alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-14-00472-CV

ARC PARKLANE, INC. d/b/a Parklane West Healthcare Center,

Appellant

v.

Arvel SEALS Jr., as Representative of the Estate of Dora Sylvia Lehrman, Deceased

Appellee

From the 73rd Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2014-CI-10177

Honorable Larry Noll, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE ALVAREZ, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE PULLIAM

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. Costs of 

court for this appeal are taxed against the party who incurred them. See TEX. R. APP. P. 43.4.

SIGNED November 25, 2015.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1101 

To provide for the payment of certain annuities under section 376 of title 

28, United States Code, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 15, 2007 

Mr. SNYDER introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To provide for the payment of certain annuities under section 

376 of title 28, United States Code, 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. PAYMENT OF CERTAIN JUDICIAL SURVIVOR 

4 ANNUITIES. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Paragraph (2) of section 376(h) 

6 of title 28, United States Code, shall not apply with re7 spect to the payment of an annuity to any individual de8 scribed under subsection (b) of this section, which would 

9 otherwise be payable (but for the operation of such para10 graph). 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS

2 

•HR 1101 IH

1 (b) INDIVIDUALS.—An individual referred to under 

2 subsection (a) is any individual who— 

3 (1) became a widow on the death of her spouse 

4 on July 14, 1987; 

5 (2) was remarried on October 20, 1990; and 

6 (3) again became a widow on the death of her 

7 spouse on February 11, 2004. 

8 SEC. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. 

9 This Act shall take effect as of October 20, 1990. 

Æ 

mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with BILLS
#### ARROWHEAD CO., Inc. et al. v. THE AIMEE LYKES et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

Dec. 30, 1950.

*896Lawrence W. McKeown, New York City, for libelants.

Tompkins, Boal & Tompkins, New York City, for respondents.

NOONAN, District Judge.

Respondents have moved this court for a change of venue pursuant to Section 1404(a) of Title 28 U.S.C.A., so as to transfer this action to Southern District of Alabama, Southern Division.

A similar motion previously made to this very court was denied ón the grounds that the moving papers were absent of sufficient facts in detail to warrant the exercise of the court’s discretion; no order having been entered on such prior motion, the court will hear this as a reargument granted on the showing of additional facts.

Libelant opposes this motion on the very basic question of whether Sec. 1404(a) is by its language applicable to causes in Admiralty. The pertinent parts of the statute are “ * * * court may transfer any civil action * * * ”. Thus libelant contends that the Congress did not intend that Admiralty actions be included. Libel-ant further argues that exclusion of any such limitation in Sec. 1406(a), clearly demonstrates the intention of the Congress to exclude actions in Admiralty from the provisions of Sec. 1404(a).

Sec. 1406(a) has been held applicable to Admiralty. Orr v. United States, 2 Cir., 174 F.2d 577; Untersinger v. United States, 2 Cir., 181 F.2d 953. Counsel on both sides were unable to submit any cases so construing the applicability of Sec. 1404(a). However, there were two cases recently decided in this District which granted a transfer of venue under Sec. 1404(a) to causes in Admiralty. Crawford v. Ann Arbor Railroad Co., D.C., 94 F.Supp. 29; St. Paul Fire *&*Marine Ins. Co. v. American Mail Line Ltd., D.C., 94 F.Supp. 28.

Sec. 1333, of Title 28 U.S.C.A. provides in part: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction * * * of: (1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, * * * The Supreme Court in Ex parte Collett, 337 U.S. 55, 58, 69 S.Ct. 944, 946, 959, 93 L.Ed. 1207, discussing the phrase “any civil action” of Sec. 1404(a) said: “The phrase is used without qualification, without hint that some should be excluded.”

Therefore, this court concludes that Sec. 1404(a) is applicable here.

The incident which is the subject of the action here occurred in Mobile. None of the three libelants resides or has a place of business in this district, but rather resides in Louisiana, Florida and Minnesota. All of the witnesses either reside in or comparatively close to Mobile or are seamen who sail out of Mobile.

Accordingly, for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, the motion is granted.
583 A.2d 301

#### WILLIAM SHAWL v. S & M PROPERTIES AND VERGONA CRANE CO., INC. v. NATIONAL ERECTOR, INC.

January 10, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
758 A.2d 1177

#### OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner, v. Anthony F. CLARK, Respondent.

No. 374 Disciplinary Docket No. 3.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Argued Sept. 11, 2000.

Decided Oct. 2, 2000.

Angela Allen Mitas, for Office of Disciplinary Counsel.

Christine Marie Selden, Renee Pietropaolo, Pittsburgh, for Anthony F. Clark.

Before FLAHERTY, C.J., and ZAPPALA, CAPPY, CASTILLE, NIGRO and SAYLOR, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Upon consideration of the Report and Recommendations of the Disciplinary Board dated February 1, 2000, and following oral argument, it is hereby

ORDERED that Anthony F. Clark be and he is disbarred from the Bar of this Commonwealth, retroactive to October 27, 1997, and he shall comply with all the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. It is further ORDERED that respondent shall pay costs to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E.

*187Justice NEWMAN did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Justice CAPPY dissents and would suspend respondent for a period of five years.
News United States Air Force
 Total force program aims to streamline KC-135 upkeepPublished May 19, 2016
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Jenna K. Caldwell
                        
                        
                        22nd Air Refueling Wing Public Affairs
                **MCCONNELL AIR FORCE BASE, Kan. (AFNS)  --**
                Active-duty and Reserve maintainers at McConnell Air Force Base have teamed up as part of a new total force integration program to improve maintenance on KC-135 Stratotankers.The 22nd and 931st Aircraft Maintenance Squadrons have joined the Dedicated Crew Chief program, which matches a team of Airmen to aircraft so they become the responsible oversight for any maintenance issues that arise with that specific jet."The DCC program is intended to instill pride in ownership and increase the quality and availability of our aircraft," said Lt. Col. Duane Richardson, the 22nd AMXS commander. "The program focuses a lot on the little things. The DCC is charged to take care of those little maintenance issues before they become one big issue that takes the jet down for a while."Almost 60 DCCs and assistant DCCs have been assigned to 25 KC-135s -- 17 of the tankers were assigned to active-duty teams and the other eight assigned to air reserve technicians."It's absolutely amazing working with the 931st AMXS in this program," Richardson said. "You have a more seasoned squadron of maintainers, as a lot of the 931st AMXS guys were prior active duty. They have a lot of experience maintaining aircraft, so mixing those with our young (active-duty) guys really helps enhance the program immensely."The team includes a DCC, an NCO in charge, and at least one assistant DCC.Since one crew is dedicated and familiar with that aircraft, a main benefit will be the reduction of chain-reaction problems, where one thing goes bad and other problems follow said Tech. Sgt. Anthony Jordan, a 22nd AMXS DCC."When everybody looks at (the aircraft) they are going to think of me, because my name is on the side," Jordan said. "It gives you a sense of pride and lets you establish continuity with the aircraft, instead of bouncing from aircraft to aircraft. You actually get to focus on one and put a little bit of your own personality into it."Other career fields, not just crew chiefs, can be DDCs and assistant DCCs as well. Specialists such as guidance and control, communication navigations, and electronic environmental Airmen can also be assigned to an aircraft."It's not just assigning a person to a jet; it's about assigning the right person and the right team," Richardson said. "Passion is the driving motivator behind the DCC program. If you have passion to maintain the aircraft and you have that pride in ownership, that's whose name I want on the jet."total force 



Reserve 



KC-135 



maintenance 



crew chief 



McConnell AFB
NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST'S HAWAI#I REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER

NO. CAAP-20-0000591

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

STATE OF HAWAI#I, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, EmployerAppellant/Appellant, v. GORDON K. LESLIE,

Petitioner-Appellee/Appellee and STATE OF HAWAI#I,

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS,

Agency-Appellee/Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT

(CIVIL NO. 1CCV-20-0000047)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

(By: Leonard, Presiding Judge, Hiraoka and Nakasone, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the Motion to Withdraw Appeal,

Pursuant to HRAP 42(b), filed March 18, 2021, by EmployerAppellant/Appellant State of Hawai#i, Department of Public

Safety, the papers in support, record, and noting no opposition,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion is granted and the

appeal is dismissed.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 15, 2021.

/s/ Katherine G. Leonard

Presiding Judge

/s/ Keith K. Hiraoka

Associate Judge

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone

Associate Judge

Electronically Filed

Intermediate Court of Appeals

CAAP-20-0000591

15-APR-2021

09:22 AM

Dkt. 50 OGMD
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1144 

To waive the non-Federal share of the cost of certain disaster assistance 

provided in connection with Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and for other 

purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 16, 2007 

Mr. CLYBURN (for himself, Mr. HOYER, Ms. NORTON, Mr. MELANCON, Mr. 

JEFFERSON, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi, Mr. BARROW, 

Mr. BERRY, Mr. BISHOP of Georgia, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Ms. BORDALLO, 

Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. BUTTERFIELD, Ms. CARSON, Mrs. 

CHRISTENSEN, Ms. CLARKE, Mr. CLAY, Mr. CLEAVER, Mr. CONYERS, 

Mr. CROWLEY, Mr. CUMMINGS, Mr. DAVIS of Alabama, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. FATTAH, Mr. AL GREEN of Texas, Mr. 

GRIJALVA, Mr. HASTINGS of Florida, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Ms. KILPATRICK, Ms. LEE, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mrs. 

MALONEY of New York, Mr. MEEK of Florida, Mr. MEEKS of New York, 

Ms. MILLENDER-MCDONALD, Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York, Mr. 

MCDERMOTT, Mr. MICHAUD, Ms. MOORE of Wisconsin, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. 

PRICE of North Carolina, Mr. RANGEL, Mr. ROSS, Mr. RUSH, Mr. SCOTT

of Georgia, Mr. SCOTT of Virginia, Ms. SUTTON, Mr. TOWNS, Mrs. 

JONES of Ohio, Ms. WATERS, Mr. WATT, Ms. WATSON, Ms. WOOLSEY, 

and Mr. WYNN) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To waive the non-Federal share of the cost of certain disaster 

assistance provided in connection with Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita, and for other purposes. 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
2 

•HR 1144 IH

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 ‘‘Hurricanes Katrina 

5 and Rita Federal Match Relief Act of 2007’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FEDERAL SHARE OF DISASTER ASSISTANCE. 

7 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, including 

8 any agreement, the Federal share of the cost of disaster 

9 assistance provided before the date of enactment of this 

10 Act in connection with Hurricane Katrina or Rita under 

11 title IV of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

12 Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5170 et seq.), in13 cluding direct Federal assistance, shall be 100 percent 

14 with respect to assistance provided for the States of Lou15 isiana and Mississippi. 

16 SEC. 3. CANCELLATION OF LOANS. 

17 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 2(a) of the Community 

18 Disaster Loan Act of 2005 (Public Law 109–88) is 

19 amended by striking ‘‘Provided further, That notwith20 standing section 417(c)(1) of the Stafford Act, such loans 

21 may not be canceled:’’. 

22 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

23 this section shall be effective on the date of enactment of 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
3 

•HR 1144 IH

1 the Community Disaster Loan Act of 2005 (Public Law 

2 109–88). 

Æ 


jcorcoran on PROD1PC62 with BILLS
`[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.J. Res. 92 Placed on Calendar Senate (PCS)]






                                                       Calendar No. 770
110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. J. RES. 92


_______________________________________________________________________


                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              June 5, 2008

                    Received and read the first time

                              June 6, 2008

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION


 
           Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.

    Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United 
States of America in Congress assembled, That subsection (b) of section 
3101 of title 31, United States Code, is amended by striking out the 
dollar limitation contained in such subsection and inserting in lieu 
thereof $10,615,000,000,000.

            Passed the House of Representatives June 5, 2008.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.




                                                       Calendar No. 770

110th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                             H. J. RES. 92

_______________________________________________________________________

                            JOINT RESOLUTION

           Increasing the statutory limit on the public debt.

_______________________________________________________________________

                              June 6, 2008

            Read the second time and placed on the calendar`
News United States Air Force
 AMC approves 4th KC-46A Pegasus ICR milestonePublished Dec. 8, 2021
                        
                        
                        Air Mobility Command Public Affairs
                **SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, Ill. (AFNS) --**
                **Gen. Mike Minihan**, commander of **Air Mobility Command**, approved a fourth Interim Capability Release (ICR) mission set for the **KC-46A Pegasus**, Dec. 6.
This ICR decision allows the KC-46A to refuel the **AC-130J Ghostrider**, **HC-130J Combat King II**, **MC-130J Commando II**, **C-5M Super Galaxy**and **E-3G Sentry** during **U.S. Transportation Command**-tasked missions.
“The KC-46A can now support nearly 70% of all receiver aircraft that request air refueling support from USTRANSCOM,” said Lt. Col. Kevin White, AMC’s deputy chief of Aircraft and Logistics Requirements Division and KC-46A Cross Functional Team deputy lead. “In addition, we are putting the Pegasus against our highest priority missions such as direct presidential support.”
The KC-46A ICR plan allows the Pegasus to conduct operational taskings that would otherwise be filled by the **KC-135 Stratotanker** and **KC-10 Extender**, increasing the force’s air refueling capacity and further seasoning total force Pegasus aircrews with operational missions.
On July 9, the first ICR decision approved the KC-46A Pegasus to refuel aircraft using its **Centerline Drogue System**. The second ICR decision, which approved the KC-46A **to refuel** the **B-52H Stratofortress**, **C-17 Globemaster III** and other KC-46 aircraft using its boom, was made Aug. 5. Approved on Oct. 15, the third decision allowed the KC-46A to refuel **all variants of the F-15 Eagle and F-16 Fighting Falcon**.
There is no timeline associated with the overall ICR plan, which instead focuses on establishing incremental confidence measures that allow the AMC commander and other senior leaders to qualitatively and quantitatively assess achievements at ICR milestones. Crews will continue to fly training, exercise and demonstration missions until all operational confidence measures are met.
Despite existing restrictions and deficiencies, the KC-46A continues to demonstrate its growing operational capabilities. The Pegasus has completed over 6,000 missions, offloading more than 37.8 million pounds of fuel, and making 28,000 boom and 1,900 drogue contacts since January 2019.
On Nov. 9, **Joint Base McGuire-Dix-Lakehurst**, New Jersey **welcomed its first two KC-46As**, bringing the total number of KC-46As in the Air Force inventory to 50. The KC-46A currently operates out of**McConnell Air Force Base**, Kansas.; **Seymour Johnson AFB**, North Carolina.; **Pease Air National Guard Base**, New Hampshire; and **Altus AFB**, Oklahoma.LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



KC-46A 



Pegasus 



ICR 



milestone 



Interim Capability Release 



AMC 



Air Mobility Command 



Aircraft 



readiness 



Scott AFB 



Gen. Mike Minihan 



USTRANSCOM
578 A.2d 1228

#### IN THE MATTER OF JOSEPH A. FERRANTE, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

September 17, 1990.

ORDER

This matter having been duly presented to the Court, it is ORDERED that the motion for leave to vacate the proctorship requirement contained in this Court’s Order of May 8, 1990, is granted, respondent having complied with the terms of that Order.
583 A.2d 328

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JAMES WILLIAMS.

February 26, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### Scarf & O’Conner v. H. D. Johnson.

(No. 2989.)

Appeal from Navarro County.

W. J. McKie, counsel for appellants.

Read, Greer & Greer, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

Will-son, J.

§ 399. *Parties plaintiff; assignee of a claim may sue without joining assignor; case stated.*Appellee was assignee of O. J. Huskey, an insolvent debtor, for the benefit of the creditors of said insolvent. One M. Huskey was a creditor of said insolvent, and accepted said assignment. Said M. Huskey assigned his claim to appellants, and they brought this suit to compel appellee, as assignee aforesaid, to pay the *pro rata*due thereon, alleging their ownership of said claim, etc. Appellee excepted to their petition upon the ground that it showed upon its face that M. Huskey was a necessary party plaintiff to the suit, and said exception was sustained and the suit was dismissed. *PLeld*error, it is expressly alleged in the petition that M. Huskey had assigned to the plaintiffs the claim sued upon, and that plaintiff $ were the owners thereof. M. Huskey, therefore, had no right to or interest in the claim, and was not a necessary party in a suit upon or concerning it.. Appellants had *473the right to maintain the suit without joining their assignor. [Sayles’ Civ. Stat. arts. 266, 267.] It was the right of appellee, if he deemed it necessary to his own protection, and if he moved promptly, so as to not unreasonably delay the trial of the cause, to have said M. Huskey cited to appear and answer in the cause. [Sayles’ Civ. Stat. art. 1209.] Or said M. Huskey might, at a proper time and upon a proper showing, make himself a party by intervention. But it was not incumbent upon appellants to join him in the suit.

November 21, 1888.

Reversed and remanded.
Exhibit 99.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Point
Therapeutics, Inc. (the Company) for the three-month period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard N. Small, Chief Financial 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 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 conditions and results of operations of the Company.



Date: May 15, 2003



/s/    RICHARD N.
SMALLRichard N. Small Chief Financial Officer




A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Point Therapeutics, Inc. and will be retained by Point Therapeutics, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
583 A.2d 320

#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DARREN WHITLEY.

February 13, 1990.

Petition for certification denied.
#### A. L. Parrott et al. v. W. J. Craig.

(No. 5947.)

Appeal from Jack County.

W. E. Taylor and Harry N. Bell, counsel for appellants.

Stark & Stark, counsel for appellee.

Opinion by

White, P. J.

§ 453. *Void judgment; injunction against; appealbond from justice's court; extent of liability of sureties on; case stated.*Appellee recovered a judgment in justice’s court against appellant Parrott, and the latter appealed to the county court. In the county court the appeal was dismissed, and judgment was rendered against Parrott and the sureties on his appeal bond for all costs which had accrued in the cause in both courts. Parrott and said sureties brought this suit, and prayed for a writ of injunction to restrain the enforcement of said judgment. The injunction was granted by the county judge, but upon motion of appellee was dissolved and the suit dismissed. The appeal from the justice’s to the county *552court was dismissed in the latter court upon the ground that said court had no jurisdiction thereof, the judgment appealed from not being a final judgment. *Held:*The county court, not having acquired jurisdiction of the appeal, had no authority to render any other judgment than one dismissing the appeal; and the judgment rendered by said court against the sureties upon Parrott’s appeal bond was therefore void. Injunction is a proper remedy against a void judgment, and the injunction in this case was properly granted and should have been perpetuated. [Witt v. Kaufman, 25 Tex. Sup. 384; Bidwell v. Thompson, id. 247; Pullen v. Baker, 41 Tex. 419; 1 App. C. C. § 681; 2 App. C. C. § 689.] Judgment reversed and injunction perpetuated.

April 13, 1889.

Reversed and rendered.
News United States Air Force
 BLUE: Fueling the futurePublished Oct. 31, 2016
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Traci Keller
                        
                        
                        Air Force TV
                
                
**FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS)** -- Air Force TV has released the latest episode of the Air Force's flagship television program, BLUE.
Most families have traditions that revolve around holidays and special occasions. We introduce you to a family with a tradition that's intertwined with the history and future of two tankers, the KC-135 Stratotanker and the new KC-46A Pegasus.Air Force TV 



BLUE 



KC-46 



KC-135