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

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5692]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                               AMENDMENTS

  Under clause 6 of rule XXIII, proposed amendments were submitted as 
follows:

                               H.R. 1530

                         Offered By: Mrs. Mink

       Amendment No. 1: At the end of title III (page 153, after 
     line 25), insert the following new section:

     SEC. 396. PROVISION OF TRANSPORTATION FOR HUMANITARIAN 
                   PURPOSES IN PACIFIC RIM REGION.

       (a) Authority to Provide Transportation.--Chapter 157 of 
     title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end 
     the following new section:

     ``Sec. 2643. Provision of transportation for humanitarian 
       purposes in Pacific Rim region

       ``(a) Authority.--(1) Notwithstanding section 1344 of title 
     31, the Secretary of Defense may provide persons described in 
     subsection (b) and equipment described in subsection (c) with 
     transportation on a space-available basis--
       ``(A) to an airport or port in a country or other entity in 
     the Pacific Rim region from an airport or port in the United 
     States; and
       ``(B) to an airport or port in the United States from an 
     airport or port in a country or other entity in the Pacific 
     Rim region.
       ``(2) Transportation provided under subsection (a) shall be 
     provided without charge.
       ``(b) Persons Covered.--Persons eligible for transportation 
     under this section are--
       ``(1) minor children residing in the Pacific Rim region who 
     have been admitted for necessary medical treatment at a 
     medical facility in the Pacific Rim region, but who are 
     unable to afford the costs of transportation to the facility; 
     and
       ``(2) in the case of any child described in paragraph (1), 
     one adult attendant.
       ``(c) Equipment Covered.--Equipment eligible for 
     transportation under this section is limited to equipment 
     intended for health or humanitarian use by a nonprofit 
     organization at the ultimate destination of the equipment.
       ``(d) Conditions.--The Secretary may provide transportation 
     under subsection (a) only if the Secretary determines that--
       ``(1) the provision of that transportation is not 
     inconsistent with the foreign policy of the United States;
       ``(2) the transportation is for humanitarian purposes; and
       ``(3) adequate arrangements have been made with sending and 
     receiving entities before the provision of such 
     transportation at the location of departure and arrival.''.
       (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the 
     beginning of such chapter is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new item:

``2643. Provision of transportation for humanitarian purposes in 
              Pacific Rim region.''.
```
| (1)  | The      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934;and |
|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

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

| Date:      April 9, 2009 | By:                                                                       | /s/ Jonathan      Leinwand |
|--------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------|
|                     | Jonathan      Leinwand                                                    |
|                     | Chief      Executive Officer                                              |
|                     |  (Principal      Executive Officer and Principal Financial  Officer) |

----
758 A.2d 657

#### In the Matter of Arthur POMERANTZ. Petition for Reinstatement from Inactive Status.

No. 148 DB 1999.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Aug. 18, 2000.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

AND NOW, this 18th day of August, 2000. The Report and Recommendations of The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated July 17, 2000, are approved and IT IS ORDERED that ARTHUR POMERANTZ, who has been on inactive status, has never been suspended or disbarred, and has demonstrated that he has the moral qualifications, competency and learning in law required for admission to practice in the Commonwealth, shall be and is, hereby reinstated to active status as a member of the Bar of this Commonwealth. The expenses incurred by the Board in the investigation and processing of the Petition for Reinstatement shall be paid by the Petitioner.
News United States Air Force
 DOD identifies Air Force casualtyPublished Dec. 2, 2014
                        
                        
                        DOD News, Defense Media Activity
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                The Department of Defense announced Dec. 2 the death of an Airman who was supporting Operation Inherent Resolve.
Capt. William H. Dubois, 30, of New Castle, Colorado, died Dec. 1 when his F-16 aircraft crashed near a coalition air base in the Middle East. He was assigned to the 77th Fighter Squadron at Shaw Air Force Base, South Carolina.F-16 Fighting Falcon 



Capt. William H. Dubois 



accident
News United States Air Force
 Price of perfection: AF Honor Guard Drill TeamPublished Feb. 27, 2016
                        
                        By Jimmy D. Shea
                        
                        
                        Airman magazine
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** -- A standard U.S. Air Force Drill Team performance features a professionally choreographed sequence of show-stopping weapon maneuvers, precise tosses, complex weapon exchanges, and a walk through the gauntlet of spinning weapons.
The drill team also provides an incredible four-person performance centered on a stationary drill commander, flanked by four team members who simultaneously hurl their 11-pound weapons over and around the commander, performing a sequence of events unmatched by any other professional military drill team.
Airman 1st Class Larry Brown has trained for more than a year for the evaluation to become a member of the elite four-man drill team. Will he make it?Airman 



Airman magazine 



Air Force Honor Guard 



Drill Team 



drill
News United States Air Force
 AF leaders release Veterans Day messagePublished Nov. 9, 2015
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark A. Welsh III and Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force James A. Cody have issued a Veterans Day message to Airmen.
Click here to read the message.SecAF 



CSAF 



CMSAF 



Veterans Day
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

KEVIN EPPERSON,

Defendant BelowAppellant,

v.

STATE OF DELAWARE,

Plaintiff BelowAppellee.

§

§

§ No. 9, 2015

§

§

§ Court Below—Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware,

§ in and for New Castle County

§ Cr. ID 9408009291

§ 

§

Submitted: January 16, 2015

 Decided: February 12, 2015

Before HOLLAND, VALIHURA, and VAUGHN, Justices.

O R D E R

This 12th day of February 2015, upon consideration of the appellant’s 

request for leave to file an appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his twentyfirst motion for postconviction relief and his response to the Court’s rule to show 

cause why the appeal should not be dismissed, it appears to the Court that:

(1) The appellant, Kevin Epperson, was convicted by a Superior Court 

jury in 1996 of Kidnapping in the First Degree and Unlawful Sexual Contact in the 

First Degree. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to serve fifty-two years in 

prison followed by a period of probation. His convictions and sentence were 

affirmed on direct appeal.
2

(2) In 2006, following his appeal from the Superior Court’s denial of his 

eighth postconviction motion, this Court noted that Epperson’s repetitive filings 

were frivolous and constituted an abuse of the judicial process. We, therefore, 

enjoined Epperson from filing any future claims in this Court without first 

obtaining leave of the Court and filing a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in 

compliance with 10 Del. C. § 8803. 

(3) Epperson filed his current request seeking leave to appeal from the 

Superior Court’s denial of his twenty-first Rule 61 motion. Epperson contends that 

his twenty-first petition, which challenged the legality of the indictment against 

him, raises a constitutional issue that has never been addressed on the merits before 

by any court and is not procedurally barred.

(4) Epperson is incorrect. Having reviewed the Superior Court’s

December 9, 2014 order and Epperson’s response to the notice to show cause, we 

find it manifest that the claim raised in Epperson’s twenty-first Rule 61 petition is 

procedurally barred and frivolous. His repetitive filings constitute an abuse of 

judicial process. His latest appeal is not approved for filing. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the Epperson’s appeal papers 

are STRICKEN, and this matter is SUMMARILY DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
#### Wise County Coal Co. v. Carter Bros. & Co.

(No. 5276.)

Appeal from Wise County.

Donald & Cobb, counsel for appellant.

Chas. Soward and J. N. Haney, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Hurt, J.

§ 306. *Disqualification of judge; stockholder in company tuhich is a party to a suit; relation to does not disqualify.*This is a suit in which appellees were the plaintiffs, and appellant was the defendant, in the court below. Judgment was rendered for appellees. Appellant moved to set aside the judgment upon the ground that the county judge who rendered it was related in the third degree to one Carpenter, who was president of, and a stockholder in, appellant company. This motion was overruled. *Held:*The relationship of the judge- to *373Carpenter was not a disqualification. Carpenter was not a party to the suit in the sense of the statute. [R. S. arts. 1138, 1139.] To give the statute a construction that would make a stockholder of an incorporated company a party in the suit in which the company is a litigant would be unreasonable and disastrous in its consequences. [Dodge v. Stevenson Mfg. Co. 77 N. Y. 101; Henderson v. R. R. Co. 17 Tex. 572.]

May 21, 1887.

Affirmed.
Appeal Dismissed and Opinion issued July 28, 2000

In The

Court of Appeals

Jfftftl? m&ttitt nf Qfexas at Baltaa

No. 05-99-01639-CR

JULIAN MARQUEZ, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 219th District Court

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 219-81457-98

<&$*•

OPINION AND ORDER PER CURIAM

Before ChiefJustice Thomas and Justices Kinkeade and O'Neill

Appellant has filed amotion to withdraw the appeal. Appellant's counsel has approved

the motion.

This Court hereby GRANTS the motion to withdraw and ORDERS the appeal

DISMISSED and that this decision be certified below for observance. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.2(a).

PER CURIAM

Do Not Publish

Tex. R. App. P. 47
~K**£*s:.**Sr;*3S

Fifth Court of Appeals

Case Attorney Address List

Page: 1

Date Printed: 07/28/2000

Case Number: 05-99-01639-CR Date Filed: 09/29/1999

Style: Marquez, Julian

v.

The State of Texas

Trial Judge: Henderson, Curt B.

Trial Court Reporter: Wheeler,Deborah/MaienscheinS

Trial Court: 219TH DISTRICT COURT Trial County: COLLIN

APP Greg Willis

ATT 21653500

777 E 15 th #203

Piano, TX 75074

Phone 972/616-1999

Fax

STA Tom O'Connell

ATT 015181000

Criminal District Attorney

Collin County Courthouse

210 S. McDonald Street, Suite 324

McKinney, TX 75069

Phone 972/548-4323

Fax 972/542-3052
Fifth Amendment to Employment Agreement



 Exhibit 10.54(g)(12) 
  
 FIFTH AMENDMENT TO EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT 
  
 This Fifth Amendment to Employment Agreement is made and entered into as of January 22, 2003, by and between PriceSmart, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation (“Employer”) and Brud Drachman (“Executive”). 
  
 Recitals 
  

	A)	On January 11, 2000 an Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive. 

  

	B)	On January 24, 2001, a First Amendment to Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive; 

  

	C)	On June 1, 2001, a Second Amendment to Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive; 

  

	D)	Pursuant to a Memorandum dated October 16, 2001, Executive’s Annual Base Salary was increased to $157,000, effective as of September 1, 2001. 

  

	E)	On January 16, 2002, a Third Amendment to Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive; 

  

	F)	On November 19, 2002 a Fourth Amendment to Employment Agreement was made and entered into by and between Employer and Executive; 

  

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

  
 Agreement 
  

	1.	Section 3.1 of the Agreement which provides: 

  
 3.1 Term. The term of Executive’s employment hereunder shall commence on March 31, 2000 and shall continue until March 31, 2003 unless sooner
terminated or extended as hereinafter provided. 
  
 is hereby
amended, effective January 22, 2003, to provide as follows: 
  
 3.1 Term. The term of Executive’s employment hereunder shall commence on March 31, 2000 and shall continue until March 31, 2004 unless sooner terminated or extended as hereinafter provided. 








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

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

	 EXECUTIVE
	 	 EMPLOYER

		
	 	 	 PRICESMART, INC.

		
	 Brud Drachman
	 	 By: /s/ ROBERT M. GANS


		
	 /s/ BRUD DRACHMAN

	 	 Name: Robert M. Gans


		
	 	 	 Its: Executive Vice President
583 A.2d 307

#### JUX L. MAHR v. FORM TOPS LAMINATORS, INC.

January 23, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5629]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          RECONSIDER THE VETO

  (Mr. HERGER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HERGER. Mr. Speaker, President Clinton has threatened to veto the 
disaster assistance package produced by the Congress.
  I urge the President to reconsider that threat.
  He should not sacrifice needed disaster assistance on the altar of 
domestic politics.
  If the President vetoes this bill, he stops aid to victims of the 
tragedy in Oklahoma.
  If the President vetoes this bill, he jeopardizes the peace process 
in the Middle East.
  If he vetoes this bill, the President stops funds from flowing to aid 
victims of the natural disasters in California.
  Mr. Speaker, if the President vetoes this bill, he allows $9 billion 
in unnecessary and wasteful spending to be spent.
  Apparently, the President has issued the veto threat because he wants 
to appear relevant to the legislative process. But vetoing this 
crucially important piece of legislation seems to me to be a 
destructive way to prove relevance.

                          ____________________
```
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 November 25, 2013

s1118

Order 

Clerk

November 25, 2013

147209 & (36)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 147209

COA: 308549

Genesee CC: 11-028115-FC

STANLEY LAJAN SMITH, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 16, 2013 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. The motion to 

remand is DENIED.
DISMISS and Opinion F iled October 6, 2020 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas No. 05-20-00572-CV TRAM TRAN, Appellant V. DAVID STIDD, Appellee On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-06-02457-V MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Burns, Jus tice Whitehill, and Justice Molb erg Opinion by Chief Justice Burns In her pending motion for an extension of time to file her noti ce of appeal, appellant states she appeals fro m the trial court’s December 17 , 2019 dismissal of the underlying case. After receiving notice from the district clerk’s office that the trial court had not signed a di smissal order, we questioned our jurisdiction over this appeal. At our request, appellant filed a letter brief address ing our concern. Generally, this Court has jurisd iction over final judgments an d certain interlocutory orders as permitted by statute. See Lehmann v. Har–Con Corp. , 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); T EX . C IV . P RAC . & R EM . C ODE A NN . § 51.014(a)–2– (listing appealable interlocutory orders). A final judgment is one that disposes of all parties and all claims. See Lehmann , 39 S.W.3d at 195. In her letter brief, appellant fa ils to provide any authority d emonstrating our jurisdiction over this appeal. In the absence of an order to r eview, this Court lacks appellate jurisdiction. See id

. Accordingly, we deny as moot appellant’s motion for an extension of time to file her notice of appeal and dismiss t he appeal for want of jurisdiction. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.3(a).

200572F.P05 /Robert D. Burns, III/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT TRAM TRAN, Appellant
No. 05-20-00572-CV V. DAVID STIDD, Appellee On Appeal from the 303rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DF-06-02457- V. Opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burns. Justices Whitehill and Molberg participating. In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appe al is DISMISSED

.

Judgment entered October 6, 2020
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                          12,446
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  347,429
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               372,368
<PP&E>                                          70,298
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,010,552
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          405,516
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            93
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   213,920
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               392,234
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  312,632
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                88,717
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,616
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (14,731)
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (5,598)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (9,133)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.20)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
        

</TABLE>
758 A.2d 1178

#### Raymond WOLFGANG, Petitioner, v. CITY OF PITTSBURGH, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Oct. 3, 2000.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

AND NOW, this 3rd day of October, 2000, we GRANT the Petition for Allowance of Appeal, and we REVERSE the Order of the Commonwealth Court of June 20, 1996 and REMAND to the trial court for proceedings consistent with our decision in *Sadowski v. City of Pittsburgh,*559 Pa. 387, 741 A.2d 180 (1999).
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 92 (Wednesday, June 7, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H5692]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                            PETITIONS, ETC.

  Under clause 1 of rule XXII:

       23. The SPEAKER presented a petition of the New York City 
     Council, NY, relative to the Federal Bankruptcy Code; which 
     was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
     

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 90 (Monday, June 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Page S7656]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is now closed.

                          ____________________
```
Order entered January 1 1 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 12
- 00481
- CV
PRECISION EXTERIOR C OATINGS LLC, DEBBIE ALLEN , AND LISA WALLER, Appellant s V. JP MORGAN CHASE BANK , N.A., Appellee On Appeal from the 95th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC
- 11
- 02055 

### O RDER The Court has before it appellee’s January 8, 2013 second motion to extend time to file appellee’s brief. The Court GRANTS the motion and ORDERS appellee to file its b rief by January 29, 2013. No further extensions will be granted absent a showing of exceptional circumstances.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
News United States Air Force
 Around the Air Force: March 25Published March 25, 2016
                        
                        By Air Force TV
                
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** -- This look around the Air Force features Airmen's Week and exercise Pacific Agility. Hosted by Senior Airman Nicholas Koetz.
For previous episodes, click here for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:
- Airmen's Week
- Pacific AgilityATAF 



Airmen's Week 



San Antonio 



Lackland 



Texas 



Andersen AFB 



Guam 



Pacific Agility 



exercise