alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 Air Force announces new mustache policy, sister service and joint unit patch updatePublished May 26, 2022
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --**
                The Air Force recently published a memorandum outlining updates to the **Department of the Air Force Instruction 36-2903, Dress and Personal Appearance of United States Air Force and United States Space Force Personnel**, which include mustache, sister service and joint unit patch wear guidance. The updates are effective immediately for Airmen.
"These changes will allow Airmen additional flexibilities as to how to wear mustaches" said Gwendolyn DeFilippi, acting Deputy Chief of Staff for manpower, personnel and services. "Additionally, allowing Airmen to wear sister-service patches in their current color configuration influences cohesiveness and pride while assigned to joint organizations."**Mustaches:** No portion of the mustache will extend below the lip line of the upper lip. Additionally, the mustache will not go beyond a horizontal line extending across the corners of the mouth and no more than 1/4 inch beyond a vertical line drawn from the corner of the mouth.**Patches:** Airmen assigned, attached, detailed, or activated in support of sister-service units or joint organizations can now wear the unit's patches in accordance with the sister service or joint organizations wear instructions.
The badges or patches can be worn in the sister service or joint organization's color configuration and will not be converted to the spice brown color.
DAFI 36-2903 takes precedence if a sister service or joint organization wear instructions cause a conflict in Air Force patch configuration guidance, i.e. the wear instruction might switch a patch designated as a "left sleeve" patch to the right sleeve.
These updates were based off feedback provided to senior leaders and the updated DAFI will be published at a later date.LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Mustache 



policy 



sister service 



joint unit 



Patch 



update 



AFI 36-2903 



memo 



Dress and Appearance 



badges 



spice brown 



cohesiveness 



Pride
<PAGE>   1

                                  Exhibit 10.33

                               PURCHASE AGREEMENT

        This Agreement is between Nitches, Inc., a California corporation
("Nitches") and Ulterior Motives, Inc., a New York limited liability corporation
("UM").

        As of September 1, 1997 Nitches will sell to UM at cost and UM will
purchase at cost the fabric, work-in-process, and finished goods resulting from
production orders placed by Nitches after June 1, 1997.

        Furthermore, as of September 1, 1997, for the period of one year,
Nitches will provide the following services for the associated fees:

Letters of Credit                       3% of Negotiated Value and Bank Fees
Financing                               Prime plus 1.5% of average balance
Production Placement                    5.0% of Negotiated LC Value (FOB)
Data Processing                         0.5% of Gross Sales (Order Entry,
                                        Processing, Invoicing, reporting,
                                        Master Files, etc.)
Warehousing                             3.0% of Gross Sales plus actual
                                        supplies consumed
Accounting                              0.5% of Gross Sales
Factor and Collection                   .75% of Gross Sales
Administration                          0.5% of Gross Sales

        Nitches will also purchase from UM all net accounts receivable that
Congress Talcott will factor for Nitches. Net accounts receivable is less all
discounts, returns, chargebacks, handling charges, and any other store credits.
All non-factorable accounts receivable will remain the property of UM and will
be at risk to UM for collection.

        Nitches will pay for and UM will reimburse all miscellaneous out of
pocket expenses that are mutually agreed upon (e.g., samples, courier, etc.).

        Nitches will exclusively license to UM the Ulterior Motives, UM &
Company, Schemes, and Avocado trademarks so long as UM subleases from Nitches
the space at 1450 Broadway that UM occupied as of September 1, 1997. The monthly
rent will be $3,400 plus prorata share of operating expenses. The sublease will
continue until March 1, 2000, at which time if all monies due Nitches have been
paid, Nitches will transfer ownership of the trademark.

For Ulterior Motives, Inc.:              For Nitches, Inc.:

Stacey Cunn                              Steven P. Wyandt
--------------------------               -----------------------------
Stacey Cunn                              Steven P. Wyandt



                                       15
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 Document Security Systems, inc. (the *“Company* ”)
      on
      Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ending September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the *“Report”* ),
      I,
      Philip Jones, Acting Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectfully
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of the 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.





Date:
      December 30, 2008




/s/Philip
                  JonesPhilip
                  JonesActing
                  Chief Financial Officer(Vice
                  President of Finance)
  A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Document Security Systems, Inc and will be retained by Document Security
      Systems, Inc and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff upon request.
Appeal Reinstated; Order filed April 19, 2016

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 15

- 00934

- CR

____________ EX PARTE BRENT WAYNE JUSTICE , Appellant

On Appeal from the 176th District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1385768



### ORDER
This is an appeal from the denial of an application for writ of habeas corpus. Appellant is not represented by counsel. No brief has been filed. It is a well

established principle of federal and state law that no constitutional right to counsel exists on a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Graves , 70 S.W.3d 103, 110 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). On February 5, 2016, this appeal was abated. The appeal is reinstated
and the court issues the following order:
Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 31.1, we ORDER appellant to file a brief in this appeal on or before May 4 , 2016 . If appellant fails to file his brief as ordered, we will decide this appeal upon the rec ord before the Court. See Lott v.State , 874 S.W.2d 687, 688 (Tex. Crim. App. 1994) (affirming conviction on record

alone where appellant failed to file a pro se brief after being properly admonished);
Coleman v. State , 774 S.W.2d 736, 738

– 39 (Tex. App.

— H ouston [14th Dist.] 1989, no pet.) (holding that former rule 74( l )(2) (now Rule 38.8(b)) permitted an appeal to be considered without briefs “as justice may require” when a pro se appellant has not complied with the rules of appellate procedure).

PER CUR IAM
News United States Air Force
 MQ-9 Reaper gets enhanced capabilitiesPublished May 6, 2021
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Megan Fowler
                        
                        
                        174th Attack Wing
                **HANCOCK FIELD AIR NATIONAL GUARD BASE, N.Y. (AFNS) --**
                The **174th Attack Wing** has partnered with multiple Department of Defense contractors and academia to lead the effort in establishing new and additional capabilities for the **MQ-9 Reaper**.
According to the assistant director of operations at the 174th Operations Support Squadron, capabilities include battlefield and airspace communications enhancements as well as target identification tracking and processing.
The assistant director of operations explained there are three separate pods; the Freedom Pod, Centerline Avionics Bay Pod and the REAP Pod. Each pod is manufactured by a contractor which specializes in its unique function, leveraging expertise from previous programs.
“We are currently doing an operational assessment of new equipment,” the assistant director of operations said. When asked what will come of the aircraft, the assistant director of operations explained it will build future capabilities in additional areas of responsibility.
The pods help the MQ-9 play an increased, more prominent role in the command and control arena of the battlefield. It will be able to receive and pass information to and from older fourth generation and newer fifth-generation aircraft.
This mission is solely an **Air National Guard** mission funded by The National Guard and Reserve Equipment Account funds. The funds were leveraged for modernization since ANG only operates legacy aircraft.
From May 3-14th, the pods will demonstrate their capabilities onboard a 174TH ATKW MQ-9 focusing on a higher level of integration with additional air and ground based assets during **Pacific Command**’s premier exercise, Northern Edge, at **Eielson Air Force Base**, Alaska.FS 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Aircraft 



Air National Guard 



ANG 



Hancock Field 



174th Attack Wing 



MQ-9 



Reaper 



mission 



training 



modernizing 



innovation 



upgrades 



174th OSS
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Quarterly Report of IndyMac Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the
undersigned, Michael W. Perry, Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors and Chief
Executive Officer of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 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 results of operations of the
        Company.


/s/ MICHAEL W. PERRY
----------------------------------
Michael W. Perry
Vice Chairman of the Board of Directors
and Chief Executive Officer
October 30, 2002
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. LEROY RICHARDSON.

Jan. 14, 1980.

Petition for certification denied.
Exhibit 31.1





CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER





Certification of Chief Executive Officer


of Periodic Report Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a) and Rule 15d-14(a)





I, M. Grier Eliasek, Chief Executive Officer, certify that:





1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of TP Flexible Income Fund, Inc. (the “Company”);





2) Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;





3) Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4) The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15 (e)) for the Company and have:





a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;





b) evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





c) disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company’s most recent fiscal quarter (the Company’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5) The Company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the audit committee of the Company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control over financial reporting.








/s/ M. Grier Eliasek


M. Grier Eliasek


Chief Executive Officer


(Principal Executive Officer)


Date: September 27, 2019
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1488

DWAIN FOLTZ , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. FAIRFAX COUNTY , Defendant

- Appellee, and OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Defendant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Alexandria

. Leonie M. Brinkema , District Judge. ( 1:17

- cv - 00939

- LMB

- IDD )

Submitted : October 23, 2018 Decided: November 8, 2018

Before FLOYD and QUATTLEBAUM , Circuit Judges , and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. Ellen Kyriacou Renaud, SWICK & SHAPIRO PC, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Kimberly Baucom, Senior Assistant County Attorney, Karen L. Gibbons, Deputy Coun ty2 Attorney, Elizabeth Teare, County Attorney, Robert M. Hardy, Assistant County Attorney, Adam Yost, Assistant County Attorney, OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM: Dwain Foltz appeals the district court’s order granting Fairfax County summary judgment on his disability discrimination claim, brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101 to 12213 (West 2013 & Supp. 2018)

. We have reviewed the record and considered the parties’ arguments and find no reversible error. We first hold that Foltz did not establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination as required by the burden

- shifting paradigm set forth in Mc Donnell Douglas Corp. v. Green , 411 U.S. 792 (1973 ). We also hold that, even if Foltz did establish his prima facie case , no reasonable jury would conclude that Foltz would not have been separated from the County “but for” his disability

. See Gentry v. E. W. Partners Club Mgmt. Co. Inc. , 816 F.3d 228, 234 (4th Cir. 2016) ( holding that a “but

- for” causation standard applies in ADA context) ; see also United States v. Riley , 856 F.3d 326, 328 (4th Cir.) (recognizing that this c ourt may affirm the district c ourt’s judgment “on any grounds apparent from the record” (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied , 138 S. Ct. 273 (2017). Based on the foregoing, we affirm the district court ’s order

. 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
Exhibit 32

Certification

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), each
of the undersigned officers of Cardium Therapeutics, Inc., a Delaware corporation, does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 of Cardium
Therapeutics, Inc. fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and that information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Cardium Therapeutics, Inc.



|                   |  |                                                 
|------------------ |  | ------------------------------------------------
|Date: May 15, 2007 |  | /s/ Christopher J. Reinhard                     
|                   |  | Christopher J. Reinhard, Chief Executive Officer
|                   | 
|Date: May 15, 2007 |  | /s/ Dennis M. Mulroy                            
|                   |  | Dennis M. Mulroy, Chief Financial Officer       

The foregoing certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 32.2

RENTECH NITROGEN PARTNERS, L.P.

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 Annual Report of Rentech Nitrogen Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2013 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Dan J. Cohrs, Chief Financial Officer of the general partner of the Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my
knowledge:



| | (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 the Partnership as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                         |  |  |  |  |  |                        
|------------------------ |  |  |  |  |  | -----------------------
|Dated: December 29, 2014 |  |  |  |  |  | /s/ Dan J. Cohrs       
|                         |  |  |  |  |  | Dan J. Cohrs           
|                         |  |  |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer

This certification accompanies the report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be
deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 96-50599

Summary Calendar

_____________________

WALTER MORRIS, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs,

WALTER MORRIS, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION, ET AL.,

Defendants,

VICTOR RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

(A-95-CV-89)

_________________________________________________________________

June 16, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellants challenge, pro se, the district court’s dismissal

of their civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- 2 -

They contend that they have a right to seek a declaratory judgment;

that the district court erred by dismissing their claims against

Governor Bush, by failing to substitute the correct party for a

defendant named in their complaint as “John Doe”, and by dismissing

their claims that they have a liberty interest in the expectancy of

parole release protected by the due process clause; that they were

denied a fair and meaningful parole hearing; and that changes in

Texas parole law and procedures violated the ex post facto clause

of the United States Constitution.

Because only Walter Morris and Dawud Al-Faruq signed the pro

se notice of appeal and appellate brief, they are the only parties

properly before this court. See Carter v. Stalder, 60 F.3d 238,

239 (5th Cir. 1995) (citing Mikeska v. Collins, 928 F.2d 126 (5th

Cir. 1991)). Therefore, the appeals of all other listed appellants

are DISMISSED.

Morris and Al-Faruq have not identified any reversible error

committed by the district court. See Morris v. TDCJ, No. A-95-CA89 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 1995) (unpublished). Accordingly, the

judgment is

 AFFIRMED.