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

    Focus on Priorities





    AF Sites
    
        Social Media Sites

    Site Registration





    AF Content Management





    Careers





    Contact Us  
 Home
  News
  Photos
 Air Force Photos Search
 Search
 Upload Date Upload DatePhoto DateTitle
  Full Size (2.56 MB)
 
 1CTCS allied nations Alaska U.S. Air Force Korea ROK JTAC ROKAF Red Flag-Alaska Red Flag Alaska 19 RFA19 Allied partners Red Flag-Alaska 19-2 Repbulic of Korea
 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
Exhibit 21.1

              CODED COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION
                   LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
                 AS OF DECEMBER 31, 1997



Name                            State or Country     Percent
                                of Incorporation      Owned

Wholly-owned subsidiaries of
Coded Communications Corporation:

 Coded Mobile Communications, Inc.  Delaware        100%
 Decom Systems, Inc.                Delaware        100%
 ComViSat, Inc.                     California      100%
 Coded ComViSat de Mexico, S.A.     Mexico          100%

Wholly-owned subsidiaries (inactive)
   of Decom Systems, Inc.:

 Coded LMR Holding, Inc.            California      100% (1)
 Coded Land Mobile Radio, Inc.      California      100% (1)
 Coded Communications Network
   Systems, Inc.                    California      100% (1)
 DSI Management Co.                 California      100% (1)
 Decom Systems, International       California      100% (1)
 Decom Systems GmbH                 Germany         100% (1)

___________________________________________
(1)  Percentage of ownership of Decom Systems, Inc.
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-18-00560-CV

Nueces County Civil Service Commission

v.

Richard Morrisey

On Appeal from the

347th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 2015-DCV-5630-H

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, vacates any and all judgments rendered by the trial court subsequent to the 

expiration of its plenary power and dismisses the case. The Court orders the judgments

VACATED and the case DISMISSED. Costs of the appeal are adjudged against the 

appellant.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

April 30, 2020
IV

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 317

Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should open a dialog

with the Government of Canada to discuss the smuggling from Canada

into the United States of large quantities of pseudoephedrine, a necessary

ingredient in the production of methamphetamines.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 6, 2002

Mr. RADANOVICH (for himself, Mr. BAIRD, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. BOSWELL, and

Mr. CANNON) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was

referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress that the President should

open a dialog with the Government of Canada to discuss

the smuggling from Canada into the United States of

large quantities of pseudoephedrine, a necessary ingredient in the production of methamphetamines.

Whereas pseudoephedrine is the active ingredient in many

over-the-counter cold medicines;

Whereas pseudoephedrine is also a necessary ingredient in

the production of methamphetamines;

Whereas the production and use of methamphetamines is a

serious problem in the United States;
2

•HCON 317 IH

Whereas large quantities of pseudoephedrine are necessary to

produce large quantities of methamphetamine;

Whereas the Federal Government and the private sector have

cooperatively ensured that pseudoephedrine sold in the

United States is packaged in blister packs or in bottles

containing 24 or fewer grams of pseudoephedrine;

Whereas Canadian manufacturers produce pseudoephedrine

in bottles containing as many as 1,920 grams of

pseudoephedrine;

Whereas in recent years Federal narcotics investigators have

found pseudoephedrine from Canada in methamphetamine labs in the United States with increasing frequency and in larger quantities;

Whereas from 1994 to 2000 the importation of

pseudoephedrine powder to Canada increased by 817 percent; and

Whereas large quantities of pseudoephedrine from Canada

are being smuggled into the United States to be used in

the production of methamphetamines: Now, therefore, be

it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that the

3 President should open a dialog with the Government of

4 Canada to discuss—

5 (1) the smuggling from Canada into the United

6 States of large quantities of pseudoephedrine, a nec7 essary ingredient in the production of

8 methamphetamines; and
3

•HCON 317 IH

1 (2) methods to restrict the quantity of

2 pseudoephedrine that Canadian manufacturers can

3 package in a single container.

Æ
IV

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 334

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the Republic of Turkey’s cooperation in the war against terrorism, economic reforms in Turkey, and

the economic partnership meetings to be held between the United States

and Turkey.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

FEBRUARY 26, 2002

Ms. GRANGER (for herself, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. TANCREDO,

and Mr. STEARNS) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which

was referred to the Committee on International Relations

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of Congress regarding the Republic

of Turkey’s cooperation in the war against terrorism,

economic reforms in Turkey, and the economic partnership meetings to be held between the United States and

Turkey.

Whereas the United States and the Republic of Turkey have

long been allies and shared a commitment to preserving

peace and stability;

Whereas Turkey has demonstrated a steadfast commitment

to the war on terrorism;

Whereas Turkey has faced financial and currency crises and

recession since 2000;
2

•HCON 334 IH

Whereas Turkey’s fiscal discipline and actions to restore confidence in the banking system have laid the foundation

for an economic recovery in Turkey;

Whereas the future growth and prosperity of Turkey depend

in large measure on encouraging more foreign investment

in Turkey and improving trade relations; and

Whereas the United States is interested in building a broader

investment and trading relationship with Turkey: Now,

therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That Congress—

3 (1) recognizes the Republic of Turkey for its

4 steadfast commitment to, and cooperation in, the

5 war against terrorism, including—

6 (A) Turkey’s immediate condemnation of

7 the terrorist attacks against the United States

8 that occurred on September 11, 2001;

9 (B) Turkey’s offers to the United States of

10 troops, the use of air bases, increased force pro11 tection for United States military personnel and

12 equipment in Turkey, and diplomatic overflight

13 clearances;

14 (C) Turkey’s deployment of 261 troops to

15 Afghanistan to participate in the initial phase

16 of the International Security Assistance Force;

17 and
3

•HCON 334 IH

1 (D) Turkey’s willingness to participate in

2 the leadership of the International Security As3 sistance Force and assist the United States in

4 training the new Afghan security forces;

5 (2) commends Turkey for implementing eco6 nomic reforms, particularly those which increase pri7 vatization and improve the investment climate in

8 Turkey; and

9 (3) supports the economic partnership meetings

10 which are scheduled to be held between the United

11 States and Turkey on February 26 and 27, 2002.

Æ
DELCATH SYSTEMS, INC.

                            2004 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN

                              Stock Grant Agreement



To: [NAME]


     We are pleased to notify you that, by action of the Compensation and Stock
Option Committee (hereinafter called the "Committee") on [DATE] a stock grant of
[NUMBER] shares of the Common Stock, $0.01 par value, of Delcath Systems, Inc.
(herein called the "Company"), was approved pursuant to the Company's 2004 Stock
Incentive Plan (the "2004 Plan"). Pursuant to Section 9.1 of the 2004 Plan,
please confirm your acceptance of this stock grant by signing below and
returning this agreement to the Company.

     We urge you to review this opportunity carefully and consult with your own
tax advisor prior to accepting the grant so that you understand the tax
consequences of your receiving this grant. By your signature hereto, you also
acknowledge receipt of a copy of the Company's Prospectus dated October 21, 2004
relating to the 2004 Plan.



                                      Sincerely yours,

                                      DELCATH SYSTEMS, INC.


                                      By:_______________________________
                                           [NAME]
                                           [TITLE]:



Agreed to and Accepted

this ___ day of [DATE].


----------------------------------
[NAME]
UNITEDSTATESENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCYREGION4ATLANTAFEDERALCENTER61FORSYTH STREETATLANTA,GEORGIA 30303-8960TheHonorable BeverlyPerdueGovernorofNorthCarolinaState Capitol20301 MailService CenterRaleigh,North Carolina27699-0301DearGovernorPerdue:On May27,2010, theU.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) Region4sentyoualetter regardingthe1997 8-hourozonenational ambient air qualitystandards(NAAQS)bi-stateCharlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill nonattainrnent area (bi-state Charlottearea). Specifically,theMay27,2010,letterannounced thatthesanctions clocks forthe finding of failure tosubmit theattainment demonstration forthe1997 8-hour ozoneNAAQSissuedto NorthCarolinaonMay8,2009,forthe bi-state Charlottearea,werenow stopped.In that letter,weinadvertentlystatedthat therevisedstate implementationplan submissionsregardingtheattainmentdemonstrationswerereceivedfromtheNorth Carolina DepartmentofEnvironmentandNaturalResources(NCDENR)onNovember12,2008,andApril5,2009.EPAactuallyreceived thesubmissions fromNCDENRonNovember12,2009,andApril5,2010.Weare sending this letter tocorrect the typographicalerrors with regard to the dates(specifically,the year) of receipt for thebi-state Charlotte areaattainment demonstrationsubmissions for NorthCarolina. Seeattached forthe correctionsnotedon the originalletter.TheotherinformationintheMay27,2010,letterremainsineffect.Shouldyouhave any questionsregardingthismatter,please do not hesitate tocontactmeat(404)562-8357or have amemberofyourstaff contact KennethR.Lapierre, Acting Director,Air,Pesticides andToxicsManagement Divisionat(404) 562-9077.Sincerely,AmA. Stanley MeiburgActing Regional AdministratorEnclosurecc:Mr.DeeFreeman,NCDENRMr.RobertW.King,SCDHECB.KeithOvercash,P.E.,NCDENRDAQMrs.MyraReece,SCDHECBAQMr.DonWillard, MecklenburgCounty AirQualityInternetAddress(URL)http://www.epa.govRecycled/Recyclable.PrintedwlhVegetableOfiBasedInks onRecydedPaper(Minimum30%Postconsumer)
i i i i i i

MEMORANDUM OPINION

No. 04-08-00924-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF R.S., a Child

From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2008-PA-00023

Honorable Charles Montemayor, Judge Presiding

Opinion by: Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Sitting: Karen Angelini, Justice

Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Marialyn Barnard, Justice

Delivered and Filed: May 20, 2009

AFFIRMED

After the trial court terminated her parental rights, Hiwaunis S. appealed the trial court’s

order determining that an appeal of the termination order would be frivolous. See TEX. FAM.CODE

ANN. § 263.405(g) (Vernon 2002). Hiwaunis’s court-appointed appellate attorney filed a brief

containing a professional evaluation of the record and demonstrating that there are no arguable

grounds to be advanced. Counsel concludes that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The brief

meets the requirements of Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). See In re R.R., No.

04-03-00096-CV, 2003 WL 21157944, at * 4 (Tex. App.—San Antonio May 21, 2003, no pet.)

(applying Anders procedure in appeal from termination of parental rights) (mem. op.); see also In

re K.M., 98 S.W.3d 774 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2003, order) (same).
04-08-00924-CV

-2-

Counsel certified that a copy of his brief was delivered to Hiwaunis who was advised of her

right to examine the record and to file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed. After reviewing

the record, we agree that the appeal is frivolous and without merit. The judgment of the trial court

is therefore affirmed, and counsel’s motion to withdraw is granted.

Marialyn Barnard, Justice
[No. 36986-5-I.

Division One.

August 19, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Gantry Lomone Mathews, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 94-1-07944-8, Joan E. DuBuque, J., entered June 26, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Cox, J., concurred in by Kennedy, A.C.J., and Coleman, J.
#### James Calvin JACKSON, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-80-780.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Nov. 24, 1981.

*888Irvin Owen, Shawnee, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Susan Talbot, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

OPINION

BUSSEY, Judge:

The appellant, James Calvin Jackson, was charged, tried and convicted in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, Case No. CRF — 79-375, for the offense of Oral Sodomy, in violation of 21 O.S.1971, § 886. His punishment was set at ten (10) years’ imprisonment, and he appeals.

In his first assignment of error the appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for continuance, in that he was forced to trial on May 5, 1980, with counsel that was appointed on April 9, 1980. This was the appellant’s fourth appointed counsel. Further, the appellant requested, and was granted, numerous continuances, from January 8, 1980, the date set for the preliminary hearing.

In support of his argument that the denial of his motion for continuance deprived him of adequate time to prepare his defense, the appellant cites *Renfro v. State,*607 P.2d 703 (Okl.Cr.1980), for the proposition that a reasonable time must be provided to the accused to prepare for trial. The question of reasonable time, however, is dependent upon the circumstances and is largely discretionary. *Riddle v. State,*374 P.2d 634 (Okl.Cr.1962). The record before us does not demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a continuance. This assignment of error is without merit.

As his final assignment of error, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in admitting into evidence a videotape of his confession, as it was prejudicial and inflammatory. The record indicates that an *in camera*hearing was held to determine the admissibility of the confession, at which time evidence was introduced to show that the appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights and understood the consequences. This Court has consistently held that it will not disturb a trial court’s ruling which permits the introduction of a confession, if it is supported by sufficient evidence that the appellant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights and understood the consequences of such a waiver. *Castleberry v. State,*522 P.2d 257 (Okl.Cr.1974); *Williams v. State,*542 P.2d 554 (Okl.Cr.1975). We find that the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court’s finding that the confession was voluntarily made. Therefore, this assignment of error is without merit.

Accordingly, the judgment and sentence is AFFIRMED.

BRETT, P. J., concurs.

CORNISH, J., not participating.
#### The State, ex rel. Wisner, *v.*Judges of Court of Appeals of Columbiana County.

(No. 31334

Decided April 28, 1948.)

*Mr. Ralph Atkinson,*for relator.

*Mr. Ian Bruce Hart,*for respondents.

By the Court.

It appears from the petition and exhibits that an appeal on questions of law was perfected from the Probate Court to the Court of Appeals; that present relator made application for and was granted leave to intervene as party appellee in that appeal proceeding ; that his motion to affirm the judgment of the Probate Court was overruled; that the Court .of Appeals reversed the judgment of the Probate Court and remanded the cause to that court; that relator presented a bill of exceptions to the judges of the Court of Appeals; that appellant in that court filed objection to the bill and a motion to strike it from the files; and that the Court of Appeals sustained that motion.

Counsel for relator states that “the object of this *459action is to perfect the record of the Court of Appeals in the case of *In re Wisner,*which is now case No. 31333 in this court.”

That case is pending on an appeal as of right and on a motion to certify the record to this court. In event this court allows a motion to certify the record or retains that case for hearing on its merits, the action of the Court of Appeals in striking the purported bill of exceptions from the files will be considered by this court.

Furthermore, there is also pending in this court a motion to certify to this court the record of the ¡Court of Appeals so far as it relates to striking the bill of exceptions from the files.

The relator has availed himself of an adequate ordinary remedy at law. Therefore, the demurrer to the petition is sustained and a writ of mandamus is denied. Section 12287, General Code. Compare *State, ex rel. Berman,*v. *Baer, Judge,*147 Ohio St., 243, 70 N. E. (2d), 453.

*Writ denied.*

Weygandt, C. J., Turner, Matthias, Zimmerman, Sohngen and Stewart, JJ., concur.

Hart, J., not participating.
[No. 16449-3-II.

Division Two.

May 31, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. J.D. , *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Kit-sap County, No. 92-8-00693-0, Leonard Costello, J., entered September 23, 1992. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Houghton, A.C.J., concurred in by Bridgewa-ter and Turner, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-7282

KUNTA KENTA REDD, 

Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

JAMES C. DEVER, III, United States Federal Sentencing Judge; ROBERT J. 

DODSON, United States District Attorney; MICHAEL JAMES, United States 

District Attorney; TIMOTHY M. SEVERO, United States District Attorney, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at 

Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:19-ct-03395-FL) 

Submitted: November 19, 2020 Decided: November 24, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KING, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Kunta Kenta Redd, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Kunta Kenta Redd appeals from the district court’s order dismissing under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) his civil action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown 

Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The court determined 

that Redd’s claims were barred in their entirety by the applicable statute of limitations. 

The court also determined that Redd’s claims were barred by judicial and prosecutorial 

immunity, barred under Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), and sought barred or 

unavailable remedies. 

On appeal,* we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th 

Cir. R. 34(b). Because Redd’s informal brief does not challenge the bases for the district 

court’s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. 

Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; 

under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). 

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny Redd’s motion to appoint 

counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED

* Although the district court dismissed Redd’s action without prejudice, we 

conclude after review of the record in light of Bing v. Brivo Sys., LLC, 959 F.3d 605, 

610-12, 614-15 (4th Cir. 2020), that the dismissal is final and appealable.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-10248

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

RICHARD GREY KIRBY, Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas

(3:92-CR-341-P)

February 17, 1997 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

We affirm the denial of Kir by’s petition filed under 28

U.S.C., Section 2255. We agree with U nited States v. Hare , 49 F.3d

447 (8th Cir.), cert. denied , 116 S. Ct. 211 (1995).