alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 AF releases implementation plans for latest diversity, inclusion initiativesPublished April 25, 2017
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                Headquarters Air Force released finalized implementation plans following the second notification to Airmen relaying new diversity and inclusion initiatives on April 9, 2017. 
Diversity and inclusion efforts have been a fundamental priority for the Air Force in addressing today’s ever evolving national security challenges, the memo explained. 
According to Air Force leadership, creating and fostering this environment of diversity and inclusion will enhance the ability to recruit from the broadest possible pool of talent, solve the toughest challenges, and engage the full power of an innovative force. 
The memo summarizes the implementations for 13 initiatives including efforts to provide additional support to geographically-separated military spouses, lengthen the early separation decision window for female Airmen having children, establish diverse slates for key military development positions, promote civilian participation in professional development programs, and better market career fields that currently lack diversity to female and minority populations.
The Air Force has made continuous efforts toward enhancing diversity and inclusion throughout the force, including nine initiatives launched in 2015 to help build teams comprised of individuals with diverse backgrounds, experiences and demographics. However, Air Force leaders acknowledged work remains to ensure continued success.
In September 2016, Air Force senior leaders released the second memorandum to Airmen relaying new diversity and inclusion initiatives; the additional information on the initiatives aligns with Defense Department diversity efforts and recognizes the strength of the force will always be in its people.
The Air Force will continue to look holistically at talent management processes for opportunities to ensure the Air Force is an employer of choice for the nation’s best and brightest talent and capitalizes on the unique contributions of all Airmen, Air Force leadership said.
For additional information on the initiatives, Airmen are encouraged to speak with their chain of command and force support squadrons. For specific personnel guidance related to each initiative, Airmen should go to myPers. Individuals who do not have a myPers account can request one by following these instructions.MyPers 



diversity 



support 



inclusion 



Defense Department 



talent 



SAF 



initiatives 



Priority 



Air Force leadership
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. WAYNE WILLIAMS.

June 25, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 168 (Tuesday, August 31, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53331-53332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-21707]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[F-14867-B; LLAK964000-L14100000-HY0000-P]


Alaska Native Claims Selection

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of decision approving lands for conveyance.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 53332]]

SUMMARY: As required by 43 CFR 2650.7(d), notice is hereby given that 
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will issue an appealable decision 
approving the conveyance of the surface estate for certain lands to 
K'oyitl'ots'ina, Limited, Successor in Interest to Hadohdleekaga, 
Incorporated, for the Native village of Hughes, Alaska, pursuant to the 
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. The subsurface estate in these 
lands will be conveyed to Doyon, Limited, when the surface estate is 
conveyed to K'oyitl'ots'ina, Limited. The lands are in the vicinity of 
Hughes, Alaska, and are located in:

Kateel River Meridian, Alaska

T. 9 N., R. 23 E.,
    Sec. 5.

    Containing 549.52 acres.

    Notice of the decision will also be published four times in the 
Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.

DATES: Any party claiming a property interest in the lands affected by 
the decision may appeal the decision within the following time limits:
    1. Unknown parties, parties unable to be located after reasonable 
efforts have been expended to locate, parties who fail or refuse to 
sign their return receipt, and parties who receive a copy of the 
decision by regular mail which is not certified, return receipt 
requested, shall have until September 30, 2010 to file an appeal.
    2. Parties receiving service of the decision by certified mail 
shall have 30 days from the date of receipt to file an appeal.
    Parties who do not file an appeal in accordance with the 
requirements of 43 CFR part 4, subpart E, shall be deemed to have 
waived their rights.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the decision may be obtained from: Bureau of Land 
Management, Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, <greek-i>13, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99513-7504.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The BLM by phone at 907-271-5960, by 
e-mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3a5b5114585657145955544c5f435b54595f7a585657145d554c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="adccc683cfc1c083cec2c3dbc8d4ccc3cec8edcfc1c083cac2db">[email protected]</span></a>, or by telecommunication device 
(TDD) through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-
877-8339, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Barbara Opp Waldal,
Land Law Examiner, Land Transfer Adjudication I Branch.
[FR Doc. 2010-21707 Filed 8-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JA-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

JEFFREY LYNN ARMOLT,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 788 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 10th day of June, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2523 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2523

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
   at 14 3rd Avenue, NW., in Chisholm, Minnesota, as the ``James L. 
               Oberstar Memorial Post Office Building''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             June 24, 2014

 Ms. Klobuchar 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 3rd Avenue, NW., in Chisholm, Minnesota, as the ``James L. 
               Oberstar Memorial Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. JAMES L. OBERSTAR MEMORIAL POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 14 3rd Avenue, NW., in Chisholm, Minnesota, shall be known 
and designated as the ``James L. Oberstar Memorial Post Office 
Building''.
    (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 ``James L. 
Oberstar Memorial Post Office Building''.
                                 <all>
```
## In The **Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo** 

________________________ No. 07 - 12 - 0403 - CV

________________________ Kenneth Hickman - Bey , Appellant v. Tamala Alvarez , Appellee On Appeal from the 69th District Court Hartley County, Texas Tri a l Court No. 4739H, Honorable Ron Enns , Presiding 

### March 21 , 2013 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ. Kenneth Hickman - Bey (Hickman - Bey) appeals an order setting aside a default judgment he obtained against Tamala Alvarez (Alvarez). Through three issues, he contends that Alvarez 1) was negligent in failing to file an answer after being served with his lawsuit, 2) constructively waived notice, and 3) presented false and misleading grounds in the bill of revie w. We dismiss for want of jurisdiction.2 An order granting a bill of review is interlocutory when it vacates a prior judgment and reinstate s the original cause and no appeal lies from this interlocutory order. Jordan v. Jordan, 907 S.W.2d 471, 472 (Tex . 1995) ; In re Office of Atty. Gen ., 276 S.W.3d 611, 620 (Tex. App. – Houston [1 st Dist.] 2008, orig. proceeding). In the case before us, the trial court set aside the default judgment , thereby putting the parties back to a point prior to the default judgment and after suit was filed. The merits of the case were not determined. Therefore, the appeal is interlocutory and must be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Per Curiam
Exhibit 21.1
 CEVA, INC.
   Name
    
    Jurisdiction of IncorporationCEVA Limited
    
    Northern IrelandCEVA Development, Inc.
    
    CaliforniaCEVA Inc.
    
    Cayman IslandsCEVA Ireland Limited
    
    Republic of IrelandCEVA D.S.P. Limited
    
    IsraelCEVA Services Limited
    
    Republic of IrelandCEVA Systems LLC
    
    DelawareNihon CEVA K.K.
    
    JapanCEVA Technologies Limited
    
    Republic of IrelandCEVA Technologies, Inc.
    
    Delaware
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 23





                        Consent of Independent Auditors


The Board of Directors
CompuCom Systems, Inc.:



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements ("No.
33-30056" and "No. 33-85268") on Form S-8 of CompuCom Systems, Inc. of our
report dated May 16, 2001 relating to the statements of net assets available for
benefits of CompuCom Systems, Inc. 401(k) Matched Savings Plan as of December
30, 2000 and 1999, and the related statements of changes in net assets available
for benefits for the years then ended, and the related supplemental schedule,
which report appears in the December 31, 2000 annual report on Form 11-K of the
CompuCom Systems, Inc. 401(k) Matched Savings Plan filed by CompuCom Systems,
Inc.



Dallas, Texas                                       /s/ KPMG LLP
June 18, 2001
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      22,566,815
<SECURITIES>                                 2,505,216
<RECEIVABLES>                                   11,055
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            22,704,291
<PP&E>                                       1,234,866
<DEPRECIATION>                                 198,550
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              27,674,118
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          624,835
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       174,141
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,573,050
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                27,674,118
<SALES>                                          8,239
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 8,239
<CGS>                                            1,678
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                3,476,396
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               626,634
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (4,096,469)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (4,096,469)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (4,096,469)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.24)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.24)


</TABLE>
NO. 07-03-0181-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A 

JANUARY 29, 2004

______________________________

JOSE SANTOS CERVANTES, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 64TH DISTRICT COURT OF HALE COUNTY;

NO. A14649-0209; HONORABLE ROBERT W. KINKAID, JR., JUDGE

_______________________________

Before JOHNSON, C.J., and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Following his conviction for theft, appellant Jose Santos Cervantes was placed on

community supervision for five years. Upon the State’s motion to revoke community

supervision for violations of the conditions thereof, the trial court (1) conducted a hearing

at which appellant plead true to the State’s allegations, (2) heard evidence, and (3) granted
1Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967).

2

the State’s motion. Appellant was sentenced to two years confinement in a state jail

facility. After appellate counsel filed an Anders1 brief and a motion to withdraw indicating

there is no meritorious error to present on appeal, appellant filed a pro se motion to dismiss

his appeal. 

By his pro se motion, appellant represents that he agrees with his counsel that this

appeal is frivolous and requests that it be dismissed. No decision of this Court having been

delivered to date, the motion is granted and the appeal is dismissed. See Tex. R. App. P.

42.2(a). Counsel’s motion to withdraw is also granted. No motion for rehearing will be

entertained and our mandate will issue forthwith.

Don H. Reavis

 Justice

Do not publish.
#### ANNA GEARY v. BETTY J. HASSEL.

July 23, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
#### RICHARD M. WOOLLEY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. HOFFMANN-LA ROCHE, INC., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

October 25, 1985.

ORDER ON MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION

The defendant, Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., has filed a motion for clarification of our opinion in *Woolley v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc.,*99 *N.J.*284 (1985). The motion notes that the Court ruled that on remand there would be no trial of the “good cause” issue because that would be unfair, given the “fact” that defendant Hoffmann-La Roche had not complied with the termination procedures required by contract. *Id.*at 307-08. The opinion notes that “on the record before us the employer’s failure [to have complied] is undeniable.”

The motion for clarification points out that the impression that Hoffmann-La Roche had conceded that it had failed to conform to the contractual termination provisions resulted from the procedural status of the case:

Hoffmann-La Roche had moved for summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff Woolley was an employee-at-will, and that even i/the employer had not complied with the termination provisions and even *if*it did not have good cause, nevertheless it had the unrestricted right to fire the employee-at-will. The motion contends that the concessions were made solely for the purpose of the summary judgment argument (and any appeal resulting from a decision on that argument) with the clear understanding that there were no concessions on the merits. Rather, Hoffmann-La Roche claimed that it had in fact complied with the termination provisions and that it had good cause to fire Woolley.

Our examination of the motion for clarification along with the papers submitted by both parties convinces us beyond any doubt that defendant Hoffmann-La Roche is correct: it never *11conceded the issues mentioned above, but reserved them for plenary trial.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion is granted and our judgment is hereby modified to provide that on remand defendant Hoffmann-La Roche will not be foreclosed from attempting to prove that it had complied with the contractual termination provisions and, assuming it succeeds on that issue (and *only*if it succeeds on that issue), that it had good cause to terminate plaintiff Woolley. If defendant Hoffmann-La Roche does not prevail in its position that it complied with the contractual termination provisions, the “good cause” issue shall not be tried, the only issue remaining at that point being damages.

*For modification*— Chief Justice WILENTZ, and Justices CLIFFORD, SCHREIBER, HANDLER, POLLOCK, O’HERN and GARIBALDI — 7.

*Opposed*— None.
|   | 1. | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Act of 1934; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respect, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                Paul M Zlotoff                                     |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Principal                Executive Officer,                           |
| General                Partner of P.I. Associates Limited Partnership |
| President                & Director of GP P.I. Associated Corp.   |
|                                                                  |
| s/s                Joel Schwartz                                      |
| Joel                Schwartz                                          |
| Principal                Financial Officer of Uniprop, Inc.           |
|                                                                  |
| November                12, 2008                                      |

----
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. GEORGE FOSTER.

July 23, 1985.

Petition for certification denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                             409
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1865
<ALLOWANCES>                                        25
<INVENTORY>                                        128
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  2852
<PP&E>                                            5460
<DEPRECIATION>                                    3090
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    5446
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             1524
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            67
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                        3416
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      5446
<SALES>                                           1521
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1521
<CGS>                                             1431
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     1851
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  24
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (354)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (91)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (263)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (263)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.04)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.04)
        

</TABLE>
News United States Air Force
 Civilians take the oathPublished Dec. 14, 2016
                        
                        By Airman 1st Class Christopher Maldonado
                        
                        
                        20th Fighter Wing Public Affairs
                **SHAW AIR FORCE BASE, S.C. (AFNS)  --**
                Just as service members around the country have raised their right hands and taken the oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” so have the civilians who work alongside them.Civilian workers who take this oath assume the position of appropriated fund civil servants and will serve alongside their brothers and sisters in arms.The civilian oath states that working for the federal government requires a unique level of public service and dedication. “As appropriated fund civil servants, we are required to take the oath before assuming duty, to include returns to the states from overseas locations,” said Christopher Orbe, a 20th Force Support Squadron human resource specialist. “The oath is taken by civil servants transitioning from base to base, or assignment changes.”The history of the oath for federal employees can be found in Article II of the Constitution, which includes the specific oath the President takes, to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." Civil servants bring continuity to the mission at home and even serve abroad as part of the Defense Department civilian expeditionary workforce. Civilian employees fill critical functions in support of combat operations, contingencies, emergency operations, humanitarian missions and stability operations of the DOD in several locations across the globe.“Civilians are an integral part of the total force,” said April Burnette, a 20th Civil Engineer Squadron real property accountable officer. “To me the civilian oath is a binding commitment exuding 'one team, one fight,' and one I have been proud to embrace.”With the countless contributions civil servants provide to the total force, U.S. armed forces stateside and overseas can more effectively accomplish their mission.ACC 



oath 



civil servants 



Shaw AFB
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-22-00190-CR

PAUL ANDREW ARANDA

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the

105th District Court of Nueces County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 21FC-0131D

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal 

DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

May 26, 2022