alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

U.S. Indo-Pacific CommandUSINDOPACOM

U.S. Indo-Pacific Command

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  Leadership    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Chief of Staff         
  -  Senior Enlisted Leader 
-  About USINDOPACOM    -  History         
  -  USPACOM Area of Responsibility         
  -  USPACOM Previous Commanders         
  -  Women, Peace and Security 
-  Organization    -  Organization Chart 
-  Media    -  News      -  Spotlight 
  -  Photos         
  -  Speeches / Testimony         
  -  Freedom of Information Act      -  FOIA - Reading Room         
    -  Submit FOIA Request         
    -  Request Status         
    -  FOIA FAQS 
-  Resources    -  Travel Requirements         
  -  Useful Theater Information         
  -  FAQ         
  -  Useful Links 
-  Newcomers		 
-  Contact    -  Directory         
  -  Media Inquiries         
  -  Industry Engagements 
-  JTF - Red Hill		 
-  JTF-Micronesia		 

Home : Media : News : News Article View

# Maintainers Key to Ospreys' Mission Down Under

By Staff Sgt. Zachary DyerIII Marine Expeditionary Force

                IPSWICH, Australia  –              

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Ospreys' Mission

pacom

news

articles
#### Roger May v. The State.

No. 22779.

Delivered March 1, 1944.

Rehearing Denied April 26, 1944.

The opinion states the case.

*Eugene F. Mathis,*of Lubbock, for appellant.

*Ernest S. Goens,*State’s Attorney, of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Unlawfully selling whiskey is the offense; the punishment, a fine of $100.00.

Appellant insists that the undisputed facts show that he acted only as the agent of the purchaser of the whiskey, and not *205as the seller thereof. As to this, we note, that, upon cross-examination of appellant, and upon his being shown the bottle of whiskey which the State’s witnesses identified as having been acquired from appellant, he said: “I am pretty sure that is the whiskey I sold Mr. Burney.” (The purchaser 'named in the information.) Such an admission on the part of the appellant was ■ sufficient to raise an issue for the jury — to- say nothing of the State’s testimony on the subject.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING.

KRUEGER, Judge.

In his motion for a rehearing, appellant asserts that in the original disposition of this case, we erred in two respects: First, in holding that he was not the agent of the purchaser of the whiskey; and second, that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain his conviction. In support of his contention he cites us to Latham v. State, 160 S. W. 455; 71 Tex. Cr. R. 552. In that case, the uncontroverted evidence shows that Latham (the appellant) told Crockett (the purchaser) that he did not have any whisky but he thought he “could rustle” him a quart, whereiipon Crockett gave- Latham two dollars; that after being gone for some time he returned with a quart of whisky. Crockett further testified that he could not recall that Latham told him at the time that he got the whisky from Alex Maxey. In that case the defendant’s evidence was to the effect that when he returned with the whisky, he told Crockett that he had obtained the same from Alex Maxey. It will be noted that in that case, the uncontroverted evidence showed that Latham was acting as the agent of Crockett and not as the seller of the whisky, while in the present instance, the appellant testified that he was pretty sure that the whisky exhibited to him was the whisky which he sold to Burney, as set out in the original opinion. It is obvious that in the instant case, it was a question of fact whether he sold the whisky himself to Burney or was acting as Burney’s agent, which the jury decided adversely to him; and we would not be justified in disturbing their verdict. We think that the evidence introduced by the State, if accepted by the jury as true, is sufficient to sustain his conviction. We, therefore, overrule the motion for a rehearing.

*206The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
§ 143.4 Charges. ( a ) Charges shall be established by the Assistant Secretary and shall be based upon the total costs (including both direct and indirect) of goods/services to the Government at that locale. A schedule of charges will be made available to the public upon request.
( b ) All documentation used in establishing charges must be maintained at the appropriate Bureau of Indian Affairs agency or Area Office and shall be made available for review by the public upon request.
( c ) Established charges may be reviewed, amended, and adjusted monthly, but not less than annually.
( d ) A flat fee may be charged where it is impractical to measure actual usage by recipients.
( e ) Security deposits are authorized under this regulation at the discretion of the Assistant Secretary. The deposit may not exceed the amount of one billing cycle. All deposits will be applied to the final bill.
#### Abraham Mendelson, Respondent, v. Max Feldman and Others, Appellants.

Judgment and order unanimously affirmed, with costs. No opinion. Present — Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks, Hooker and Miller, JJ.
### §2651. Passengers and merchandise to Guam: sea transport

Whenever space is available, passengers, and merchandise produced in the United States, or the Commonwealths and possessions, and consigned to residents and mercantile firms of Guam, may be transported to Guam on vessels operated by the Department of Defense, under regulations and at rates to be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 267, §4747; renumbered §2651 and amended Pub. L. 108–375, div. A, title X, §1072(a), (b)(4), Oct. 28, 2004, 118 Stat. 2057, 2058; Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title X, §1057(a)(6), Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3441; Pub. L. 111–383, div. A, title X, §1075(h)(4)(A)(ii), Jan. 7, 2011, 124 Stat. 4377.)

| Revised section | Source (U.S. Code) | Source (Statutes at Large) |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 4747 | 10:1368.10:1371 (last 29 words). | Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 209 (4th proviso under "Transportation of the Army and Its Supplies"), 36 Stat. 1051. |
| | | Mar. 2, 1907, ch. 2511 (last 29 words of 6th proviso under "Transportation of the Army and Its Supplies"), 34 Stat. 1171. |

10:1371 (last 29 words).

The words "without displacing military supplies" and "of the island of", in 10:1368 and 1371, are omitted as surplusage. The words "produced in the United States, or the Territories, Commonwealths, and possessions" are substituted for the words "of American production".

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

2011—Pub. L. 111–383 made technical amendment to directory language of Pub. L. 109–163, §1057(a)(6). See 2006 Amendment note below.

2006—Pub. L. 109–163, §1057(a)(6), as amended by Pub. L. 111–383, substituted "Commonwealths and possessions" for "Territories, Commonwealths, and possessions".

2004—Pub. L. 108–375, §1072(b)(4), substituted "the Department of Defense, under regulations and at rates to be prescribed by the Secretary of Defense" for "Army transport agencies or, within bulk space allocations made to the Department of the Army, on vessels operated by any transport agency of the Department of Defense, under regulations and at rates to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army".

Pub. L. 108–375, §1072(a), renumbered section 4747 of this title as this section.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date of 2011 Amendment

Pub. L. 111–383, div. A, title X, §1075(h), Jan. 7, 2011, 124 Stat. 4377, provided that amendment by section 1075(h)(4)(A)(ii) is effective as of Jan. 6, 2006, and as if included in Pub. L. 109–163 as enacted.
#### § 166.604 Is interest paid on a cash performance bond?

No. Interest will not be paid on a cash performance bond.
§ 152.27 Procedure of sale. Advertised sales shall be by sealed bids except as otherwise provided herein. ( a ) ( 1 ) Bids, conforming to the requirements set out in the advertisement of sale, along with a certified check, cashier's check, money order, or U.S. Treasury check, payable to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, for not less than 10 percent of the amount of the bid, must be enclosed in a sealed envelope marked as prescribed in the notice of sale. A cash deposit may be submitted in lieu of the above-specified negotiable instruments at the bidder's risk. Tribes submitting bids pursuant to this paragraph may guarantee the required 10 percent deposit by an appropriate resolution;
( 2 ) The sealed envelopes containing the bids will be publicly opened at the time fixed for sale. The bids will be announced and will be appropriately recorded.
( b ) The policy of the Secretary recognizes that in many instances a tribe or a member thereof has a valid interest in acquiring trust or restricted lands offered for sale. ( 1 ) With the consent of the owner and when the notice of sale so states, the tribe or members of such tribe shall have the right to meet the high bid.
( 2 ) Provided the tribe is not the high bidder and when one or more acceptable sealed bids are received and when so stated in the notice of sale, an oral auction may be held following the bid opening. Bidding in the auction will be limited to the tribe, and to those who submitted sealed bids at 75 percent or more of the appraised value of the land being auctioned. At the conclusion of the auction the highest bidder must increase his deposit to not less than 10 percent of his auction bid.
### §1599i. Recruitment incentives for placement at remote locations

(a) Recruitment Incentive.—

(1) In general.—An individual appointed to a position in the Department of Defense at a covered location may be paid a recruitment incentive in connection with such appointment.

(2) Amount.—The amount of a recruitment incentive payable to an individual under this subsection may not exceed the amount equal to—

(A) 25 percent of the annual rate of basic pay of the employee for the position concerned as of the date on which the service period in such position agreed to by the individual under paragraph (3) commences; multiplied by

(B) the number of years (including fractions of a year) of such service period (not to exceed four years).

(3) Service agreement.—To receive a recruitment incentive under this subsection, an individual appointed to a position under paragraph (1) shall enter into an agreement with the Secretary of Defense to complete a period of service at the covered location. The period of obligated service of the individual at such location under the agreement may not exceed four years. The agreement shall include such repayment or alternative employment obligations as the Secretary considers appropriate for failure of the individual to complete the period of obligated service specified in the agreement.

(4) Covered locations defined.—In this section, a covered location is a location for which the Secretary of Defense has determined that critical hiring needs are not being met due to the geographic remoteness or isolation or extreme climate conditions of the location.

(b) Sunset.—Effective on September 30, 2022, the authority provided under subsection (a) shall expire.

(Added Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XI, §1120(a), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 3898.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Outcome Measurements

Pub. L. 116–283, div. A, title XI, §1120(b), Jan. 1, 2021, 134 Stat. 3899, provided that: "The Secretary of Defense shall develop outcome measurements to evaluate the effect of the authority provided under subsection (a) of section 1599i of title 10, United States Code, as added by subsection (a), and any relocation incentives provided under subsection (b) of such section."
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

__________________

NO. 09-19-00050-CV

__________________

WISCH LEASING GROUP LP, Appellant

V.

THE WOODLANDS LAND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LP, DREAM 

MOTORS LLC, AND MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES USA 

LLC, Appellees

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 284th District Court

Montgomery County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 17-09-10958-CV

__________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant Wisch Leasing Group LP filed a motion to dismiss its appeal, which 

asserts the parties have settled their claims. The motion is voluntarily made by Wisch 
2

Leasing Group LP before the Court decided the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1. 

No other party filed a notice of appeal.1 We grant the motion and dismiss the appeal.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

_________________________

HOLLIS HORTON

Justice

Submitted on April 17, 2019

Opinion Delivered April 18, 2019

Before Kreger, Horton and Johnson, JJ.

 1 Appellees filed a motion to dismiss the appeal as frivolous, in which they 

sought damages pursuant to Rule 45. See Tex. R. Civ. P. 45. In light of appellant’s 

motion to dismiss based upon settlement, we need not rule on appellees’ motion, and 

we decline to assess damages under Rule 45. See id.
S1()-1()()3()9-()IS 

COLUMBUS REGIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY 

PORT COLUMBUS INTERNATIONAL • RICKENBACKER INTERNATIONAL • BOLTON FIELD 

March 2.2010 

The Honorable Raymond H. LaHood 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Ave, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Reference: Docl<et DOT-OST-2010-0034 

Board of Directors 

Dwight E. Smith 

Chair 

Susan Tomasl<y 

Vice Chair 

Don M. Casto, III 

Frank J. Cipriano 

William R. Helfner 

John W. Kessler 

Wm. J. Lhota 

Jordan A. Miller, Jr. 

Kathleen H. Ransler 

Elaine Roberts, A.A.E. 

President & CEO 

Dear Mr. Secretary; 

Thanl< you for the opportunity to express our support for the application for antitrust immunity and 

proposed joint business agreement filed by American Airlines (AA) and Japan Airlines (JAL). The 

proposed alliance between these two airlines is vital for the oneworid alliance to compete effectively with 

other, similar alliances. This increased alliance conripetition will in turn enhance the benefits of the 

Department's Open Skies policy - first by solidifying U.S. - Japan Open Sl<ies, then by serving as a 

foundation for further liberalization across Asia. 

After a thorough review, we encourage the Department of Transportation to approve this application as it 

would enable these oneworid alliance airlines to work closely together to deliver highly competitive air 

transportation services. Approval for AA/JAL alliance will have a positive impact on air travel by offering 

customers more service, scheduling and pricing options and will help to ensure that customers continue 

to benefit from the competition afforded by competitive air alliances. 

Again, Mr. Secretai^, we urge your approval of this application. 

Sincerely, 

Elaine Roberts, A.A.E. 

President & CEO 

Columbus Regional Airport Authority 

ER:an 

Port Columbus International Airport 

4600 Internationa! Gateway 

Columbus, Ohio 43219 

Phone: 614-239-4000 

Fax: 614-239-4066 

Rickenbacker International Airport 

7161 Second Street 

Columbus, Ohio 43217 

Phone: 614-491-1401 

Fax:614-491-0662 

Bolton Field Airport 

2000 Norton Road 

Columbus, Ohio 43228 

Phone: 614-851-9900 

Fax: 614-851-8959
157 So.2d 229

#### Leon TUCKER v. STATE.

3 Div. 115.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Oct. 31, 1963.

Richmond M. Flowers, Atty. Gen., and John C. Tyson, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.

Leon Tucker, opposed.

MERRILL, Justice.

Petition of the State, by its Attorney General, for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise the judgment and decision in Tucker v. State, Ala.App., 157 So.2d 229.

Writ denied.

LIVINGSTON, C. J., and SIMPSON and HARWOOD, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>





                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                            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 of Avalon Holdings Corporation on Form
10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Ronald E. Klingle,
Chief Executive Officer of Avalon Holdings Corporation, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
15(b) 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Ronald E. Klingle

Ronald E. Klingle
Chief Executive Officer

August 13, 2002
H. Res. 166

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

May 12, 1999.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 775) to establish certain procedures for civil

actions brought for damages relating to the failure of any device or system to process or otherwise deal with the transition

from the year 1999 to the year 2000, and for other purposes.

The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General

debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one

hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and

ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary.

After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an original bill for the purpose of amendment under

the five-minute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on the Judiciary now

printed in the bill, modified by the amendments printed in
2

•HRES 166 EH

part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying

this resolution. That amendment in the nature of a substitute

shall be considered as read. No amendment to that amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be in order except

those printed in part 2 of the report of the Committee on

Rules. Each amendment may be offered only in the order

printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided

and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not

be subject to amendment except as specified in the report,

and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. The

Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone

until a time during further consideration in the Committee of

the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any amendment;

and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows another

electronic vote without intervening business, provided that the

minimum time for electronic voting on the first in any series

of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise

and report the bill to the House with such amendments as

may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate

vote in the House on any amendment adopted in the Com-
3

•HRES 166 EH

mittee of the Whole to the bill or to the amendment in the

nature of a substitute made in order as original text. The

previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill

and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.
H. Res. 189

In the House of Representatives, U.S.,

June 8, 1999.

Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule

XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the

Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of

the bill (H.R. 150) to amend the Act popularly known as the

Recreation and Public Purposes Act to authorize disposal of

certain public lands or national forest lands to local education

agencies for use for elementary or secondary schools, including public charter schools, and for other purposes. The first

reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate

shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour

equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking

minority member of the Committee on Resources. After general debate the bill shall be considered for amendment under

the five-minute rule. It shall be in order to consider as an

original bill for the purpose of amendment under the fiveminute rule the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in
2

•HRES 189 EH

the bill. The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute shall be considered as read. During consideration of

the bill for amendment, the Chairman of the Committee of

the Whole may accord priority in recognition on the basis of

whether the Member offering an amendment has caused it to

be printed in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII. Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. The Chairman

of the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time

during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole

a request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting

on any postponed question that follows another electronic

vote without intervening business, provided that the minimum

time for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration

of the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report

the bill to the House with such amendments as may have

been adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in

the House on any amendment adopted in the Committee of

the Whole to the bill or to the committee amendment in the

nature of a substitute. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final
3

•HRES 189 EH

passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Attest:

Clerk.