alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# Ready to roll: 181st IW conducts readiness exercise

/ Published Dec. 22, 2021

HULMAN FIELD AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE, Ind. – The 181st Intelligence Wing completed a two-day exercise that tested its ability to deploy on short notice at Hulman Field Air National Guard Base Dec. 11-12.

The Indiana Air National Guard exercise was part of a wing-wide inspection by the Air Combat Command Inspector General (ACC/IG).

“This UTA (unit training assembly) we are testing three different capabilities on the installation,” said U.S. Air Force Col. Lance A. Hopper, the 181st Mission Support Group commander. “First, we are testing our ability to deploy personnel and cargo to various parts of the world in support of combatant commander requirements within a limited amount of time. Secondly, we are testing the ability of our deployers to operate and fulfill mission requirements in a contested environment, such as during a chemical attack. And finally, we are testing our internal evaluation methods to ensure our Wing Inspection Team (WIT) members are trained and qualified to review our processes and identify areas that we need to improve upon or practice more often.”

Exercise participants included the 181st Logistics Readiness Flight (LRF) and supporting personnel leading the cargo deployment function and the 181st Force Support Squadron personnel leading the personnel deployment function, with additional support from resiliency and readiness functions. The exercise also included personnel evaluating 181st IW capabilities from the WIT and inspectors from the ACC/IG.

“It’s always great to watch agencies that may not work together on a day-to-day basis come together to overcome challenges and accomplish the mission,” said Hopper. “It’s also great to see our Airmen [who] haven’t put on the chem gear since basic training or in quite a few years shake off the CBRNE (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosives) rust and get back in the swing of operating in a contested environment.”

Ensuring all units are ready to deploy and execute their missions is integral to the 181st IW’s operations.

“The purpose of doing these readiness exercises [is] to build muscle memory and to keep our skills sharp,” said U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Corrine Foree, 181st LRF commander. When the units on base come together, it is like a patchwork quilt. We couldn’t do this without everyone doing their part. We have a responsibility to the combatant commanders to get our equipment and our trained personnel to the area of responsibility.”

Indeed, exercises like the one demonstrate the 181st IW is ready to support local communities and the state and nation.

“For readiness sake and to make sure the mission happens anywhere in the world at any time, we have these skills and they have to be sharp. We have to be ready to go at a moment’s notice,” said Foree.
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID** 07416 **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket** **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 07416\07416_Checklist.XLS EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

07416\07416_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist x 07416\07416_Followup Response_Part A_TDO.xlsx Draft Questions for Follow Up x 07416\07416_Followup Response2_TDO.XLS Draft Questions for Follow Up x 07416\07416_Followup Response3_TDO.xls Draft Questions for Follow Up

07416\07416_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 07416\07416_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 07416\07416_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 07416\07416_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 07416\07416_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 07416\07416_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file x 07416\07416_telecon10.pdf Technical Review Correspondence x 07416\07416_telecon11.pdf Technical Review Correspondence x 07416\07416_telecon2.pdf Technical Review Correspondence x 07416\07416_telecon3.pdf Technical Review Correspondence x 07416\07416_telecon4.pdf Technical Review Correspondence x 07416\07416_telecon5.pdf Technical Review Correspondence x 07416\07416_telecon6.pdf Technical Review Correspondence x 07416\07416_telecon7.pdf Technical Review Correspondence x 07416\07416_telecon8.pdf Technical Review Correspondence x 07416\07416_telecon9.pdf Technical Review Correspondence

07416\Certification Statement_07416.pdf Plant certification statement x 07416\Supporting Documentation\07416_Diagram 1 - Water Balance.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 07416\Supporting Documentation\07416_Diagram 2.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 07416\Supporting Documentation\07416_Silver Lake Plant Aerial Map 001.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in theSteam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A17A0203. MARQUISE ALI ROBBINS v. BOARD OF CORRECTIONS OF

GEORGIA et al.

Marquise Ali Robbins appealed directly to this Court from the trial court’s

“Order on Petitioner’s Pauper Affidavit,” in which the superior court denied him

pauper status. Robbins sought discretionary review of the same order in the Supreme

Court, which transferred the case to this Court. See Case No. A17D0115, denied,

November 1, 2016. We lack jurisdiction.

Because Robbins is incarcerated, his appeal is controlled by the Prison

Litigation Reform Act of 1996, OCGA § 42-12-1 et seq. Under OCGA § 42-12-8, an

appeal of a civil action filed by a prisoner “shall be as provided in Code Section 5-6-

35.” Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider Robbins’s direct appeal from the superior

court’s order. See Jones v. Townsend, 267 Ga. 489, 490 (480 SE2d 24) (1997). We

note that Robbins properly filed an application for discretionary appeal to challenge

the trial court’s order. The denial of his application, however, was an adjudication on

the merits; thus the doctrine of res judicata bars further appeal of this order. See

Northwest Social & Civic Club, Inc. v. Franklin, 276 Ga. 859, 860 (583 SE2d 858)

(2003); Hook v. Bergen, 286 Ga. App. 258, 260-261 (1) (649 SE2d 313) (2007).

Accordingly, this appeal is hereby DISMISSED.

November 23, 2016
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

11/23/2016
Exhibit 32.1

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

In connection with the annual report of Cash  Technologies,  Inc. on Form 10-KSB
for the period  ending May 31, 2005 as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the  undersigned,  being,  Bruce
Korman,  our Chief  Executive  Officer,  and Edmund  King,  our Chief  Financial
Officer,  respectfully,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.  ss.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

(2) The  information  contained in the Report fairly  presents,  in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of Cash Technologies,
Inc..

Dated: September 13, 2005


/s/ Bruce Korman                                /s/ Edmund King
--------------------------------                --------------------------------
Chief Executive Officer                         Chief Financial Officer


                                       97
**Exhibit 32.2**

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

****

****

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Xinhua China Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Clement Wu, Chief Financial Officer (principal accounting 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 to the best of my knowledge:

- The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and     The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.		
Dated: May 12, 2006                                                                             /s/ Clement Wu                                                                                                                                                  Clement Wu, Chief Financial			                                                                                                              Officer and Director (Principal			                                                                                                              Accounting Officer)
EXHIBIT 99.1

  Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
                             Officer
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


C.W.  Gilluly,  President,  Chief Executive  Officer,  and  Chief
Financial  Officer  and  Treasurer  of  AMASYS  Corporation  (the
"Company") certifies in his or her capacity as an officer of  the
Company  that  he or she has reviewed the Annual  Report  of  the
Company on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2002 and that to
the best of his or her knowledge:

     (1)  the report fully complies with the requirements of Sections
          13(a)  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.

The  purpose of this statement is solely to comply with Title 18,
Chapter 63, Section 1350 of the United States Code, as amended by
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.


September 30, 2002            /S/ C.W. GILLULY
Date                          C.W. Gilluly
                              President, Chief Executive Officer
                              and Chief Financial Officer

<PAGE>
[Crim. No. 2543.

Second Appellate District, Division One.

July 16, 1934.]

#### THE PEOPLE, Respondent, v. DAN J. MURPHY, Appellant.

*723Alexander L. Oster for Appellant.

U. S. Webb, Attorney-General, and John D. Richer, Deputy Attorney-General, for Respondent.

CONREY, P. J.

Under an information charging the defendant with the crime of petty theft with prior conviction of a felony, to wit, robbery, the evidence proved that defendant committed the crime of petty theft in the county of Los Angeles, and that theretofore, in a court of competent jurisdiction in the state of Montana, he had been convicted of the crime of robbery and had served a term of imprisonment therefor in a penal institution.

The sole ground of appeal upon which defendant relies is found in his claim that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict in this, that the evidence produced to establish the fact that he served a term of imprisonment pursuant to his conviction of robbery in Montana was insufficient to prove that fact. The particular detail of alleged insufficiency of the evidence is presented in the form of a claim by appellant that the certificate of the warden attached to the copy of commitment to the state penitentiary of Montana, which was received in evidence at the trial of *724this action, failed to certify that said warden was the official custodian of such record. (Sec. 969b, Pen. Code.) The document as certified by the warden stated that *in his legal custody, as such officer,*are the original files and records of persons heretofore committed to said penal institution; that the attached documents are copies of the original records of Dan Murphy, No. 7877, “a person heretofore committed to said penal institution, and who served a term of imprisonment therein; that I have compared the foregoing’ and attached copies with their respective originals now on file in my office and each thereof contains, and is, a full, true and correct transcript and copy from its said original”. In accordance with our own statute (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 1875, .mbd. 3), we take judicial notice of the fact that under the laws of Montana (Rev. Codes Mont., 1921, see. 12440), the warden of the state prison is the legal custodian of its records.

It appears to us that the appeal is frivolous and wholly without merit. The judgment and the order denying motion for new trial are, and each of them is, affirmed.

Houser, J., and York, J., concurred.

A petition by appellant to have the cause heard in the Supreme Court, after judgment in the District ‘Court of Appeal, was denied by the Supreme Court on August 13, 1934.
# Alaska Airmen rescue pregnant woman in distress

/ Published Dec. 28, 2021

JOINT BASE ELMENDORF-RICHARDSON, Alaska  –  Alaska Air National Guardsmen of the 176th Wing rescued a pregnant woman in distress Dec. 27 at Kipnuk about 100 miles southwest of Bethel.

Alaska Air National Guard Senior Master Sgt. Evan Budd, Alaska Rescue Coordination Center superintendent, said officials of the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta Regional Hospital requested assistance when a pregnant woman was injured in a snow machine accident.

The 176th Wing launched a 210th Rescue Squadron HH-60G Pave Hawk rescue helicopter and a 211th Rescue Squadron HC-130J Combat King II rescue aircraft. Both aircraft had highly trained pararescue (PJs) Airmen onboard.

The HC-130 was the first aircraft on scene, dropping much-needed medical supplies to local medical professionals to stabilize the patient.

The HH-60 then landed on the scene, disembarking two PJs who spent an hour stabilizing the patient before loading her onboard the Pave Hawk for evacuation to the Bethel Airport and transloaded her to theHC-130.

The crew of the HC-130 then transported the woman to JBER where she was transloaded to a JBER Fire Emergency Services ambulance. Paramedics of the 673d Civil Engineer Squadron then transported the patient to the Alaska Native Medical Center.

Budd said teamwork between the 176th Wing units and the 673d CES was a critical dimension during the mission.

“The transload was key because the weather was so poor in the passes,” he said. “There were a lot of tough obstacles to overcome, but everyone came together and knocked this one out of the park.”

For the operation, 210th RQS, 211th RQS, 212th RQS and the AKRCC were awarded one save.
```

[Federal Register: December 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 243)]
[Notices]               
[Page 79334]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20de10-902]                         

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION

 
Meeting Notice

    Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Arctic Research Commission 
will hold its 95th meeting in Anchorage, AK, on January 21, 2011. The 
business session, open to the public, will convene at 9 a.m.
    The Agenda items include:
    (1) Call to order and approval of the agenda.
    (2) Approval of the minutes from the 94th meeting.
    (3) Commissioners and staff reports.
    (4) Discussion and presentations concerning Arctic research 
activities.
    The focus of the meeting will be reports and updates on programs 
and research projects affecting the Arctic.
    If you plan to attend this meeting, please notify us via the 
contact information below. Any person planning to attend who requires 
special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign 
language interpreters, must inform the Commission of those needs in 
advance of the meeting.
    Contact Person for Further Information: John Farrell, Executive 
Director, U.S. Arctic Research Commission, 703-525-0111 or TDD 703-306-
0090.

John Farrell,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-31779 Filed 12-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
```
No 2,734.

#### THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Appellants, *v.*FRED SCHUSTER, Respondent.

Habeas Cobpdb Act. — Appead.—No appeal lies from the order of a Judge admitting a party to bail under the provisions of the Habeas Corpus Act.

Appeal from tbe Second District Court, County of Plumas.

Tbe facts are stated in tbe opinion.

*Jo Hamilton,*Attorney-General, for Appellant.

No appearance for Respondent.

Rhodes, C. J.,

delivered tbe opinion of tbe Court; Wallace, J., Crockett, J., and Temple, J., concurring:

Tbe Attorney-General moves that tbis cause be placed on tbe cálendar for argument, and be also submits tbe question wbetber an appeal lies from tbe order from wbieb tbe appeal is taken. Tbe defendant was indicted for murder. Tbe County Judge ordered that be be admitted to bail in tbe sum of $15,000; but tbe defendant failing to give bail in that sum, presented bis petition to the District Judge, praying that tbe Sheriff be ordered to bring him (tbe defendant) before tbe District Judge, and that be be admitted to bail in a sum not exceeding $7,500. The District Judge thereupon ordered that tbe defendant be admitted to bail in tbe sum of $10,000 Prom that order tbe appeal is taken.

There is no provision in the" Habeas Corpus Act permitting an appeal from tbe order of tbe Judge, in proceedings bad under that Act; and it is apparent from tbe nature of *628that remedy, that none was intended. Nor is there anything in Section 481 of the Criminal Practice Act, regulating appeals in criminal cases, which will authorize an appeal from such an order.

Appeal dismissed.
**Exhibit 10.22****LEASE EXTENSION AGREEMENT**THIS LEASE EXTENSION AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into this 31st day of July,2006, by and between MACTARNAHAN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, an Oregon limited partnership (“**Landlord**”),and PBC ACQUISITION, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“**Tenant**”).**Recital**     A. Landlord, as landlord, and Tenant, as tenant, entered into that certain Indenture of Lease(the “Brewery Lease”) dated effective July 31, 2004, for all portions of the Building located at2730 NW 31st Avenue, Portland, Oregon, except portions of the first floor of said Buildingconsisting of the “Alehouse” and “common areas”, which Premises are more particularly described inthe Brewery Lease.     B. The Brewery Lease was scheduled to terminate on July 31, 2006, unless Tenant exercised itsoption to extend the term as contained in the Brewery Lease. Tenant timely exercised the option toextend the term of the Brewery Lease. By this Agreement, the parties hereby set forth theiragreement regarding the same.**Agreement**     For good and valuable consideration, the adequacy of which the parties hereby acknowledge, theparties hereby agree as follows:     1.** Capitalized Terms**. Capitalized terms used in this Agreement shall have the same meaning asset forth in the Brewery Lease, except as otherwise expressly provided herein.     2.** Extension and Term of Extension**. The Brewery Lease is hereby extended for an additionalperiod of five (5) years, commencing on August 1, 2006, and terminating on July 31, 2011 (the“Renewal Term”); on and subject to all of the terms and conditions set forth in the Brewery Lease,except that (i) the number of options to extend the Brewery Lease under Article VI thereof shall betwo instead of three, and (ii) Base Rent during the Renewal Term shall be $6,177.04 per month,payable in accordance with the provisions of the Brewery Lease.     3.** No Other Changes**. Except as specifically provided herein to the contrary, all of the termsand conditions of the Brewery Lease shall remain in full force and effect. In the event of aconflict between the terms of this Agreement and the Brewery Lease, the terms of this Agreementshall control.     4.** Counterparts**. This Agreement may be executed and delivered in counterparts, each of whichshall be deemed an original and all of which taken together shall constitute one and the sameinstrument; facsimile delivery of signatures is sufficient to form a binding agreement.
1

 
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective as of the date first writtenabove.               **LANDLORD:**   **TENANT:**               MACTARNAHAN LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,   PBC ACQUISITION, LLC, a Delawarean Oregon limited partnership   limited liability company               By: Harmer Mill & Logging Supply Co., anOregon corporation, General Partner                           By:      /s/ R. Scott MacTarnahan   By:        /s/ Jason Rees                     Name:    R. Scott MacTarnahan   Name:       Jason Rees      Title:    Pres.   Title:       Manager      
2
Order entered November 23, 2016

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-01438-CR

CHRISTOPHER HOWARD BEACHUM, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. F-1355206-W

ORDER

Before the Court is the State’s November 22, 2016 second motion for extension of time 

in which to file its brief. The motion is GRANTED. The State’s brief, which accompanied its 

motion, is deemed timely filed as of the date received. 

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

PRESIDING JUSTICE