alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 Virtual training center leverages enhanced warfighter capabilitiesPublished Aug. 24, 2020
                        
                        By Senior Airman Miranda A. Loera
                        
                        
                        57th Wing Public Affairs
                **NELLIS AIR FORCE BASE, Nev. (AFNS) --**
                The Air Force relies on forward-thinking Airmen who are constantly thinking of ways to innovate, refine or improve processes and technology in a way that can modernize the service and its tactics.**Nellis AFB** Airmen have heard and answered that call. With the snip of a ribbon on Aug. 17, the Virtual Test and Training Center here officially moved one step closer to housing the future of joint-aerial combat training.
The VTTC is a training center that will enable pilots to simultaneously train together in live and virtual environments. The experience is intended to make for more realistic and effective training while mitigating the constraints of a physical range.
“It’s a significant step forward to enable testing tactics development and advanced training for the Air Force, joint and coalition partners,” said Peter Zupas, **U.S. Air Force Warfare Center** operational training and test infrastructure analyst.
The first missions to be conducted at the VTTC are scheduled to begin around spring or summer of 2021.
“In the next year or so we will officially have it up and running,” said Col. Dean Caldwell, the USAFWC VTTC director. “The VTTC will then be turned into a squadron and be placed under the Nevada Test and Training Range.”
Caldwell said the capabilities within the VTTC will span beyond platform-specific counterterrorism and live-fire exercises, incorporating multi-domain and near-peer threats across air, space and cyber domains.
Additionally, the ability to connect live and virtual training environments will reduce the need for numerous aircraft and crew to travel to a singular location. In doing so, this reduces fiscal burden for the force.
“The VTTC is a great complimentary piece to live-fly sorties,” Zupas said. “It will allow personnel to increase the number of sorties that otherwise wouldn’t be regularly available to them in live fly. However, simulators are no substitute for live-fly operations.”
Creating the VTTC was no simple task. The hard work put into constructing the VTTC will not only help today’s warfighters, but increase the lethality of warfighters for generations to come.
“It takes several teams and a lot of work to get something like this done,” Caldwell said. “I expect this building here will provide great readiness training for the warfighter and ultimately take care of business.”LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Virtual Test and Training Center 



VTTC 



nellis afb 



U.S. Air Force Warfare Center 



USAFWC 



ACC 



Air Combat Command 



training 



test 



readiness
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. RADOSAV JOVANOVIC.

Dec. 20, 1979.

Petition for certification denied.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2376 

To designate the buildings occupied by the Department of Transportation 

located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast, and 1201 4th Street, 

Southeast, in the District of Columbia as the ‘‘James L. Oberstar United 

States Department of Transportation Building Complex’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 21, 2014 

Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself and Mr. FRANKEN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To designate the buildings occupied by the Department of 

Transportation located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, 

Southeast, and 1201 4th Street, Southeast, in the District of Columbia as the ‘‘James L. Oberstar United 

States Department of Transportation Building Complex’’. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The buildings occupied by the Department of Trans5 portation located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast, 

6 and 1201 4th Street, Southeast, in the District of ColumVerDate Mar 15 2010 04:09 May 30, 2014 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\S2376.IS S2376

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2376 IS

1 bia shall be known and designated as the ‘‘James L. Ober2 star United States Department of Transportation Build3 ing Complex’’ during the period in which the buildings are 

4 occupied by the Department of Transportation. 

5 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

6 With respect to the period in which the buildings re7 ferred to in section 1 are occupied by the Department of 

8 Transportation, any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

9 document, record, or other paper of the United States to 

10 those buildings shall be deemed to be a reference to the 

11 ‘‘James L. Oberstar United States Department of Trans12 portation Building Complex’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Opinion issued November 24, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

For The 

First District of Texas 

————————————

NO. 01-19-00721-CV

———————————

LORIANNE GALVAN, Appellant

V.

RONALD BEAU GROOVER, Appellee

On Appeal from the 505th District Court

Fort Bend County, Texas

Trial Court Case No. 18-DCV-248956

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Appellant, Lorianne Galvan, has failed to timely file her brief. Appellant filed 

her notice of appeal on September 25, 2019. The clerk’s record was filed with the 

Court on November 7, 2019, and no reporter’s record was taken. As a result, 
2

appellant’s brief was due on December 13, 2019. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.6(a)

(governing time to file brief). However, no brief was filed.

On December 30, 2019, appellant was notified by the Court that her appeal 

was subject to dismissal if she did not file her brief or a motion to extend time to file 

a brief within ten days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a) (governing failure of appellant 

to file brief), 42.3(b) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case for want of 

prosecution), 42.3(c) (allowing involuntary dismissal of case for failure to comply 

with order of this Court). On January 6, 2020, appellant filed a motion to extend 

time to file her brief, which was granted by the Court, extending appellant’s deadline 

to February 11, 2020.

Appellant failed to timely file her brief by the extended deadline. On February 

14, 2020, appellant was again notified by the Court that her appeal was subject to 

dismissal if she did not file her brief or a motion to extend time to file a brief within 

ten days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 42.3(c). On February 24, 2020, 

appellant filed her second motion to extend time to file her brief. The Court granted 

appellant’s motion, extending appellant’s deadline to file her brief to March 12, 

2020. 

Appellant again failed to timely file her brief by the extended deadline. On 

March 17, 2020, appellant received a third notice from the Court that this appeal was

subject to dismissal if she did not file her brief or a motion to extend time to file a 
3

brief within ten days. See TEX. R. APP. P. 38.8(a), 42.3(b), 42.3(c). After more than 

seven months, appellant has not adequately responded to the Court’s third notice.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of prosecution. See TEX.R. APP. 

P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), (c), 43.2(f). All pending motions are dismissed as moot.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Goodman, Landau, and Adams.
Exhibit 34.2

** **

**Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Boardof Directors

Citibank,N.A.:

 

We have examined management’sassertion, included in the accompanying Management’s Assertion of Compliance, that the Agency and Trust division of Citibank,N.A. (the “Company”) complied with the servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and ExchangeCommission’s Regulation AB for publicly-issued (i.e., transaction-level reporting initially required under the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended) automobile loan or lease-backed securities serviced by American Honda Finance Corporation issuedon or after January 1, 2006 for which the Company provides trustee and paying agent services; or owner trustee services (the “Platform”),except for servicing criteria 1122(d)(1)(i)-1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(i), 1122(d)(2)(iii)-1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(3)(i) and 1122(d)(4)(i)-1122(d)(4)(xv),which the Company has determined are not applicable to the activities it performs with respect to the Platform, as of and for thetwelve months ended March 31, 2013. With respect to the Platform, servicing criterion 1122(d)(3)(ii) is applicable only as it relatesto remittances. Management is responsible for the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility isto express an opinion on management’s assertion about the Company’s compliance based on our examination.

 

Our examination was conducted in accordancewith the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States)****and, accordingly, included examining,on a test basis, evidence about the Company’s compliance with the servicing criteria specified above and performing suchother procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing selected asset-backed transactionsand securities that comprise the Platform, testing selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining whetherthe Company processed those selected transactions and performed those selected activities in compliance with the servicing criteria.Furthermore, our procedures were limited to the selected transactions and servicing activities performed by the Company duringthe period covered by this report. Our procedures were not designed to determine whether errors may have occurred either priorto or subsequent to our tests that may have affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during the periodcovered by this report for the selected transactions or any other transactions. We believe that our examination provides a reasonablebasis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal determination on the Company’s compliance with the servicingcriteria.

 

In our opinion, management’s assertionthat the Company complied with the aforementioned servicing criteria as of and for the twelve months ended March 31, 2013 is fairlystated, in all material respects.

 

/s/ KPMG LLP

 

Chicago, Illinois

May 31, 2013
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 77 (Wednesday, May 10, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4792]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                         CALLING FOR AN APOLOGY

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, yesterday in a special order, I expressed my 
total disbelief that, at an event convened at taxpayer's expense, a 
Member of this House would publicly charge that a Member of the U.S. 
Senate should be tarred and feathered and run out of the country.
  Was this a joke, Mr. Speaker? From press accounts, what we do know is 
that it was a reaction to a constituent's call for the murder of a 
Member of the other body, and that the murderer be given a medal.
  The Member from Washington State in question with whom I have spoken, 
did not object to the murder of a U.S. Senator. The member did not 
attempt to argue at all, instead Mr. Speaker, he fueled the flames of 
violence against members of the people's house, against the 
representatives elected by the American people.
  Let me read from a definition of ``tar and feathers'':

       Pouring molten tar over the body and covering it with 
     feathers was an official punishment in England as early as 
     the 12th century. It was never legal in the United States, 
     but was always a mob--demonstration. The practice finally 
     vanished in the late 19th Century.

  But now, Mr. Speaker, a Member of the House wants to resurrect the 
practice--to drag the American people, not toward the next millennium, 
but back to the last.
  Is this the course the new majorities in the Congress have set? Is 
this a new contract of tar and feathering, of drawing and quartering, 
of star chambers and chambers of torture for the American people?
  Are there no limits on inciting violence? Has America not seen enough 
hate in the last few weeks? Will this hate make America stronger?
  Mr. Speaker, When the people's representatives remain silent in the 
face of hate speech, they endorse it. When the people's representatives 
suggest violent acts against their colleagues, they tear at the very 
fabric that binds us as a nation. Should we not, as representatives of 
the people, seek a higher civility in this body? Should we not as 
leaders of this country, seek to uplift this nation, rather than tear 
it down?
  I ask for this Member's public apology Mr. Speaker. I ask that he 
apologize to the Member of the other body--that he apologize to the 
American people--and that he apologize to this institution of which he 
is a Member.

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2963 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2963

    To remove a limitation on a prohibition relating to permits for 
         discharges incidental to normal operation of vessels.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 20, 2014

 Mrs. Boxer (for herself, Mr. Begich, Mr. Nelson, Mr. Whitehouse, Ms. 
 Cantwell, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reed, Mr. Markey, Ms. Warren, Mr. Cardin, 
 Mr. Booker, and Mr. Merkley) introduced the following bill; which was 
  read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public 
                                 Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To remove a limitation on a prohibition relating to permits for 
         discharges incidental to normal operation of vessels.

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

SECTION 1. DISCHARGES INCIDENTAL TO THE NORMAL OPERATION OF CERTAIN 
              VESSELS.

    Section 2(a) of Public Law 110-299 (33 U.S.C. 1342 note) is amended 
by striking ``during the period beginning on the date of the enactment 
of this Act and ending on December 18, 2014,''.
                                 <all>
```
[No. 23497-1-II.

Division Two.

May 26, 2000.]

#### Erick Harrington, *Appellant,*v. Becky Perdue, *Respondent.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 92-3-00560-2, Terry D. Sebring, J., entered June 19, 1998. *Affirmed in part, reversed in part,*and *remanded*by unpublished opinion per Morgan, J., concurred in by Armstrong, C.J., and Seinfeld, J.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 02-10268

Summary Calendar

DANIEL EUGENE WILLIS; DANIEL'S CONTRACT SERVICES, INC., a Texas for

Profit Corporation,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

VERSUS

KERR-MCGEE OIL AND GAS CO RPORATION; KERR-MCGEE CORPORATION; JOHN

O'NEAL; KERR-MCGEE OIL & GAS OFFSHORE, LLC,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Northern District of Texas, Abilene Division

(1:01-CV-57)

October 29, 2002

Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

In April of 2001, Daniel Eugene Willis, i ndividually, and

Daniel's Contract Services, Inc ., a Texas Corporation of which

Daniel Eugene Willis was an officer and shareholder, (hereinafterg:\opin-sc\02-10268.opn.1.wpd 2

jointly referred to as Plaintiffs) filed suit in the State District

Court of Stephens County, Texas, against Kerr-McGee Oil and Gas

Corporation, Kerr-McGee Corporation, Kerr-McGee Oil & Gas Offshore,

LLC, and John O'Neal (hereinafter jointly referred to as

Defendants) asserting claims under Titl e VII of the Civil Rights

Act of 1964. Plaintiffs asserted that Defendants engaged in

unlawful employment practices against Plaintiffs because of

Plaintiffs' race and color. Plaintiffs also asserted claims for

willful breach of contract in connection with a master service

agreement between Defendants and Daniel's Contract Services, Inc.

Defendants removed the suit to the U.S. District Court for the

Northern District of Texas pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); and, six months later filed a

motion for summary judgment. The federal district court granted

such motion for summary judgment and Plaintiffs appeal.

We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the rec ord excerpts,

and relevant portions of the record itself. For the reasons stated

b y the district judge in his order filed January 24, 2002, we

AFFIRM the final judgment, that Plaintiffs take nothing against

Defendants.

AFFIRMED
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-12430

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:11-cr-80195-KLR-1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ROBERT DENMARK,

a.k.a. Mark Anthony White,

a.k.a. Darrick Maynard Scrub,

a.k.a. Bryan Junior Robinson,

Defendant-Appellant.

__________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(December 14, 2012)

Before TJOFLAT, PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-12430 Date Filed: 12/14/2012 Page: 1 of 2 
Peter Birch, appointed counsel for Robert Denmark in this direct criminal

appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed

a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493

(1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s

assessment of the relative merit of the appeal is correct. Because independent

examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion

to withdraw is GRANTED, and Denmark’s conviction and sentence are

AFFIRMED.

2

Case: 12-12430 Date Filed: 12/14/2012 Page: 2 of 2
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of Sierra Income Corporation, (the Company) for the annual period ended December 31, 2012, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), we, Seth Taube and
Richard T. Allorto, Jr., Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, respectively, of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to our 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 results of operations of the Company as of the dates and
for the periods expressed in the Report.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |    |  |                            
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -- |  | ---------------------------
|Dated: March 14, 2013 |  |  |  | By |  | /s/ Seth Taube             
|                      |  |  |  |    |  | Seth Taube                 
|                      |  |  |  |    |  | Chief Executive Officer    
|                      |  |  | 
|                      |  |  |  | By |  | /s/ Richard T. Allorto, Jr.
|                      |  |  |  |    |  | Richard T. Allorto, Jr.    
|                      |  |  |  |    |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 31.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF


THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Jon W. Howie, certify that:


1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Chuy’s Holdings, Inc.; and


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.








Date: April 22, 2019


/s/ Jon W. HowieJon W. HowieVice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. BARRY KOWAL.

Dec. 20, 1979.

Petition for certification denied.
#### IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF CLARENCE A. MUNGER, DECEASED.

Nov. 20, 1979.

Cross-Petition for certification denied.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED August 17, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-40819 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus ARAZAEL IVAN ZAVALA-FLORES, also known as Arazael Ivan Zavala Flores, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 1:04-CR-147-ALL

-------------------- Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Arazael Ivan Zavala-Flores (Zavala) appeals the 57-month sentence imposed after he pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry into the United States. See 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Zavala contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) is unconstitutional and that this court should vacate his sentence and remand his case for resentencing to no more than two years in prison under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). As he concedes, this contention isNo. 04-40819 -2- foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224 (1998). Zavala also contends that he is entitled to resentencing because the district court sentenced him under a mandatory application of the federal sentencing guidelines contrary to the rule of United States v. Booker , 125 S. Ct. 738, 756-57, 769 (2005). We review for plain error. See United States v. Valenzuela-Quevedo , 407 F.3d 728, 732 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (July 25, 2005) (No. 05-5556). Although there was an error, Zavala has failed to demonstrate a sufficient probability “that the district judge would have imposed a different sentence” under advisory guidelines. See id. at 733. Zavala thus fails to show that the error affected his substantial rights as he must do to meet the plain-error standard. See id. ; United States v. Mares , 402 F.3d 511, 502, 521-22 (5th Cir. 2005), petition for cert. filed (Mar. 31, 2005) (No. 04-9517). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.