alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Skip to main content (Press Enter).
 Toggle navigation
            
            
            
            U.S. Air Force
                    U.S. Air Force
        Search
                    Search AF.mil:
                        Search
                Search AF.mil:
                    Search
    Home





    News
    
        Commentaries

    Features

    Photos

    Art

    Air Force TV

    Radio

    Week in Photos

    Coronavirus Disease 2019





    About Us
    
        Air Force Senior Leaders    
        SECAF

    CSAF

    CMSAF

    Biographies

    Adjunct Professors

    Fact Sheets

    Commander's Call Topics    
        CCT Archive

    CSAF Reading List    
        2018 CSAF Reading List

    2017 CSAF Reading List

    2016 CSAF Reading List

    2015 CSAF Reading List

    2014 CSAF Reading List

    2013 CSAF Reading List

    2012 CSAF Reading List

    2011 CSAF Reading List

    2010 CSAF Reading List

    2009 CSAF Reading List

    2008 CSAF Reading List

    2007 CSAF Reading List

    2006 CSAF Reading List

    50 Years of the CMSAF

    The Book

    Speeches Archive    
        Former AF Top 3 Viewpoints and Speeches

    Air Force Warrior Games 2019

    Air Force Strategic Documents

    Desert Storm 25th Anniversary

    DoD Warrior Games

    Portraits in Courage    
        Portraits In Courage Vol. I

    Portraits In Courage Vol. II

    Portraits In Courage Vol. III

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IV

    Portraits In Courage Vol. V

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VI

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. VIII

    Portraits In Courage Vol. IX

    Portraits In Courage Vol. X

    Chapman MoH

    The Air Force We Need

    Events 2020





    AF Sites
    
        Social Media Sites

    Site Registration





    AF Content Management





    Careers  
 Home
  News
  Photos
 Air Force Photos Search
 Search
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Full Size (0.71 MB)
 Photo Gallery
 Quick Links
                            Join the Air ForceSite MapQuestionsContact UsRSSFOIAIGAF SitesAccessibilityEEOLink DisclaimerStrategic APRSuicide PreventionSAPRUSA.govNo FEAR Act
                    Connect
                    Official United States Air Force Website
                        Subscribe to USAF News and Information
          Submit
#### The MARINE BANK OF MONROE COUNTY, Appellant, v. Richard C. MILSTEIN, Guardian Ad Litem in the Guardianship of Madeline Laughead, Incompetent, Appellee.

No. 88-211.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 8, 1988.

Cunningham, Albritton, Lenzi, Warner, Bragg & Miller and Alfred 0. Bragg, Marathon, for appellant.

Tescher, Milstein & Engel and Paul Hampton Crockett, and Richard C. Mil-stein, Coral Gables, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL and DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

*892PER CURIAM.

Following a stroke, Madeline Laughead was hospitalized in the South Miami Hospital. A petition to have her declared incompetent was filed pursuant to Section 744.-331, Florida Statutes (1987). Pending determination of competency, her assets in the Marine Bank of Monroe County were “frozen” pending further order of the court. This injunctive order was recognized by the bank when it acknowledged on several occasions that it was holding funds of Madeline Laughead “pending further order of court”, that the accounts were “frozen.” Thereafter, the court ordered that the funds be transferred to First Federal Savings & Loan Association of the Florida Keys, a depository for the ward’s account.1

At the time Marine Bank received notice of the depository order, it set off two un-matured loans against the ward’s account and commenced foreclosure proceedings against the ward’s homestead for failure to pay two monthly installments, even though the bank had in its possession sufficient funds to satisfy these installment payments. The bank also refused to permit the guardian to reinstate the mortgage by tendering the delinquent payments. A rule to show cause was issued for failure to comply with the order freezing assets. The trial judge found the bank in civil contempt and directed it return the funds that it unilaterally appropriated and enjoin the bank from proceeding with the homestead foreclosure. We find no error and affirm. *Wilson v. Sandstrom,*317 So.2d 732, 741 (Fla.1975), *cert, denied,*423 U.S. 1053, 96 S.Ct. 782, 46 L.Ed.2d 642 (1976); *Savage v. Winfield,*152 Fla. 165, 11 So.2d 302 (Fla.1943); *Thebault v. Canova,*11 Fla. 143 (1867); 60 C.J.S. Motions & Orders § 65 (1969); *Compare Pascal v. George Davis & Co.,*170 So.2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965).

Of course, after the funds are returned, the bank would continue to have its right, as any other creditor, to pursue the assets of the wards for collection of its due obligations upon proper notice and petition, to the guardian.

AFFIRMED.

1

. Madeline Laughead was declared incompetent and a guardian for her property and person was duly appointed prior to entry of the depository order.
#### Travis and Dean B. COOPER, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. LOUISIANA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 87-1258.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

March 15, 1989.

Rehearing Denied April 12, 1989.

Jack F. Owens, Harrisonburg, for plaintiffs-appellees.

James Fredericks, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.

Before DOMENGEAUX, FORET and YELVERTON, JJ.

FORET, Judge.

For the reasons assigned in the companion case of *Narron Hawthorne v. Louisiana Department of Public Works,*540 So.2d 1261 (La.App. 3 Cir.1989), in which a separate opinion is being rendered this date, the judgment of the trial court is reversed, and judgment is rendered in favor of defendant, State of Louisiana, Department of Transportation and Development (referred to in plaintiffs’ petition as the Louisiana Department of Public Works), dismissing all claims asserted by plaintiffs herein, with prejudice.

Costs at the trial level and on appeal are assessed to plaintiffs in these two consolidated cases.

REVERSED AND RENDERED.
#### In the Matter of Louis Milburn, Appellant, v New York State Division of Parole, Respondent. (And Another Related Proceeding.)

Mercure, J.

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Benson, J.), entered August 12, 1986 in Dutchess County, which, in two proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78, granted respondent’s motion to dismiss the petitions for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

*1017By these proceedings, petitioner seeks to annul respondent’s determination to revoke his parole upon the dual grounds that he was not provided with notice of a prior written statement of the primary witness against him, which tended to exculpate petitioner and was inconsistent with the witness’s hearing testimony, and that respondent did not have before it a verbatim transcript of the final revocation hearing at the time it rendered its final decision to revoke petitioner’s parole. Supreme Court dismissed the petitions on the ground that petitioner failed to pursue an administrative appeal to conclusion prior to commencing these proceedings. Petitioner appeals.

There should be an affirmance. Initially, we reject the contention that petitioner was not required to exhaust administrative remedies because the asserted errors did not show on the face of the hearing transcript. One of the stated grounds for an appeal from a final revocation hearing is that "relevant information was not available for consideration” by the board member or members making the determination (9 NYCRR 8006.3 [a] [2]; [b] [2]). Further, a claim of newly discovered evidence will support an application for a rehearing *(see,*9 NYCRR 8006.3 [c]).

Moreover, were we to reach the merits of the petitions, the result would be no different. The right of a criminal defendant to discovery of exculpatory material in the possession of the prosecution *(see, Brady v Maryland,*373 US 83) or to be provided with prior written or recorded statements of trial witnesses *(see,*CPL 240.45 [1] [a]; *People v Rosario,*9 NY2d 286, *cert denied*368 US 866) has no application in an administrative proceeding to revoke parole *(see,*Executive Law § 259-i [3] [f] [v]; *Morrissey v Brewer,*408 US 471, 480; *People ex rel. Maiello v New York State Bd. of Parole,*65 NY2d 145). Finally, there is no requirement that the Board of Parole have before it the transcript of the final revocation hearing at the time of its final decision to revoke parole *(see, People ex rel. Ragsdale v Mantello,*168 AD2d 925; *People ex rel. Smith v Mantello,*167 AD2d 912).

Judgment affirmed, without costs. Weiss, J. P., Yesawich, Jr., Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

         In connection with the Annual Report of Central Parking Corporation
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 2003 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 23, 2003 (the "Report"),
I, Monroe J. Carell, Jr., Chairman and Chief Executive 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:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
                  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



                                         /s/ MONROE J. CARELL, JR.
                                         --------------------------------------
                                          Monroe J. Carell, Jr.
                                          Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

         A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS
BEEN PROVIDED TO CENTRAL PARKING CORPORATION AND WILL BE RETAINED BY CENTRAL
PARKING CORPORATION AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR
ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.

         The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the
Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing. This certification is executed as of December 23, 2003.
**Exhibit 35.5**SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENTAmerican Express Bank, FSBAmerican Express Credit Account Master TrustReporting Period January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2007The undersigned, a duly authorized officer of American Express Bank, FSB (“AEFSB”), awholly-owned subsidiary of American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (“TRS”), pursuantto the Supplemental Servicing Agreement dated as of June 30, 2004, between TRS, AEFSB, AmericanExpress Centurion Bank, American Express Receivables Financing Corporation III LLC, AmericanExpress Receivables Financing Corporation IV LLC, and American Express Receivables FinancingCorporation II (the “Agreement”), does hereby certify that:1. AEFSB performs certain servicing procedures on behalf of TRS under the Agreement.2. The undersigned is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Certificate.3. A review of AEFSB’s activities during the reporting period and of its performance under theAgreement has been made under my supervision.4. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, AEFSB has fulfilled all of its obligationsunder the Agreement in all material respects throughout the reporting period.IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this 14th day of March,2007.     AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK, FSB
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                         3,231,000
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  2,257,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   237,000
<INVENTORY>                                    1,527,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               7,006,000
<PP&E>                                         3,666,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                 2,628,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8,093,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,373,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       21,462,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (15,742,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8,093,000
<SALES>                                        12,617,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               12,617,000
<CGS>                                          6,178,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               9,481,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             180,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,862,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (19,000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,881,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,881,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.43)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.43)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-3440, 333-43353 and 333-79639 of Investors Financial Services Corp. (the
"Company") on Form S-8 and in Registration Statement No. 333-76885 of the
Company on Form S-3 of our report dated January 25, 2001, appearing in this
Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2000
and to the references to us under the headings "Experts" in the Prospectus,
which are part of the Registration Statements.

We also consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
333-3440, 333-43353 and 333-79639 of the Company on Form S-8 and in Registration
Statement No. 333-76885 of the Company on Form S-3 of our report on management's
assertion that Investors Bank & Trust Company maintained effective internal
control over financial reporting, including safeguarding of assets, dated
January 25, 2001, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company
for the year ended December 31, 2000.



/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
-------------------------------

February 1, 2001
Boston, Massachusetts
#### CITY OF ALBUQUERQUE v. Herbert In C. HELLER.

No. 2048.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Jan. 6, 1940.

Joseph L. Dailey, of Albuquerque, N. M., for appellant.

H. A. Kiker, of Santa Fe, N. M., for appellee. '

Before LEWIS and PHILLIPS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed pursuant to stipulation.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2333 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2333

       To extend the temporary suspension of duty on volleyballs.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 29, 2009

    Mr. Kerry (for himself, Mr. Kirk, Mr. Bunning, and Mr. Ensign) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To extend the temporary suspension of duty on volleyballs.

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

SECTION 1. VOLLEYBALLS.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.13.10 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to volleyballs) is amended by 
striking the date in the effective period column and inserting ``12/31/
2011''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Charles Eugene CORDAR v. STATE.

6 Div. 365.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama.

Dec. 30, 1988.

AFTER REMANDMENT FROM ALABAMA SUPREME COURT

TYSON, Judge.

This cause is reversed and remanded for a new trial on authority of *Cordar v. State,*538 So.2d 1246 (Ala.1988), rehearing denied November 18, 1988.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

All the Judges concur.
#### Duane R. ROY, Appellant, v. L. John SIMONET, Manager of Safety and Ex-Officio Sheriff of the City and County of Denver, and Mose Trujillo, Warden of the Jail, City and County of Denver, and State of Colorado, Appellees.

No. 84SA434.

Supreme Court of Colorado, En Banc.

March 11, 1985.

*823David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, Claudia Jordan, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, for appellant.

Duane Woodard, Atty. Gen., Charles B. Howe, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Richard H. Forman, Sol. Gen., Peter Stapp, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for appellees.

ERICKSON, Chief Justice.

In this extradition proceeding, the petitioner appeals the discharge of his petition for writ of habeas corpus. The sole issue on appeal is whether the extradition documents create a prima facie showing of identity. Both the California requisition and the Colorado governor’s warrant name “Duane Richard Roy” as the fugitive sought to be extradited. Among the documents annexed to the California requisition documents is a felony complaint naming “Duane Richard Roy a/k/a William Thomas Roy,” and an affidavit stating that birth certificates for Duane Richard Roy and William Thomas Roy were obtained during the investigation and were to be used as evidence. The affidavit also stated that the petitioner was believed to have assumed the name of his deceased brother, William Thomas Roy. The petitioner asserts that inasmuch as Duane Richard Roy and William Thomas Roy are different individuals, the reference to “a/k/a William Thomas Roy” in the annexed documents defeats a prima facie showing of identity. We disagree.

The identity by name of the accused in the Colorado governor’s warrant, the requisition, and the original fugitive complaint filed pursuant to section 16-19-114, 8 C.R.S. (1978), creates a prima facie showing that the person charged as a fugitive is indeed the fugitive sought by the demanding state. *Lucero v. Martin,*660 P.2d 902 (Colo.1983); *Beverly v. Davis,*648 P.2d 621 (Colo.1982); *Guy v. Nelson,*630 P.2d 610 (Colo.1981); *Richardson v. Cronin,*621 P.2d 949 (Colo.1980); *Light v. Cronin,*621 P.2d 309 (Colo.1980). In this case, the petitioner did not assert in his petition for writ of habeas corpus or at the hearing on the petition that he is not Duane Richard Roy, or that he is not the fugitive sought by the state of California. *See Beverly v. Davis,*648 P.2d at 622. The fact that the petitioner may have adopted as an alias the name of a living or once-living individual does not defeat the presumption that he is the fugitive sought by the demanding state that is created by the identity of names on the extradition documents. The record in this case supports the trial court’s order for extradition.

We affirm.
Exhibit
32.2





Certification of Principal
Financial Officer


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 SRKP 5, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2009
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Anthony C. Pintsopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
as adopted pursuant to ss. 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 condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/ Anthony C.
  PintsopoulosAnthony
      C. PintsopoulosPrincipal
      Financial OfficerJuly
      29, 2009
#### Richard M. BRENNER and Mark A. Dienstag, Appellants, v. B.J. LAYNE, as Managing and Majority Partner of Layne, Brenner & Dienstag, a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 87-2984.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 12, 1988.

Hornsby *&*Whisenand, P.A., and Merrick L. Gross and Ronald P. Weil, Miami, for appellants.

Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Mallory H. Horton, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and DANIEL S. PEARSON and JORGENSON, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order granting a preliminary injunction and remand for the purpose of setting an appropriate injunction bond. The trial court correctly restored the parties to the positions they occupied prior to this law-firm-partnership dispute. The trial court was also correct in enforcing the arbitration provisions of the partnership agreement.

Affirmed.