alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 Canadians test capabilities at Tyndall’s Combat Archer, Combat HammerPublished Feb. 17, 2017
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Cody R. Miller
                        
                        
                        325th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **TYNDALL AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. (AFNS)  --**
                Royal Canadian Air Force personnel took part in exercises Combat Archer and Combat Hammer here, from Jan. 10 to Feb. 10.This was the first time the 401st Tactical Fighter Squadron deployed a detachment of personnel since fall 2015. The 401st TFS is from Cold Lake, Alberta, Canada, and brought about 120 personnel. The training provided members of the CF-18 Hornet squadron with a rare opportunity to employ live air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons systems in a permissive and controlled environment.Both Combat Archer and Combat Hammer are part of the Weapons Systems Evaluation Program operated by the 53rd Weapons Evaluation Group at Tyndall Air Force Base. The program goal is to evaluate a unit’s capability to employ a variety of weapons systems throughout all stages of the process, from storage and preparation, to use on a target.“We’re here to perform system evaluations of our air-to-air and air-to-ground capabilities,” said Maj. Patrick Hutcheson, the 401st TFS aircraft maintenance engineering officer. “We also have the goal of enhancing the skills and system qualifications of our technicians and pilots. The United States has provided us with the ability to perform these tests and has given us nothing but support.”Canadian pilots coordinated with Tyndall Airmen to improve air-to-air and air-to-ground tactics, as well as improve international relations between countries. During Combat Archer, 22 missiles were fired for tactical evaluation.The exercises were split into three parts, each with its own set of objectives. The first part was one week of general aircraft training alongside U.S. Air Force F-15 Eagles and F-22 Raptors. They then entered a two-week phase of Combat Archer. This entails live air-to-air missile tests, using AIM-120, AIM-7 and AIM-9 missile systems against the BQM-167 aerial target.Finally, part three is known as exercise Combat Hammer. The Canadians took part in a full-scale, live air-to-ground bombing exercise; using GBU-12 laser guided inert bombs, coupled with state of the art targeting telemetry, against realistic and live targets located at the Eglin AFB target range.“These exercises are a tremendous opportunity for not only the members of the 401st, but the RCAF’s fighter force as a whole,” said Lt. Col. Joe Mullins, the 401st TFS commander. “It isn’t every day we have the chance to practice our live weapons capabilities, across all stages of the operation. The goal of this exercise is to improve capabilities, identify points of strength and areas of improvement, and ultimately prepare ourselves for the next time we are called into combat.”ACC 



Combat Hammer 



Canada 



Royal Canadian air force 



combat archer 



Tyndall AFB
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1


                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-72877) pertaining to the 1999 Equity Incentive Plan, the 1999 Non-
Employee Director Option Plan, the International Employee Stock Purchase Plan
and the Employee Stock Purchase Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-83115) pertaining to the Diffusion Corporation 1995 General Stock Option
Plan, Diffusion Corporation 1995 Executive Stock Option Plan and the Diffusion
Corporation 1997 Stock Option Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.
333-91767) pertaining to the 1999 Supplemental Stock Option Plan and the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-30242) pertaining to the Engine 5, Ltd
1999 Stock Option/Stock Issuance Plan, the DataSage, Inc. 1996 Stock & Option
Plan, the DataSage, Inc. 1997 Stock and Option Plan and the Vignette Corporation
1999 Equity Incentive Plan of our report dated February 4, 2000, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of DataSage, Inc. for the years ended
December 31, 1999 and 1998 which is included in the Current Report (Form 8-K/A)
dated March 30, 2000 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.



                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Austin, Texas
March 28, 2000
##### 



EXHIBIT 21 SUBSIDIARIES OF CINEMARK, INC. USA
CNMK Holding, Inc.
Cinemark USA, Inc.
Cinemark, L.L.C.
Sunnymead Cinema Corp.
Cinemark Properties, Inc.
Cinemark Paradiso, Inc. (f/k/a Cinemark Transportation, Inc.)
Cinemark Investments Corporation
Multiplex Properties, Inc.
Multiplex Services, Inc.
Trans Texas Cinema, Inc.
Missouri City Central 6, Inc.
Brainerd Ltd.
Cinemark International, L.L.C.
Cinemark Mexico (USA), Inc.
Cinemark Leasing Company (f/k/a Tinseltown Equities, Inc.)
Cinemark Partners I, Inc.
Cinemark Partners II, Ltd.
Laredo Theatre, Ltd.
Cinema Properties, Inc.
Greeley Holdings, Inc.
Greeley, Ltd.
CNMK Brasil Investments, Inc.
CNMK Texas Properties, Ltd.
CNMK Investments, Inc.
CNMK Delaware Investments I, Inc.
CNMK Delaware Investments II, Inc.
CNMK Delaware Investment Properties L.P. MEXICO
Cinemark de Mexico, S.A. de C.V.
Servicios Cinemark, S.A. de C.V.
Cinemark del Norte, S.A. de C.V.
Cinemark Holdings Mexico S. de R.L. de C.V. CHILE
Cinemark Chile S.A.
Inversiones Cinemark S.A.
Worldwide Invest, Inc. TAIWAN
Cinemark-Core Pacific, Ltd.




---



##### 



EXHIBIT 21 SUBSIDIARIES OF CINEMARK, INC., cont. BRASIL
Cinemark Brasil S.A. CANADA
Cinemark Theatres Canada, Inc.
Cinemark Holdings Canada, Inc.
Canada Theatre Holdings, Inc. ECUADOR
Cinemark del Ecuador S.A. PERU
Cinemark del Peru SRL ARGENTINA
Cinemark Argentina, S.A.
Cinemark Rio de la Plata Associates S.R.L.
Prodecine S.A. de C.V.
Bulness 2215, S.A. CENTRAL AMERICA
Cinemark Panama, S.A.
Cinemark Equity Holdings Corporation (BVI)
Cinemark Nicaragua y Cia, Ltda.
Cinemark Honduras S. de R.L.
Cinemark Costa Rica S.R.L.
Cinemark El Salvador Ltda. de C.V. COLOMBIA
Cinemark Colombia S.A. SPAIN
Cinemark Holdings Spain, S.L. GERMANY
Cinemark Germany GmbH
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RICHARD SCHENCK.

June 25, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
# News

## U.S. Air Force LogoUnited States Air Force

# Air Force posts new challenges on crowdsourcing idea website

              - Published  June 30, 2017
              -                             By Air Force Staff Report                                                    
              - Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs

**WASHINGTON (AFNS)  --  **
Air Force officials have posted a new set of topics (in the form of challenges) on the Revitalizing Air Force Squadrons crowdsourcing/idea website after closing out the first set of challenges June 19, 2017.

The site averaged more than 3,000 views per day with more than 16,000 total votes on the first set of challenges.  

"We received over 600 ideas from Airmen across the Air Force, which included ideas such as displaying squadron identity on uniforms, ways to help us increase focus on the core mission and improving family support,” said Chief Master Sgt. Robert Stamper, the Revitalizing Air Force Squadrons chief. “Users voted and helped us identify the top ideas." 

The top-voted ideas have been submitted to Brig. Gen. Stephen Davis, the Revitalizing Air Force Squadrons team lead, and the Revitalizing Air Force Squadrons Core Team. The team is reviewing ideas for assignment to the appropriate subject matter experts for further action.  

"Some of the highest-voted ideas we received from Airmen pertained to uniform changes and the desire for outward displays of squadron identity,” Davis said. “We have already provided information from these ideas, along with similar data from our field visits, to the Air Force Uniform Board 

The ideas and results from the first set of challenges can be found here: https://www.milsuite.mil/revitalize. 

A second set of challenges has been posted, which includes the topics of higher headquarters support to squadrons, centralized/decentralized support to squadrons, job-specific training, and improving feedback.  

"We are looking for Airmen to provide their ideas on how to get after some of the issues we’ve been hearing about during our recent field visits,” Davis said. “We have also kept the Open Ideas Forum, which provides Airmen the opportunity to submit ideas on any topic related to revitalizing squadrons."  

The CAC-enabled milSuite website provides an online presence for Airmen to offer ideas on how to revitalize Air Force squadrons. Airmen are encouraged to address specific topics presented in the form of challenges and to help identify the best ideas by voting, commenting and sharing. The top-voted ideas will be presented to the Revitalizing Air Force Squadrons team and then to Air Force senior leaders. 

This effort directly supports Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David L. Goldfein’s focus area number one – revitalizing Air Force squadrons.

For technical support with the site please contact milSuite at milsuite@mail.mil.

Revitalizing Air Force Squadronscrowdsourcingchief of staff of the Air ForceCSAFDavid L. GoldfeinFocus Areasquadron identityideasSenior LeadersAFAir ForceSecretary of the Air ForceSecAF

#             Related Links        

-  Air Force posts new challenges on crowdsourcing idea website
Order entered January 23, 2023

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-22-00438-CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V.

BRADLEY SHAVERS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Criminal Court No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. MC19-A6636

ORDER

Appellee’s fourth motion for extension of time to file appellee’s brief is 

GRANTED and we ORDER the brief received with the motion on January 20, 

2023, filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ DENNISE GARCIA

JUSTICE
#### MARGO FICAROTTA v. BUREAU OF HOUSING INSPECTION.

July 11, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
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 Annual Report of Carroll Shelby International, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-KSB for the period ending December
31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John Luft, CFO 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:



|Date: April 14, 2004 |  | /s/JOHN LUFT John Luft
President, CFO, Director
|-------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
**CERTIFICATIONREQUIRED BY PURSUANT TO  18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ENACTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906 OF THE U.S. SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

CAE Inc. (the “Company”) isfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, itsannual report on Form 40-F for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2012 (the“Report”).

I, Marc Parent, President andChief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section1350, as enacted pursuant to section 906 of the U.S. Sarbanes‐Oxley Actof 2002, that:

(i)                                                  the Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or15(d) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(ii)                                                 the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 

/s/ Marc Parent                                     

Marc Parent

President and Chief Executive Officer

 

Date: June 29, 2012
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2493 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2493

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 14 Red River Avenue North in Cold Spring, Minnesota, as the 
             ``Officer Tommy Decker Memorial Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 18, 2014

 Ms. Klobuchar (for herself and Mr. Franken) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                   Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 14 Red River Avenue North in Cold Spring, Minnesota, as the 
             ``Officer Tommy Decker Memorial Post Office''.

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

SECTION 1. OFFICER TOMMY DECKER MEMORIAL POST OFFICE.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 14 Red River Avenue North in Cold Spring, Minnesota, shall 
be known and designated as the ``Officer Tommy Decker Memorial Post 
Office''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Officer 
Tommy Decker Memorial Post Office''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. &1350)

 

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. &1350), the undersigned, Mark J. Hirschhorn, Chief Financial Officer of Datatec Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), does hereby certify, to his knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the three month period ended July 31, 2003 of the Company (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.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-1998             APR-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-1997             MAY-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-31-1997             JUL-31-1996
<CASH>                                          11,143                   6,423
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   76,546                  77,185
<ALLOWANCES>                                     8,202                   8,269
<INVENTORY>                                     29,117                  28,782
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               114,828                 110,231
<PP&E>                                          48,614                  48,072
<DEPRECIATION>                                  17,833                  16,681
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 164,731                 161,222
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,095                  42,724
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                            50                      50
<OTHER-SE>                                     106,014                 105,570
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   164,731                 161,222
<SALES>                                         66,497                  62,659
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,358                  66,273
<CGS>                                           44,434                  42,298
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   68,118                  64,980
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0                       0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 411                     513
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    829                     780
<INCOME-TAX>                                       381                     335
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                448                     445
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                       448                     445
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .09                     .09
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .09                     .09
        

</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 231 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                 S. 231

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To reauthorize the Multinational Species Conservation Funds Semipostal 
                                 Stamp.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Multinational Species Conservation 
Funds Semipostal Stamp Reauthorization Act of 2013''.

SEC. 2. REAUTHORIZATION.

    Section 2(c)(2) of the Multinational Species Conservation Funds 
Semipostal Stamp Act of 2010 (39 U.S.C. 416 note) is amended by 
striking ``2 years'' and inserting ``6 years''.

            Passed the Senate July 31, 2014.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
113th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                 S. 231

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To reauthorize the Multinational Species Conservation Funds Semipostal 
                                 Stamp.
```
#### JOAN ANTOINETTE MCELROY v. NEW JERSEY BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY.

November 19, 1985.

Petitions for certification denied.
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

IN RE: THE NAME CHANGE OF RONALD RUSSELL JOHNSON

.

No. 4D 18

- 695

[ November 21 , 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Merrilee Ehrlich , Judge; L.T. Case No. FMCE 17

- 11266 (40)

.

Jason H. Haber of Haber | Blank, LLP, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

No appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

The petitioner appeals the circuit court’s order denying his petition for a name change. The pet itioner argues t he circuit court erred in two respects: (1) by denying his facially sufficient petition without setting forth

a factual basis for what appears , from the face of the order, to have been

the circuit court’s conclusion that he sought the name change for an

u lterior or illegal purpose; and (2) by denying his request to have a court reporter record the hearing.

We agree with both arguments. See In re Zimmer , 207 So. 3d 1006, 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“ Where a trial court denies a facially sufficient petition [for name change] , the factual basis for doing so must be set forth

in its order. ”) ; Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.535(b) (“A ny proceeding shall be reported on the request of any party.”)

.

We reverse and remand for a new hearing before a different judge, as

the prior judge has since left the bench.

Reversed and remanded for new hearing

.

G ERBER
, C.J., W ARNER and F ORST

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION

File Name: 22a0310n.06

Case Nos. 21-3871/22-3147

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

ALLEN F. CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

EGIDIJUS MARCINKEVICIUS,

Defendant-Appellee.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED 

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 

THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

OHIO

OPINION

Before: MOORE, GRIFFIN, and THAPAR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. This case involves a dispute over the distribution of trust assets. After his 

parents passed away, Allen Campbell was unhappy with the way their estates were distributed. So 

he sued their trusts and several of his relatives in Ohio court. The state probate court dismissed 

his claims, and he appealed. 

While the appeal was pending, Campbell also sued Egidijus Marcinkevicius, the successor 

trustee of his mother’s trust, in federal district court. But because the parallel state action was 

ongoing, the district court stayed its proceedings. 

Once the state appellate court had resolved the case—affirming the probate court’s 

dismissal—Campbell asked the district court to lift the stay and resume adjudicating his federal 

case. Marcinkevicius responded that the district court should lift the stay only to hold that res 

judicata barred Campbell’s claims. 
Case Nos. 21-3871/22-3147, Campbell v. Marcinkevicius

- 2 -

The district court agreed with Marcinkevicius. It lifted the stay and dismissed Campbell’s 

federal claims, holding that the state-court decision precluded Campbell’s federal suit. Campbell 

appeals, arguing that claim preclusion, i.e., res judicata, doesn’t apply. 

He’s right. In assessing the preclusive effect of a state-court judgment, we look to state 

law. See Ohio ex rel. Boggs v. City of Cleveland, 655 F.3d 516, 519 (6th Cir. 2011). Under Ohio 

law, a state-court judgment is preclusive only if it’s a “final judgment rendered upon the merits.” 

Grava v. Parkman Township, 653 N.E.2d 226, 229 (Ohio 1995). And a decision isn’t “on the 

merits” if it is without prejudice. Goudlock v. Voorhies, 894 N.E.2d 692, 694 (Ohio 2008). That’s 

what we have here. The Ohio Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of Campbell’s suit “without 

prejudice, for lack of standing.” Campbell v. Donald A. Campbell 2001 Trust, No. 109585, 2021 

WL 2012581, at *8 (Ohio Ct. App. May 20, 2021). So the state-court judgment isn’t claim 

preclusive. See Wright v. Ga. R.R. & Banking Co., 216 U.S. 420, 429 (1910) (“This court, as is 

well settled, accords to a judgment of a state only that effect given to it by the court of the state in 

which it was rendered.”).

Though Marcinkevicius points out that “it is unclear why the appellate-court decision 

added a ‘without prejudice’ to its finding of lack of standing,” Appellee Br. 20 (cleaned up), the

reason is irrelevant. The state court spoke clearly—its decision is not preclusive under Ohio law. 

And to the extent Marcinkevicius believed the judgment was unclear, he should have asked the 

state court to correct it—not for us to ignore its plain language. 

We reverse the district court’s dismissal of Campbell’s claims and remand for further

proceedings.