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

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2883 

To amend the International Child Abduction Remedies Act to limit the tort 

liability of private entities or organizations that carry out responsibilities 

of the United States Central Authority under that Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 1, 2004 

Mr. HATCH (for himself and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed 

A BILL 

To amend the International Child Abduction Remedies Act 

to limit the tort liability of private entities or organizations that carry out responsibilities of the United States 

Central Authority under that Act. 

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 ‘‘Prevention of Child 

5 Abduction Partnership Act’’. 
2 

•S 2883 CPS 

1 SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON LIABILITY. 

2 Section 7 of the International Child Abduction Rem3 edies Act (42 U.S.C. 11606) is amended by adding at the 

4 end the following new subsection: 

5 ‘‘(f) LIMITED LIABILITY OF PRIVATE ENTITIES ACT6 ING UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE UNITED STATES

7 CENTRAL AUTHORITY.— 

8 ‘‘(1) LIMITATION ON LIABILITY.—Except as 

9 provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), a private entity 

10 or organization that receives a grant from or enters 

11 into a contract or agreement with the United States 

12 Central Authority under subsection (e) of this sec13 tion for purposes of assisting the United States Cen14 tral Authority in carrying out its responsibilities and 

15 functions under the Convention and this Act, includ16 ing any director, officer, employee, or agent of such 

17 entity or organization, shall not be liable in any civil 

18 action sounding in tort for damages directly related 

19 to the performance of such responsibilities and func20 tions as defined by the regulations issued under sub21 section (c) of this section that are in effect on Octo22 ber 1, 2004. 

23 ‘‘(2) EXCEPTION FOR INTENTIONAL, RECKLESS, 

24 OR OTHER MISCONDUCT.—The limitation on liability 

25 under paragraph (1) shall not apply in any action in 

26 which the plaintiff proves that the private entity, or-
3 

•S 2883 CPS 

1 ganization, officer, employee, or agent described in 

2 paragraph (1), as the case may be, engaged in inten3 tional misconduct or acted, or failed to act, with ac4 tual malice, with reckless disregard to a substantial 

5 risk of causing injury without legal justification, or 

6 for a purpose unrelated to the performance of re7 sponsibilities or functions under this Act. 

8 ‘‘(3) EXCEPTION FOR ORDINARY BUSINESS AC9 TIVITIES.—The limitation on liability under para10 graph (1) shall not apply to any alleged act or omis11 sion related to an ordinary business activity, such as 

12 an activity involving general administration or oper13 ations, the use of motor vehicles, or personnel man14 agement.’’. 

Æ
##### 



Exhibit 99.2

Certification Required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
(as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)

I, Tommy L. McAden, as Chief Financial Officer of Technical Olympic USA, Inc.
(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 accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 (the Report), filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and 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 Company.

This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company
pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and does not
constitute a part of the Report.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

|                   |  |                                        
|------------------ |  | ---------------------------------------
|Date: May 15, 2003 |  | /s/ Tommy L. McAden                    
|                   |  |                                        
|                   |  | Tommy L. McAden
Chief Financial Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6238

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

GERALD GARDNER, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, Senior District 

Judge. (1:09-cr-00619-JFM-1; 1:11-cv-01904-JFM) 

Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 26, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Gerald Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Gerald Gardner seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) 

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Gardner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Kelli Mars","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/kelli-l-marsnasa-gov\/","title":"45 Years Ago: NASA Names the First Four Space Shuttle Crews","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"jWbNDHneJr\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/45-years-ago-nasa-names-the-first-four-space-shuttle-crews\/\">45 Years Ago: NASA Names the First Four Space Shuttle Crews<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/history\/45-years-ago-nasa-names-the-first-four-space-shuttle-crews\/embed\/#?secret=jWbNDHneJr\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“45 Years Ago: NASA Names the First Four Space Shuttle Crews” — NASA\" data-secret=\"jWbNDHneJr\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/images-assets.nasa.gov\/image\/S78-27531\/S78-27531~large.jpg?w=600&h=1270&fit=clip&crop=faces%2Cfocalpoint","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":1270}
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Nathan Cranford","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/nathan-a-cranfordnasa-gov\/","title":"Isolation \u2013 What Can We Learn From the Experiences of NASA Astronauts?","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"dgo2es65Fy\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/humans-in-space\/isolation-what-can-we-learn-from-the-experiences-of-nasa-astronauts\/\">Isolation \u2013 What Can We Learn From the Experiences of NASA Astronauts?<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/humans-in-space\/isolation-what-can-we-learn-from-the-experiences-of-nasa-astronauts\/embed\/#?secret=dgo2es65Fy\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Isolation \u2013 What Can We Learn From the Experiences of NASA Astronauts?” — NASA\" data-secret=\"dgo2es65Fy\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/isolation.png?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":399}
Case 2:15-cv-01693-SMM Document 18 Filed 08/15/16 Page 1 of 1
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Michelle Belleville","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/michelle-h-bellevillenasa-gov\/","title":"STS-109","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"cTFRKehwtU\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-109\/\">STS-109<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/gallery\/sts-109\/embed\/#?secret=cTFRKehwtU\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“STS-109” — NASA\" data-secret=\"cTFRKehwtU\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n"}
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-12-00082-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.S., A.S., 

AND M.S., CHILDREN

----------

FROM THE 431ST DISTRICT COURT OF DENTON COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

J.S. attempts to appeal from the trial court’s ―Order Holding Respondent in 

Contempt and for Commitment to County Jail,‖ in which the trial court held 

appellant in contempt for failing to comply with certain provisions of temporary 

orders and an agreed divorce decree. On February 29, 2012, we notified 

appellant of our concern that we might not have jurisdiction over this appeal 

because the order he is attempting to appeal from does not appear to be a final 

judgment or appealable interlocutory order. We stated that unless appellant or 

any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

continuing the appeal on or before March 12, 2012, the appeal could be 

dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), 44.3. Appellant

and appellee both filed responses; neither response shows grounds for 

continuing this appeal.

The general rule, with a few exceptions, is that an appeal may be taken 

only from a final judgment. Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 

(Tex. 2001). A final, appealable judgment is one that actually disposes of all 

claims and parties then before the court. Id. A contempt order, on the other 

hand, involves a court’s enforcement of its own orders. In re Office of the 

Attorney Gen. of Tex., 215 S.W.3d 913, 915 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2007, orig. 

proceeding). Consequently, contempt proceedings are not concerned with 

disposing of all claims and parties before the court. Id. A contempt judgment 

may be attacked by a petition for writ of habeas corpus (if the contemnor is 

confined) or a petition for writ of mandamus (if no confinement is involved); 

however, because a contempt order is not a final judgment, a remedy by appeal 

does not lie. Id. at 915–16.

The order appellant is attempting to appeal is not a final, appealable order. 

Appellant cites no authority, and we have found none, providing for an 

interlocutory appeal to be taken from a trial court’s contempt order. See 

generally Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 51.014(a) (West Supp. 2011)

(listing appealable interlocutory orders and not including contempt orders). We 
3

thus lack subject matter jurisdiction over this appeal. See In re Office of the 

Attorney Gen. of Tex., 215 S.W.3d at 915–16.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.2 See Tex. R. 

App. P. 42.3(a), 43.2(f). We deny appellee’s request for rule 45 damages.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: LIVINGSTON, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED: March 22, 2012

 

2Because we lack jurisdiction over the appeal, we also dismiss appellant’s 

―Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal.‖
I

105TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 4792

To improve the adoption system of the District of Columbia.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 10, 1998

Mr. BLILEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on Government Reform and Oversight

A BILL

To improve the adoption system of the District of Columbia.

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 ‘‘District of Columbia

5 Adoption Improvement Act of 1998’’.

6 SEC. 2. REPORT AND DATABASE.

7 (a) REPORT.—Not later than 30 days after the date

8 of the enactment of this Act, the Child Protective Services

9 Division of the Department of Human Services of the Dis10 trict of Columbia (hereafter in this Act referred to as the

11 ‘‘Division’’) shall report to Congress the number of chil-
2

•HR 4792 IH

1 dren under the jurisdiction of the Division who are legally

2 free for adoption.

3 (b) DATABASE.—Not later than 90 days after the

4 date of the enactment of this Act, the Division shall estab5 lish a database listing and tracking each child under the

6 jurisdiction of the Division, with the goal of adoption or

7 becoming legally free for adoption.

8 SEC. 3. TRANSFER OF RECRUITMENT, HOME STUDY, AND

9 PLACEMENT FUNCTIONS TO PRIVATE SERV10 ICE PROVIDERS.

11 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than September 30,

12 1999, the Division shall enter into contracts with private

13 service providers in the Washington Metropolitan Area to

14 perform the recruitment, home study, and placement func15 tions of the Division.

16 (b) COMPETITIVE BIDDING.—Any contract entered

17 into pursuant to subsection (a) shall be subject to a com18 petitive bidding process and outcome-based outsourcing.

Æ
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"NASA","provider_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov","author_name":"Ana Guzman","author_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/author\/ana-d-guzmannasa-gov\/","title":"NASA Shares Medical Expertise with New Space Station Partners","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"FnwVEi1T6y\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/humans-in-space\/commercial-space\/leo-economy\/nasa-shares-medical-expertise-with-new-space-station-partners\/\">NASA Shares Medical Expertise with New Space Station Partners<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/humans-in-space\/commercial-space\/leo-economy\/nasa-shares-medical-expertise-with-new-space-station-partners\/embed\/#?secret=FnwVEi1T6y\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“NASA Shares Medical Expertise with New Space Station Partners” — NASA\" data-secret=\"FnwVEi1T6y\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","thumbnail_url":"https:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/jsc2024e009595-cldmtggrouppic.jpg?w=600","thumbnail_width":600,"thumbnail_height":428}
II 

108TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2896

To modify and extend certain privatization requirements of the 

Communications Satellite Act of 1962. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 5, 2004

Mr. BURNS (for himself and Mr. BREAUX) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed 

A BILL

To modify and extend certain privatization requirements of 

the Communications Satellite Act of 1962.

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

3 SECTION 1. PRIVATIZATION REQUIREMENTS MODIFIED 

4 AND EXTENDED. 

5 Section 621(5) of the Communications Satellite Act 

6 of 1962 (47 U.S.C. 763) is amended—

7 (1) in subparagraph (A)(ii), by striking ‘‘June 

8 30, 2004’’ and inserting ‘‘June 30, 2005’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub10 paragraph: 
2

•S 2896 CPS 

1 ‘‘(F) Notwithstanding subparagraphs (A) 

2 and (B), a successor entity may be deemed a 

3 national corporation and may forgo an initial 

4 public offering and public securities listing and 

5 still achieve the purposes of this section if—

6 ‘‘(i) the successor entity certifies to 

7 the Commission that—

8 ‘‘(I) the successor entity has 

9 achieved substantial dilution of the 

10 aggregate amount of signatory or 

11 former signatory financial interest in 

12 such entity; 

13 ‘‘(II) any signatories and former 

14 signatories that retain a financial in15 terest in such successor entity do not 

16 possess, together or individually, effec17 tive control of such successor entity; 

18 and 

19 ‘‘(III) no intergovernmental orga20 nization has any ownership interest in 

21 a successor entity of INTELSAT or 

22 more than a minimal ownership inter23 est in a successor entity of Inmarsat; 

24 ‘‘(ii) the successor entity provides 

25 such financial and other information to the 
3

•S 2896 CPS 

1 Commission as the Commission may re2 quire to verify such certification; and 

3 ‘‘(iii) the Commission determines, 

4 after notice and comment, that the suc5 cessor entity is in compliance with such 

6 certification. 

7 ‘‘(G) For purposes of subparagraph (F), 

8 the term ‘substantial dilution’ means that a ma9 jority of the financial interests in the successor 

10 entity is no longer held or controlled, directly or 

11 indirectly, by signatories or former signato12 ries.’’.

Æ
##### 



Exhibit 99

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Patrick L. Beach, the President of GP3 Asset Acquisition, LLC, the manager
of Captec Franchise Capital Partners L.P. III (the Partnership), certify
that:

(1)  The Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the Partnership for the period
ended December 31, 2002, which this certification accompanies, 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 condition and results of operations of the
Partnership.

Date: March 28, 2003

By: /s/ Patrick L. Beach
Patrick L. Beach
President, GP3 Asset Acquisition, LLC