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

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2039

To waive time limitations specified by law in order to allow the Medal 

of Honor to be awarded posthumously to Rex T. Barber, of Terrebonne, 

Oregon, for acts of valor during World War II in attacking and shooting 

down the enemy aircraft transporting Japanese Admiral Isoroku 

Yamamoto. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 28, 2004

Mr. WYDEN (for himself and Mr. SMITH) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL

To waive time limitations specified by law in order to allow 

the Medal of Honor to be awarded posthumously to 

Rex T. Barber, of Terrebonne, Oregon, for acts of valor 

during World War II in attacking and shooting down 

the enemy aircraft transporting Japanese Admiral 

Isoroku Yamamoto.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
2

•S 2039 IS 

1 SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR AWARD OF THE MEDAL OF 

2 HONOR TO REX T. BARBER FOR VALOR DUR3 ING WORLD WAR II. 

4 (a) WAIVER OF TIME LIMITATIONS.—Notwith5 standing the time limitations in section 3744 of title 10, 

6 United States Code, or any other time limitation applica7 ble with respect to the awarding of certain medals to per8 sons who served in the Air Force, the President is author9 ized and requested to award the Medal of Honor post10 humously under section 3741 of that title to Colonel (re11 tired) Rex T. Barber, United States Air Force, of 

12 Terrebonne, Oregon, for the acts of valor referred to in 

13 subsection (b). 

14 (b) ACTION DESCRIBED.—The acts of valor referred 

15 to in subsection (a) are the conspicuous acts of gallantry 

16 and intrepidity of Rex T. Barber at the risk of his life 

17 and above and beyond the call of duty on April 18, 1943, 

18 while serving as a first lieutenant in the 339th Fighter 

19 Squadron of the South Pacific Air Forces, Army Air 

20 Corps, in successfully attacking and shooting down the 

21 enemy bomber aircraft transporting Admiral Isoroku 

22 Yamamoto, the Commander in Chief of the Combined 

23 Japanese Fleet and architect of Japan’s attack on Pearl 

24 Harbor.

Æ
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1921 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  1st Session
                                S. 1921

 To amend chapter 3 of title 28, United States Code, to provide for 11 
 circuit judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
                          of Columbia Circuit.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 21, 2003

 Mr. Grassley (for himself and Mr. Sessions) introduced the following 
    bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend chapter 3 of title 28, United States Code, to provide for 11 
 circuit judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
                          of Columbia Circuit.

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

SECTION 1. JUDGES ON THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 
              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT.

    (a) In General.--The table under section 44(a) of title 28, United 
States Code, is amended by striking the item relating to the District 
of Columbia and inserting the following:

``District of Columbia......................................      11''.
    (b) Existing Vacancy Not Filled.--In order to comply with the 
amendment made under subsection (a), 1 of the vacancies of circuit 
judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit which existed on the date preceding the date of the 
enactment of this Act, shall not be filled.
                                 <all>
```
# Shacklton Crater Rim

Oblique view of the Shacklton crater rim in the vicinity of the lunar South Pole, captured by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera.

                    -  Facebook PinterestX
-  LinkedIn Emailhttps://www.nasa.gov/image-detail/shacklton-crater-rim/Copy URL to clipboard>DownloadShareImage CreditNASA/GSFC/Arizona State UniversitySize1110x700pxThe National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASA explores the unknown in air and space, innovates for the benefit of humanity, and inspires the world through discovery.
- About NASA's Mission
Join Us- Home
- News & Events
- Multimedia
- NASA+
- Missions
- Humans in Space
- Earth & Climate
- The Solar System
- The Universe
- Science
- Aeronautics
- Technology
- Learning Resources
- About NASA
- NASA en Español
Follow NASA-   
-   
-   
-   
- 
- More NASA Social Accounts
- NASA Newsletters
- Sitemap
- For Media
- Privacy Policy
- FOIA
- No FEAR Act
- Office of the IGBudget & Annual Reports
Agency Financial Reports
Contact NASA
Accessibility
-  									Page Last Updated:								  								Jul 07, 2023								 
-  									Page Editor:								   
-  								Responsible NASA Official:							  								Abigail Bowman
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 30, 2022

NO. 03-21-00143-CV

Steven W. Hughes and Adrienne R. Hughes, Appellants

v.

21st Mortgage Corporation, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 20TH DISTRICT COURT OF MILAM COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES GOODWIN, BAKER, AND SMITH

AFFIRMED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on February 24, 2021. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was no reversible error 

in the trial court’s judgment. Therefore, the Court affirms the trial court’s judgment. Because 

appellants are indigent and unable to pay costs, no adjudication of costs is made.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. DONNIE LEWIS MORRISON.

May 30, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. CARMEN BUONO.

July 21, 1978.

Petition.for certification denied.
**Exhibit
      32.2**




**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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of Atlas Technology Group,
      Inc.
      (the “ Registrant ”)
      for
      the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the “ Report ”),
      I,
      B.S.P. Marra, Chief Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant
      to 18
      U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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, as amended; and





(2)  The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.





Date:
      April 14, 2008








By: /s/
      B.S.P. Marra







B.S.P.
      Marra


Chief
      Financial Officer





This
      certification accompanies this report pursuant to Section 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
      such
      Act, be deemed filed by the registrant for purposes of Section 18 of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “ Exchange
      Act ”).
      Such
      certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing
      under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act, except to
      the
      extent that the registrant specifically incorporates it by
      reference.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 6 (Monday, January 11, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 1339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-280]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Bureau of Industry and Security


Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee; Notice 
of Partially Closed Meeting

    The Sensors and Instrumentation Technical Advisory Committee 
(SITAC) will meet on January 26, 2010, 9:30 a.m., in the Herbert C. 
Hoover Building, Room 3884, 14th Street between Constitution and 
Pennsylvania Avenues, NW., Washington, DC. The Committee advises the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on 
technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable 
to sensors and instrumentation equipment and technology.

Agenda

Public Session

    1. Welcome and Introductions.
    2. Remarks from the Bureau of Industry and Security Management.
    3. Industry Presentations.
    4. New Business.

Closed Session

    5. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the 
provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 
10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
    The open session will be accessible via teleconference to 20 
participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the 
conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a5fcd6d5d7cccbc2c0d7e5c7ccd68bc1cac68bc2cad3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8ad3f9faf8e3e4edeff8cae8e3f9a4eee5e9a4ede5fc">[email protected]</span></a> no later than January 19, 2010.
    A limited number of seats will be available during the public 
session of the meeting. Reservations are not accepted. To the extent 
that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to 
the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time 
before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of 
public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee 
suggests that the materials be forwarded before the meeting to Ms. 
Springer.
    The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of 
the General Counsel, formally determined on September 29, 2009 pursuant 
to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 
U.S.C. app. 2 10(d)), that the portion of this meeting dealing with 
pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export 
control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public 
meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 2 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining 
portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
    For more information contact Yvette Springer on (202) 482-2813.

    Dated: January 6, 2010.
Yvette Springer,
Committee Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-280 Filed 1-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-JT-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
****

## Ken Rattee

----

Journal Contributor Ken Rattee writes:

I was born in St. John, New Brunswick, Canada but my family moved to theSouthern Ontario area when I was very young and where I grew up in thesuburbs just outside of Toronto. I attended the University of Toronto from1975 -1980 where I entered to study astronomy and ended up graduating witha B.Sc.in hard rock geology in 1980. After two summers of uraniumexploration on the coast of Labrador, Canada I moved to the NorthernOntario town of Kirkland Lake in late 1980 where I worked as a MineGeologist at the Macassa gold mine for the next 17 years. In 1997 I leftthe mine, two years before it would ultimately close down after 65 years ofcontinual mining, to pursue work more in the exploration side of thebusiness. Since then I've been involved in several exploration and minecontracts across Northern Ontario from gold and diamond exploration to mine production geology.

My fascination with space exploration stems from being a child with ascientific curiosity growing up in the sixties, I can still recall JohnGlenn's lift-off as a child in kindergarten. Certainly one on my life longdreams has been to go up there myself and practice my profession on theMoon or Mars. Thanks to the ALSJ it almost feels like I havewalked the lunar surface. My other main interest besides geology and spaceexploration is amateur astronomy. If the night is clear and the moon hasset (the skies can be sublimely dark in Northern Ontario), the cold not toosevere or the mosquitos not too ravenous, I can often be found in mybackyard with my ancient 6-inch Newtonian reflector. As well I'm an avidlistener and collector of the music of Bob Dylan.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 28, 2021 

S 

In The 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-21-00012-CV 

GEORGE BRYAN, Appellant 

V. 

WILLIAM BECKER INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

TRUSTEE OF THE WILLIAM E. BECKER FAMILY TRUST 

AND SCOPE AUTOMOTIVE, L.L.C., Appellees 

On Appeal from the 95th District Court 

Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-08362 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before Justices Osborne, Pedersen, III, and Nowell 

Opinion by Justice Osborne 

Before the Court is appellant’s April 22, 2021 unopposed motion to dismiss 

the appeal. We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P.

42.1(a)(1). 

210012F.P05 

/Leslie Osborne/ 

LESLIE OSBORNE 

JUSTICE 
 –2– 

S 

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

JUDGMENT 

GEORGE BRYAN, Appellant 

No. 05-21-00012-CV V. 

WILLIAM BECKER 

INDIVIDUALLY AND AS 

TRUSTEE OF THE WILLIAM E. 

BECKER FAMILY TRUST AND 

SCOPE AUTOMOTIVE, L.L.C., 

Appellees 

 On Appeal from the 95th District 

Court, Dallas County, Texas 

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-08362. 

Opinion delivered by Justice 

Osborne. Justices Pedersen, III and 

Nowell participating. 

 In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is 

DISMISSED. 

 It is ORDERED that the parties bear their own costs of this appeal. 

Judgment entered April 28, 2021
#### Michael Billings, etc., *v.*Montizriffe.

New Trial — Conflicting Evidence — Proper Instructions — Mistakes and Injudicious Finding of Jury,

Where the evidence was strangely conflicting upon a question involving the issue of fact and fairly presented by proper instructions for appellants, none being asked by appellee, the appellate court cannot interpose and set aside the finding of the jury after the court below refused to do so, without overturning a doctrine and departing from a principle thoroughly settled with this court and the courts of other States.

Same.

Mistake by juries and injudicious finding, in a few exceptional cases, must be submitted to rather than unsettle, long-established and familiar principles.

APPEAL EBOM JEEBEBSON CIEOUIT OOUBT, COMMON PLEAS.

April 25, 1867.

Opinion oe the Ooubt by

Judge Petebs:

Although this couit might, as original triers, have come to quite a different conclusion from the evidence, from that of the jury, yet the question submitted involved an issue of fact, which was •f airly presented upon instructions given, as asked by appellants, and without any being asked by appellees. Upon the issue thus presented, the evidence was conflicting, indeed, it may be said, strangely so; but the witnesses were before the court and jury, who tried the case originally, and, therefore, plausible and imposing as the argument made by appellants’ counsel may be, we cannot interpose, and set aside the finding of the jury after the court below refused to do so, without overturning a doctrine and departing from a principle thoroughly settled by a long course of adjudications of this and other States. Mistakes by juries, and injudicious findings in a few exceptional cases must be submitted to, rather than unsettle long-established and familiar principles.

Wherefore, the judgment is affirmed.
Filed 11/13/23 In re C.C. CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

In re C.C., a Person Coming 

Under the Juvenile Court 

Law.

2d Juv. No. B329426

(Super. Ct. No. FJ57885)

(Los Angeles County)

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

C.C.,

 Defendant and Appellant.

C.C. appeals from the juvenile court’s order denying his

suppression motion. (Welf. & Inst. Code,1 § 700.1.) The section 

602 petition, as amended, alleged appellant carried a loaded 

firearm not registered to him on his person in a public place. 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Welfare and 

Institutions Code.
2

(Pen. Code, § 25850, subd. (c)(6).) After his motion to suppress 

evidence was denied (§ 700.1), he pleaded no contest. The 

juvenile court granted deferred entry of judgment. (§ 790 et seq.)

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. 

After counsel examined the record, she filed an opening brief that 

raises no arguable issues, noting that the order was not 

appealable. On September 11, 2023, we advised appellant by 

mail that he had 30 days to submit any contentions or issues he

wished us to consider. We have not received a response.

Denial of a motion to suppress pursuant to section 700.1 

followed by deferred entry of judgment pursuant to section 790 et 

seq. is not an appealable judgment or order. (In re Mario C.

(2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1308-1309.) Accordingly, the 

appeal must be dismissed.

We have reviewed the entire record and are satisfied that 

appellant’s counsel has fully complied with her responsibilities 

and that no arguable issues exist. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 

Cal.4th 106, 109-110; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441.) 

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J. CODY, J.
Benjamin R. Campos, Temporary Judge

(Pursuant to Cal. Const., art. IV, § 21.)

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Dee A. Hayashi, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
D ISMISS; Opinion Filed October 20 , 2016

.

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 16

- 00121

- CV

DELTA FLEX PARTNERS, LLC AND DELTA HEALTH CARE PLACEMENT, LLC

D/B/A DELTA HEALTHCA RE PROVIDERS , Appellant s V. CHRISTIAN DODGE D/B/ A PRN HOME HEALTH AN D HOSPICE SERVICES A /K/A PRN HOME HEALTH CARE A/K/A PRN HOME HEALT H AND HOSPICE , Appellee

On Appeal from the 116th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas Trial Co urt Cause No. DC

- 15

- 04917



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Lang, Lang

- Miers, and Myers

Opinion by Justice Lang

The Court has before it appellant ’ s October 13 , 201 6 motion to dismiss the appeal in

which appellant state s the parties have agreed to a dismi ssal. We grant the motion and dismiss

the appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 42.1(a).

160121F.P05 /Douglas S. Lang/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE– 2

– 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

DELTA FLEX PARTNERS, LLC AND DELTA HEALTHCARE PLACEMENT, LLC D/B/A DELTA HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS, Appellants

No. 05

- 16

- 00121

- CV V.

CHRISTIAN DODGE D/B/A PRN HOME HEALTH AND HOSPICE SERVICES A/K/A PRN HOME HEALTH CARE A/K/A PRN HOME HEALTH AND HOSPICE, Appellee On Appeal from the 1 16th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 15

- 04917. Opinion delivered by Justice Lang. Justices Lang

- Miers and Myers participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, the appeal is DISMISSED

.

It is ORDERED that, based on the agreement of the parties, each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 20th day of October, 2016.
STATE OF LOUISIANA 

COURT OF APPEAL, Fl,ST CIRCUIT 

ANREA WILLIAMS 

VERSUS 

NO. 2023 CW 0327 

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF 

SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AND A&M 

COLLEGE SYSTEM 

APRIL 13, 2023 

In Re: Board of Supervisors of Southern University & 

Agricultural & Mechanical College, applying for 

supervisory writs, 19th Judicial District Court, 

Parish of East Baton Rouge, No. 652810. 

BEFORE: McCLENDON, HOLDRIDGE, AND GREENE, JJ. 

STAY DENIED. WRIT GRANTED. The portion of the trial 

court's April 3, 2023 judgment converting the jury trial 

scheduled for April 17, 2023 to a bench trial is reversed. 

Board of Supervisors of Southern University & Agricultural & 

Mechanical College ("Southern University") is statutorily exempt 

from posting any bond whatsoever in any judicial proceedings 

arising from activities within the scope of its duties. La. 

R. S. 13: 4581; Sylve v. Kappa Alpha PSI Fraternity, 2001-2726 

(La. 10/10/01), 803 So.2d 960, 961. Furthermore, Southern 

University "shall not be required to post any bond, cash 

deposit, or other charge whatsoever to obtain a trial by jury." 

La . R . S . 13 : 51 0 5 ( E ) ; Sy 1 ve, 8 0 3 So . 2 d at 9 61. 

In addition, the portion of the trial court's April 3, 2023 

judgment denying the motion for summary judgment filed by 

Southern University is vacated. The portion of the trial 

court's April 3, 2023 judgment denying Southern University's 

motion to continue trial is reversed. Louisiana Code of Civil 

Procedure article 966 (C) ( 1) provides that "[u] nless otherwise 

agreed to by all of the parties J' and the court ... [a] 

contradictory hearing on the motion f o summary judgment shall 

be set ... not less than thirty days prio . to the trial date." As 

discussed, trial is scheduled in this matter for April 17, 2023, 

and the trial court set Southern University's motion for summary 

judgment for hearing on April 3, 2023, less than thirty days 

prior to trial. Accordingly, Southern University's motion to 

continue trial is granted, and this matter is remanded to the 

trial court with instructions to set, notice, and conduct a 

hearing on Southern University's motion for summary judgment 

within the deadlines provided in La. Code Civ. P. art. 966(C). 

Mcclendon, J., concurs. 

P. art. 966(C) (3) provides 

judgment on the motion not 

trial." 

GH 

HG 

I further note that La. 

that "[t]he court shall 

less than twenty days 

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT 

DEPUTY CLERK OF COURT 

FOR THE COURT 

Code Civ. 

render a 

prior to
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q of WNC  California
Housing Tax Credits III, L.P. (the  "Partnership") for the period ended December
31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"),  and pursuant to 18 U.S.C., section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section  906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  I,  Wilfred N.  Cooper,  Jr.,
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc., general partner
of the Partnership, hereby certify that:

1.   The Report fully complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934,  except to the extent  that such
     provisions require the audit report of Local Limited Partnership  financial
     statements  to  refer  to the  auditing  standards  of the  Public  Company
     Accounting   Oversight  Board  for  the   Partnership's   annual  financial
     statements; and

2.   The information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
     respects,   the  financial  condition  and  result  of  operations  of  the
     Partnership.




/s/WILFRED N. COOPER, JR.
-------------------------
Wilfred N. Cooper, Jr.
President and Chief Executive Officer of WNC & Associates, Inc.

September 24, 2008