alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 US military plans release of Tenant Bill of RightsPublished March 6, 2019
                        
                        By Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS)  --**
                All four military services of the U.S. Department of Defense are preparing a joint Tenant Bill of Rights in an effort to ensure service members and their families have safe, quality homes and communities and clear rights while living in them. It is intended to increase the accountability of privatized housing companies by putting more oversight authority in the hands of local military leaders.
All three service secretaries have seen firsthand and reviewed problems in housing units, and the Tenant Bill of Rights is intended to help remedy them by both protecting and empowering service members and their families.
The Tenant Bill of Rights will be enforced through renegotiated leases with the privatized housing companies. The Bill of Rights will be implemented in the coming weeks.Tenant Bill of Rights 



safe 



quality homes and communities 



clear rights 



U.S. Department of Defense 



empowering service members 



renegotiated 



leases 



protecting 



empowering 



service members 



families 



privatized housing companies
#### CORRINE WARTHEN v. TOMS RIVER COMMUNITY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL.

May 6, 1985.

Petition for certification denied. (See 199 *N.J.Super.*18)
EX-10.15



 Exhibit 10.15 

GREAT WESTERN BANCORP, INC. 

2014 NON-EMPLOYEE DIRECTOR PLAN 

FORM OF 

RESTRICTED SHARE UNIT AWARD AGREEMENT 

This Restricted Share Unit Award Agreement (this “Award Agreement”) evidences an award of restricted share units
(“RSUs”) by Great Western Bancorp, Inc. (“Great Western”) under the Great Western Bancorp, Inc. 2014 Non-Employee Director Plan (the “Plan”). Capitalized terms not defined
in the Award Agreement have the meanings given to them in the Plan. 
  

					
	Name of Grantee:	  	__________	 	(the “Grantee”).
			
	Grant Date:	  	__________	 	(the “Grant Date”).
		
	Number of RSUs:	  	______________________.
			
	Vesting Schedule	  	__________	 	(the “Vesting Date”).
		
	Delivery Date:	  	No later than 30 days after the earliest to occur of (1) [the one-year anniversary of the Vesting Date, (2)] termination of the Grantee’s service as a Non-Employee Director and [(2)][(3)] a Change in Control,
Great Western will issue to the Grantee one Share for each RSU, subject to applicable tax withholding (the date the Shares are so issued, the “Delivery Date”).
		
	Dividend Equivalents:	  	On the Delivery Date, Great Western will pay to the Grantee a cash amount equal to the product of (x) all cash dividends or other distributions (other than cash dividends or other distributions pursuant to which the
RSUs were adjusted pursuant to Section 1.6.3 of the Plan), if any, paid on a Share from the Grant Date to the Delivery Date and (y) the number of Shares delivered to the Grantee on the Delivery Date (including for this purpose any Shares
which would have been delivered on the Delivery Date but for being withheld to satisfy tax withholding obligations).
		
	All Other Terms:	  	As set forth in the Plan.

 The Plan is incorporated herein by reference. Except as otherwise set forth in the Award Agreement, the Award
Agreement and the Plan constitute the entire agreement and understanding of the parties with respect to the RSUs. In the event that any provision of the Award Agreement is inconsistent with the Plan, the terms of the Plan will control. By accepting
this Award, the Grantee agrees to be subject to the terms and conditions of the Plan. 
 This Award Agreement may be executed in
counterparts, which together will constitute one and the same original. 







 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Award Agreement to be duly executed and
effective as of the Grant Date. 
  

			
	GREAT WESTERN BANCORP, INC.
		
	By:	 	 
		 	 Name:
 Title:



  

			
	[NAME OF GRANTEE]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6722

TONY TURNAGE, 

Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, 

Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. 

(1:11-cv-03373-ELH) 

Submitted: September 8, 2014 Decided: September 26, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. 

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Tony Turnage, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United 

States Attorney, Jason Daniel Medinger, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Tony Efrem Turnage, a federal prisoner, appeals the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

(2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by 

the district court. Turnage v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 

No. 1:11-cv-03373-ELH (D. Md. Apr. 2, 2014). We 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
#### Hammer, Appellant, *v.*Minges et al., Appellees.

(Decided March 28, 1938.)

*Mr. R. E. Simmonds, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Messrs. Hauer & Topmoeller,*for appellees.

Matthews, J.

The notice of appeal in this case recites that it is on questions of fact as well as law, and an appeal bond was filed.

The petition asserted that the defendants held in trust for the plaintiff a bond of the par value of $1000 and $500 in money, of which the plaintiff asked an accounting, less an indebtedness' for board.

The defendants denied all the allegations relating to . a trust.

A transcript of the evidence taken in the Common Pleas Court was introduced by counsel in this court.

A reading of this transcript shows that the parties never intended to create a trust. The plaintiff testified that she delivered or gave to the defendants $500 in cash and a United States treasury certificate of the par value of $1000, in consideration of their promise to allow her to live at their home whenever she pleased during the remainder of her life. •

The defendants testified that the money and bond *160were gifts and that they made no promise snch as was claimed by the plaintiff.

It is' manifest that this evidence presents no case for equitable intervention. The plaintiff’s evidence tended to prove a contract and its breach, the remedy for which is either an action on the contract or for money had and received, both being actions at law. No other claim is made in the brief of the appellant.

This court, limited by the Constitution to chancery cases, in hearings *de novo*on appeal, cannot determine the issues raised by the evidence.

The appeal must be reduced to one on questions' of law only, on which the validity and regularity of the judgment of the trial court is brought under review.

This situation would require, if the request were made, that the court give to the appellant not to exceed thirty days in which to file a bill of exceptions.

However, the court has read the transcript of the evidence and finds no substantial error in it prejudicial to the appellant. The only question argued was the weight of the evidence, and we cannot say that the judgment is' manifestly against the weight of the evidence.

Unless the appellant desires time in which to file a bill of exceptions, the appeal will be reduced to one on questions of law, and the judgment affirmed.

*Judgment accordingly.*

Ross, P. J., and Hamilton, J., concur.
MP

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. DA 20-0032

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

CARLOS VALENZUELA,

Defendant and Appellant.

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellee’s motion for a 60-day extension of time, 

and good cause appearing therefor, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellee is granted an extension of time to 

and including March 30, 2021, within which to prepare, serve, and file its response 

brief.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

January 22 2021

01/22/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0032
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
  (1)
    
    the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2008
(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/ Courtney Cowgill

Courtney CowgillChief Financial Officer
News United States Air Force
 SecAF Wilson talks Air Force innovation across JBSA, AustinPublished July 2, 2018
                        
                        By Senior Airman Stormy Archer
                        
                        
                        502nd Air Base Wing Public Affairs
                **JOINT BASE SAN ANTONIO, Texas (AFNS) --**
                Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson visited AFWERX-Austin, Pilot Training Next and Joint Base San Antonio, Texas, June 27-29, 2018, to see firsthand the focus Airmen in the area are placing on improving readiness, cost-effective modernization and developing exceptional leaders.
Her first stop was AFWERX-Austin, the Air Force’s newest public innovation and collaboration hub focused on bridging external communities and the Air Force to create mutually-beneficial partnerships.
“We recognize that the bureaucracy doesn’t always allow innovation to happen, and that’s one of the reasons for creating things like AFWERX,” Wilson said. “To take some of the innovative capacities of the people who work in high-tech companies who can help the Air Force connect with a community that has a university partner, where we’re very likely to find entrepreneurial talent and ideas, a supportive local government, a business and innovation culture and try to connect and embed as part of a team.”
Wilson also toured the Pilot Training Next facility at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport in Austin.
Pilot Training Next is a program to explore and potentially prototype a training environment that integrates various technologies to produce pilots in an accelerated, cost efficient, learning-focused manner. The training uses immersive technology to see how Airmen can learn more effectively.
“Technology has changed quite a bit, but the syllabus for pilot training had not significantly changed in about 20 years,” Wilson said. “The Air Force is partnering with industry and educators to build a training environment that integrates today’s latest technology to improve pilot training.”
The next stop for Wilson was a visit to Joint Base San Antonio.
At JBSA-Randolph, Wilson met with members of the 12th Flying Training Wing to discuss the pilot instructor training, introduction to fighter fundamentals, weapons systems officer training and remotely piloted aircraft pilot and basic sensor operator training missions.
While at JBSA-Lackland, Wilson had the opportunity to engage with new Airmen and their families, and also serve as the reviewing official during the Basic Military Training graduation parade. There she welcomed 628 new Airmen into the Air Force.
“To our newest Airmen, every one of you comes here with a story,” Wilson said. “You bring with you your history and your family’s history to our nation’s defense, and you are now part of our story as Airmen in the greatest Air Force in the world.”AETC 



Air Education and Training Command 



JBSA 



Austin 



Joint Base San Antonio 



SecAF 



SAF 



AFwerX 



Pilot Training Next 



readiness 



modernization
#### Ring *v.*Mott.

The issuing of a commission to take the testimony of a witness out of the state, though usually directed, is not a matter of strict Tight.

Where a commission is likely to produce great injury to the adverse party, terms •will be imposed, and in extreme cases it may be wholly refused.

January 26, 1850.

Appeal from an order at chambers, denying a motion of the plaintiff for a commission. The action was of an equitable -nature. A brother of the plaintiff, whose family resided in New York, and who was an officer of the customs here, left tiome for the island of Cuba in October, 1849, for the benefit of his ■health. Previous to his departure, the plaintiff proceeded to examine him conditionally, but the cross-examination, which was very long, had not been completed, when he was obliged •to leave.

The commission was opposed, on the ground that the witness was a resident of the state • and because, as stated in affidavits, his cross-examination required the presence of numerous books of account and valuable vouchers, which it was impossible to send to Cuba and produce to him there ; and the omission to have the witness examined upon them, would be dangerous to the defendant’s rights.

*J.*I. *Ring*and *O.*Hoffman, for the plaintiff.

*R. H. Bowne*and *W. C. Wetmore,*for the defendant.

By the Court.

The issuing of a commission is in the discretion of the -court It is usually done as of course, with or *684without a stay of proceedings, but it is not a matter of strict right. • The court must be governed in the exercise of its discretion, by what it is apparent will be the consequences'; and if it is evident that great injustice will be likely to ensue to the adverse party, it is far from being of course to grant it. In such a case, the court will either impose terms so as to preserve the rights of the adverse party, or will even refuse it, if no way for their protection can be devised.(a)

(a)

 The cause stood over to enable the parties to make an arrangement,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

CAROL ANN CARTER, MONICA PARRILLA, REBECCA POYOUROW, WILLIAM TUNG, ROSEANNE MILAZZO, BURT SIEGEL, SUSAN CASSANELLI, LEE

CASSANELLI , LYNN WACHMAN, MICHAEL GUTTMAN, MAYA FONKEU, BRADY HILL, MARY ELLEN BALCHUNIS, TOM DEWALL, STEPHANIE MCNULTY

AND JANET TEMIN

v.

LEIGH M. CHAPMAN, IN HER OFFICIAL

CAPACITY AS THE ACTING SECRETARY

OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; JESSICA MATHIS, I N

HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR

FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF

ELECTION SERVICES AND NOTARIES

APPEAL OF: LESLIE OSCHE, KIM GEYER, MICHAEL T. SLUPE, CANDEE BARNES, THOMAS REEP, BRANDY

REEP , KENNETH LUNSFORD, TAMMY LUNSFORD, JAMES THOMPSON, PAMELA THOMPSON, JOSEPH RENWICK, STEPHANIE RENWICK, LOUIS CAPOZZI, DAVID BALL, MARY E. OWLETT, KRISTINE ENG, JUSTIN BEHRENS, JAMES P. FOREMAN, MATTHEW J. STUCKEY, ANTHONY J. LUTHER, LINDA C. DANIELS, JEFF REY PICCOLA, JAMES VASILKO, JAY HAGERMAN, AND EVAN P. SMITH.,

Possible Intervenors :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 11 MAP 2022

Appeal from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court at No. 464

MD 2021 dated January 14, 2022 denying intervenor status.[ 11 & 12 MAP 2022 ]

- 2

PHILIP T. GRESSMAN; RON Y. DONAGI; KRISTOPHER R. TAPP; PAMELA GORKIN; DAVID P. MARSH; JAMES L. ROSENBERGER; AMY MYERS; EUGENE BOMAN; GARY GORDON; LIZ MCMAHON; TIMOTHY G. FEEMAN; AND GARTH

ISAAK

v.

LEIGH M. CHAPMAN, IN HER OFFICIAL

CAPACITY AS THE ACTING SECRETARY

OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA; JESSICA MATHIS, IN

HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR

FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA BUREAU OF

ELECTION SERVICES AND NOTARIES

APPEAL OF: LESLIE OSCHE, KIM GEYER, MICHAEL T. SLUPE, CANDEE BARNES, THOMAS REEP, BRANDY REEP, KENNETH LUNSFORD, TAMMY LUNSFORD, JAMES THOMPSON, PAMELA THOMPSON, JOSEPH RENWICK, STEPHANIE RENWICK, LOUIS CAPOZZI, DAVID BALL, MARY E. OWLETT, KRISTINE ENG, J USTIN BEHRENS, JAMES P. FOREMAN, MATTHEW J. STUCKEY, ANTHONY J. LUTHER, LINDA C. DANIELS, JEFFREY PICCOLA, JAMES VASILKO, JAY HAGERMAN, AND EVAN P. SMITH.,

Possible Intervenors :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 12 MAP 2022

Appeal from the Order of the

Commonwealth Court at No. 465 MD 2021 dated January 14, 2022 denying intervenor status.[ 11 & 12 MAP 2022 ]

- 3 O RDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: February 2, 2022

AND NOW, this 2 nd day of February , 2022

, probable jurisdiction is NOTED . As

Appellants waited twelve days to file a notice of appeal from the Commonwealth Court’s

order denying intervention, and deadlines established by that order ha ve already passed,

the Order of the Commonwealth Court is AFFIRMED

. Cf. Pa.R.Civ.P. 232 9(3) (allowing

for denial of intervention if “the petitioner has unduly delayed in making application for

intervention or the intervention will unduly delay . . . the trial or the adjudication of the

rights of the parties”).
News United States Air Force
 BLUE: Blueprint to BattlefieldPublished Jan. 15, 2019
                        
                        By Air Force TV
                **FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md. (AFNS) --**
                Getting new technology from the lab bench to the warfighter has taken on new urgency as the Air Force explores innovative ways to move ideas quickly from blueprint to battlefield. Those efforts are already paying off with advancements that are having a direct effect on missions around the world.</iframe

For previous episodes, click **here** for the Air Force TV page.
Related links:
- **The Air Force Research Laboratory: Team AFRL**
 Air Force TV technology acquisition science AFRL AFB AFTV Air Force Research Laboratories AFBlue Air Force Blue BLUE
EXHIBIT 32.2


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF 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 filing by CDEX Inc. (the "Company") of its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended October 31, 2010 (the "Report") I, Stephen A. McCommon, Chief Financial 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:





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


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





This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the Chief Financial Officer of CDEX Inc. with the requirements of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be used for any other purposes. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to CDEX Inc. and will be retained by CDEX Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





/s/  Stephen A. McCommonStephen A. McCommonChief Financial OfficerDate: January 28, 2011
News United States Air Force
 Air Force Marathon registration to open January 1Published Dec. 21, 2018
                        
                        
                        Air Force Marathon Office
                
                **WRIGHT PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFNS)** -- Registration for the 23rd Annual Air Force Marathon opens at midnight Jan. 1, 2019.  Runners can register at www.usafmarathon.com by clicking the registration tab.
“We’re excited about offering an almost entirely new race experience that we believe runners will enjoy,” said Brandon Hough, race director .
Registration for the 2019 Air Force Marathon will open with a New Year’s Resolution special that will offer the best prices in a decade.  The prices will be valid through Jan. 3.
“We received such great feedback from our 2018 runners that we are implementing,” Hough said. “From updated courses to a whole new expo experience, we think runners are going to be noticing a difference.”
After a successful first year, the Fly – Fight – Win Challenge Series will be returning and adding an additional option. Runners can register for either the 5K, 10K or half marathon races similar to last year or the 5K, 10K and Full Marathon races as one event. In completing either challenge, runners will receive an additional, premium medal.
 
Registrants for the challenge must still be able to complete the 10K race in one hour or less (9:41 pace) to be able to make it to the half or full marathon start time. Organizers are also adding a 1K children’s race, The Tailwind Trot, for children 4-12 and their parents scheduled for Friday, Sept. 20 at 6 p.m., just before the 5K event.
The featured aircraft for 2019 will be the Air Force’s newest tanker, the KC-46 Pegasus.

**DISTANCE**
            **JAN 1 -**
            **JAN 3**
            **JAN 4 -**
            **FEB 17**
            **FEB 18-**
            **APR 7**
            **APR 8 -**
            **JUN 16**
            **JUN 17 -**
            **SEP 18**
            **EXPO****MARATHON**
            $70
            $80
            $90
            $100
            $110
            $120**HALF MARATHON**
            $60
            $70
            $80
            $90
            $100
            $110**10K**
            $30
            $35
            $40
            $45
            $55
            $65**5K**
            $20
            $25
            $30
            $35
            $40
            $45**Challenge Series**
            $110
            $135
            $150
            $170
            $190
            $220**1K Kids Race**
            $10
            $12
            $14
            $17
            $20
            $25
The Air Force Marathon is scheduled for Saturday, Sept. 21, 2019. The Sports & Fitness Expo is held at Wright State University’s Nutter Center and is scheduled for Thursday, Sept. 19, and Friday, Sept. 20. The event will also feature a Breakfast of Champions and Gourmet Pasta Dinner scheduled for Friday, Sept. 20. 
Get more information about the race at www.usafmarathon.commarathon 



Wright-Patt 



running
#### IN THE MATTER OF MARIANNE NELSON, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

January 23, 1986.

Petition for certification denied.
#### CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPORATION v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY.

July 11, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
Air Force invites 59 small businesses, start-ups to Air Force Pitch Day By Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs ,   / Published March 01, 2019  Related Links Air Force Pitch Day – Invited Small Businesses
 ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --           https://www.afsbirsttr.af.mil/Program/Air-Force-Pitch-Day/
  
 TagAir Force Taginnovation Tagspace Tagtechnology Tagintelligence Tagcommunication TagAF Tagnational security Tagcontracting Tagcyberspace Tagnetwork Tagsmall business Tagair TagStartup TagPitch Day Tagpitch
#### IN THE MATTER OF STEVEN A. HERMAN, AN ATTORNEY AT LAW.

November 20, 1985.

*27ORDER

STEVEN A. HERMAN of EAST BRUNSWICK, who was admitted to the bar of this State in 1978, having entered a guilty plea to a Criminal Accusation charging him with sexual assault in violation of *N.J.S.A.*2C:14-2b, and good cause appearing;

It is ORDERED that, pursuant to *R.*l:20-6(a)(l), STEVEN A. HERMAN is temporarily suspended from the practice of law pending the final resolution of the ethics complaint pending against him, effective immediately, and until the further order of this Court; and it is further

ORDERED that STEVEN A. HERMAN be restrained and enjoined from practicing law during the period of his suspension; and it is further

ORDERED that STEVEN A. HERMAN comply with Administrative Guideline No. 23 of the Office of Attorney Ethics dealing with suspended, disbarred or resigned attorneys.

WITNESS, the Honorable Robert N. Wilentz, Chief Justice, at Trenton, this 20th day of November, 1985.