mr. McClain, and Mr. Pressler) 
submitted the following resolution; which was agreed to:

                              S. Res. 116
       Whereas the Lakota and Dakota Code Talkers, Native 
     Americans who were members of the Sioux Nation, worked in 
     radio communications during World War II and used their 
     Lakota and Dakota languages to relay communications;
       Whereas Japanese cryptologists never deciphered the Native 
     American languages that were used as codes during World War 
     II, including the Lakota and Dakota languages; and
       Whereas the Lakota and Dakota Code Talkers deserve to be 
     recognized for their contribution to the successful 
     resolution of the war effort in the Pacific: Now, therefore, 
     be it
       Resolved, That the Senate recognizes and commends the 
     Lakota and Dakota Code Talkers for their invaluable 
     contribution to the successful resolution of World War II.
     

                          ____________________
```
No. 87-6311.

#### Davis *v.*Wisconsin.

Sup. Ct. Wis. Certiorari denied.
#### JUAN RESTO v. JOSEPH DISANTI CONCRETE, INC. AND WELSBACH CONCRETE.

January 23, 1984.

Petition for certification denied.
News United States Air Force
 Health Benefits Program open season dates setPublished Nov. 10, 2014
                        
                        By Janis El Shabazz
                        
                        
                        Air Force Personnel Center Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO-RANDOLPH, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Open season for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and the Federal Flexible Spending Accounts Program will run Nov. 10 through Dec. 8, officials announced recently.
During open season employees and retirees will have the chance to review their current plans and make any changes they desire for the following year. Eligible employees who are not currently a part of FEHB may enroll during open season.
The average premium rate for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program will increase by 3.2 percent in 2015, according to U.S. Office of Personnel Management officials.
"There are two significant changes to health care and limited expense spending accounts," said Erica Cathro, an Air Force Personnel Center human resources specialist. "For the first time employees will be able to enroll in the flexible spending account program for a $100 minimum deposit and can carry over $500 in their health care and flexible spending accounts."
The first opportunity for carry over will be at the end of 2015. Current participants will not be able to carry over funds from 2014 to 2015; however, they will still have a grace period through March 15. Dependent care FSAs will continue to have a grace period each year, but participants cannot carry over funds from one year to the next.
There are no significant changes to the Federal Employee Dental and Vision Insurance Program.
In other FEHB news, some plans are opting out of the program and terminating their enrollment codes or reducing their service areas. Employees can find a listing of these plans, premium costs, comparison guides and individual plan brochures on the OPM website.
Cathro reminds employees that they should thoroughly review OPM Open Season guidance before making their selections.
For more information about this and other personnel issues, visit the myPers website. For detailed information on making open season elections, select "search all components" from the drop down menu and enter "7665" in the search window.federal employees 



health benefits program 



civilian
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 accompanying Quarterly Report of VSUS Technologies Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the three month period ending September 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bryan Norcross, Principal 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, to the best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.   Date: December 15, 2009By:/s/ Kyle GotshalkKyle GotshalkChief Executive Officer
#### C. A. Harris v. Haveman & Co.

(No. 1095, Op. Book No. 2, p. 478.)

Error from Waller County.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 802. *New trial; petition*for, *after expiration of term; requisites of.*The petition in this cáse is in the nature of a bill of review, and under our practice the action may be termed an original suit for a new trial. ‘ *‘*An applicationfor anew trial, whether made during the term or by petition after, is, under our practice, governed by the *454same principles in the one case as in the other, only with this qualification: that as the rule of law requires that the application be made during the term at which the verdict is rendered, if this be not done, the party must show an equitable excuse to entitle him to a hearing of his application after the term. To entitle him to a hearing of such application, he must show that from circumstances not attributable to his own neglect or fault, nor within his control, he did not have it within his power to apply for a new trial, and to enforce his application before the court that tried the cause.” [Vardeman v. Edwards, 21 Tex. 737.] In Burnley v. Rice, 21 Tex. 174, it was held that where a party goes into chancery after a trial at law he must be able to impeach the justice and equity of the verdict, and upon grounds which either could not be made available to him at law, or which he was prevented from setting up by fraud, accident, or the wrongful act of the other party, without negligence or other fault on his part. In Overton v. Blum, 50 Tex. 417, Moore, C. J., says: “But, though a new trial is never granted in terms after the adjournment of the court rendering the judgment, and there can be no such thing as another trial of the case at law after it is once finally decided, it is not to he questioned that when a judgment has been obtained by fraud, mistake or accident, and without any want of proper diligence on the part of the party against whom it is rendered, the court, in the exercise of its equitable powers, may grant relief by re-examining the case on its merits, and granting such relief as equity and justice may demand and require. To call, however, for the interposition of a court of equity, and to warrant the staying of the enforcement of a judg-. ment rendered by a court having jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of the suit, it is not sufficient that a mistake or accident may have occurred in the course of the proceeding, but it must also be shown that there is merit in applicant’s case, and but for the interposition of the court, he must sustain irreparable injury, to which he *455has in no material manner contributed.” In this case the petition was held insufficient, upon the ground that it failed to show that plaintiff had used reasonable diligence to apply for a new trial in term time.

March *27,*1881.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1047 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

  1st Session
                                H. R. 1047

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 6, 2007

   Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study to 
determine the suitability and feasibility of designating the Soldiers' 
 Memorial Military Museum located in St. Louis, Missouri, as a unit of 
                       the National Park System.

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

SECTION 1. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE STUDY REGARDING THE SOLDIERS' MEMORIAL 
              MILITARY MUSEUM.

    (a) Findings.--Congress finds as follows:
            (1) The Soldiers' Memorial is a tribute to all veterans 
        located in the greater St. Louis area, including Southern 
        Illinois.
            (2) The current annual budget for the memorial is $185,000 
        and is paid for exclusively by the City of St. Louis.
            (3) In 1923, the City of St. Louis voted to spend 
        $6,000,000 to purchase a memorial plaza and building dedicated 
        to citizens of St. Louis who lost their lives in World War I.
            (4) The purchase of the 7 block site exhausted the funds 
        and no money remained to construct a monument.
            (5) In 1933, Mayor Bernard F. Dickmann appealed to citizens 
        and the city government to raise $1,000,000 to construct a 
        memorial building and general improvement of the plaza area and 
        the construction of Soldiers' Memorial began on October 21, 
        1935.
            (6) On October 14, 1936, President Franklin D. Roosevelt 
        officially dedicated the site.
            (7) On Memorial Day in 1938, Mayor Dickmann opened the 
        building to the public.
    (b) Study.--The Secretary of the Interior shall carry out a study 
to determine the suitability and feasibility of designating the 
Soldiers' Memorial Military Museum, located at 1315 Chestnut, St. 
Louis, Missouri, as a unit of the National Park System.
    (c) Study Process and Completion.--Section 8(c) of Public Law 91-
383 (16 U.S.C. 1a-5(c)) shall apply to the conduct and completion of 
the study required by this section.
    (d) Report.--The Secretary shall submit a report describing the 
results the study required by this section to the Committee on Natural 
Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources of the Senate.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 5, 2007.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2020 ND 263

NBS Consulting, Inc. dba On Point

Management and Whitney Racine, Plaintiff and Appellee

v.

Peirce Harris aka Pierce Harris, Defendant and Appellant 

and 

All Other Occupants, Defendants

No. 20200203

Appeal from the District Court of Ward County, North Central Judicial 

District, the Honorable Gary H. Lee, Judge.

AFFIRMED .

Per Curiam.

Remington M. Kostenko and Dean A. Frantsvog, Minot, ND, for plaintiff and 

appellee; submitted on brief.

Pierce Harris, self-represented, Minot, ND, defendant and appellant; 

submitted on brief.

FILED 

IN THE OFFICE OF THE 

CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 

DECEMBER 17, 2020 

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
1

NBS Consulting v. Harris

No. 20200203

Per Curiam.

[¶1] Pierce Harris appealed from an order and a judgment evicting him from 

a property in Minot. Harris argues he was wrongfully evicted and improperly 

served. Harris failed to provide a transcript, which leaves us with little record 

to review. “If the record on appeal does not allow a meaningful and intelligent 

review of the alleged error, we decline to review it.” City of West Fargo v. Olson, 

2007 ND 48, ¶ 1, 734 N.W.2d 342 (quoting State v. Stockert, 2004 ND 146, ¶ 

13, 684 N.W.2d 605). Harris failed to provide us the opportunity to review his 

claims in a meaningful and intelligent manner. Therefore, we summarily 

affirm the district court under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(7).

[¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Gerald W. VandeWalle

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Jerod E. Tufte