alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# News

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

# AFVentures Fellowship fall cohort now accepting applications

              - Published  July 31, 2020
              -                             By AFWERX Public Affairs                                                    

**SAN FRANCISCO (AFNS) --  **
The AFVentures Fellowship Fall Cohort, a collaboration between **AFWERX**, Defense Innovation Unit, NavalX and PEO Digital, is now accepting applications until Aug. 7.From Sept. 14 to Oct. 23, fellows will be embedded with some of the world’s most advanced venture capital firms to gain an understanding of risk management, the developing technology landscape and build relationships that can provide new opportunities to the Department of Defense.“In addition to the government, venture capitalists and investors are a key component of accelerating innovation in sectors we rely on to accomplish our mission,” said Maj. Tony Perez, AFWERX Spark Cell lead. “To better collaborate and understand the different roles we play, we need Airmen who understand the world of startups, investing and technological advancement.”Following the launch of the fellowship in February 2020 and in response to health isolation measures related to COVID-19, the cohort has been designed to be a virtual experience at no cost to the fellow’s home unit.The fellowship will require the following from service members who are accepted to the program:
            - Memo signed by their unit’s commanding officer
            - Two weeks of part-time work (2-4 hrs a week) preparing you with industry concepts and background through readings, webinars, and discussions
            - Six weeks in a virtual immersion with a Bay Area venture capital or technology firm
            - A capstone that captures and shares your thoughts as a DoD specialist in risk management & investment

The fellowship is open to all Department of Defense active duty, Guard, Reserve, enlisted, officer and civilian service personnel.This fellowship is managed by Shift, a San Francisco-based tech startup, via a **Small Business Innovation Research** Open Topic contract and in coordination with AFWERX to expose Airmen to concepts including design thinking, leadership, innovation and entrepreneurship.Apply to the AFVentures Fellowship Fall Cohort **here**.

 

AFWNUSAFAFAir ForceAFVentures Fellowship Fall CohortAFwerXDefense Innovation UnitNavalXPEO DigitalShift.orgSpark CellSmall Business Innovation ResearchSBIR
Exhibit 99.2


                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Real Estate  Fund
85-B  Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB  for
the period ended March 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of Net Lease Management
85-B,  Inc.,  the  Managing General Partner of  the  Partnership,
certify,  pursuant  to  18 U.S.C. 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 Partnership.


                            /s/ Patrick W. Keene
                                Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                                Net Lease Management 85-B, Inc.
                                Managing General Partner
                                May 12, 2003
Exhibit 32
                    CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                         18 U.S.C. 1350,
                     AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
          SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In  connection with the Quarterly Report of AEI Real Estate  Fund
85-B  Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") on Form 10-QSB  for
the period ended September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities
and  Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned, Robert P. Johnson, President of Net Lease Management
85-B, Inc., the Managing General Partner of the Partnership,  and
Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer of Net Lease Management
85-B,  Inc., each certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 Partnership.


                          /s/ Robert P Johnson
                              Robert P. Johnson, President
                              Net Lease Management 85-B, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              November 11, 2003



                          /s/ Patrick W Keene
                              Patrick W. Keene, Chief Financial Officer
                              Net Lease Management 85-B, Inc.
                              Managing General Partner
                              November 11, 2003
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v. BETTY LOUISE MADRID,

Defendant

- Appellant. No. 18

- 10175
D.C. No. 4:16

- cr - 02180

- RM

- BGM

- 1

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 11, 2019 ** Pasadena, California Before: OWENS, R. NELSON, and MILLER, Circuit Judges. Betty Louise Madrid appeals her conviction for transportation of an illegal
alien for financial gain and conspiracy to transport an illegal alien for financial gain, in violation of 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324(a)(1)( A )(ii), 1324(a)(1)(A)(v)( I), and
1324 (a)(1)(B)(i) . We affirm.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

SEP 13 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

Madrid contends that the government violated her Fifth and Sixth
A mendment rights by deporting a juvenile percipient witness, one of two individuals whom border patrol agents found in Madrid’s car during a checkpoint

s top

. To prevail, Madrid must demonstrate that the government acted in bad faith by deporting the witness, and that Madrid suffered prejudice as a result. See United
States v. Lea l

- Del Carmen , 697 F.3d 964, 969

– 70 (9th Cir. 2012). The district court found that Madrid had not satisfied either component of that test , and its finding was not clearly erroneous. Bad faith “turns on what the government knew at the time it deported the
witness.” Id

. at 970. Accordingly, “[w]hen the government doesn’t know what a witness will say, it doesn’t act in bad faith” by deporting her

. Id

. Madrid does not contest that the gov ernment did not interview the juvenile witness before deporting her, and she presents no other evidence to suggest that the government might have known that the juvenile witness had exculpatory information

. Nor does Madrid present evidence that the governm ent departed from normal proce dures involving deportation of juvenile noncitizen witnesses

. See United States v. Pena

- Gutierrez , 222 F.3d 1080, 1085 (9th Cir. 2000). She therefore cannot demonstrate that the government acted in bad faith.
Madrid also fails to show prejudice. Instead, she asks that we presume prejudice whenever the government deports a potential percipient witness. We3

have not adopted such an approach, which is foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent

. Se e United States v. Vale nzuela

- Bernal , 458 U.S. 8 58, 8 73 (1982) ( defendant must show that deported witness’s testimony “would be both material and favorable to the defense”) ; United States v. Dring , 930 F.2d 687, 69 3

– 9 4 (9th Cir. 1991)

. AFFIRMED
.
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2883 

To require the Comptroller General of the United States to submit to Congress a report on the entrepreneurial impact of technology transfer at 

the National Laboratories. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

Mr. HEINRICH introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To require the Comptroller General of the United States 

to submit to Congress a report on the entrepreneurial 

impact of technology transfer at the National Laboratories. 

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

3 SECTION 1. REPORT ON ENTREPRENEURIAL IMPACT OF 

4 TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days after the 

6 date of enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General 

7 of the United States shall submit to Congress a report 

8 on the entrepreneurial impact of technology transfer at the 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2883 IS

1 National Laboratories (as the term is defined in section 

2 2 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 15801)). 

3 (b) BASIS OF REPORT.—The report under subsection 

4 (a) shall be based on an evaluation of quantitative per5 formance metrics, including— 

6 (1) the number of licenses granted to small 

7 businesses; 

8 (2) the number of start-up businesses created; 

9 (3) the number of cooperative research and de10 velopment agreements and collaborations involving 

11 small businesses and the total number of businesses 

12 involved in those agreements and collaborations; 

13 (4) the period of time required for execution of 

14 a license; and 

15 (5) the number of jobs created. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C.
SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Steven P.
Wyandt, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report of
Nitches, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the period ended November 30, 2006, fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q fairly
presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of
operations of Nitches, Inc.

|Date:
      October 26, 2007     
|---------------------------------
|                                 
|/s/ Steven P. Wyandt             
|                                 
|Steven P. Wyandt                 
|Chief
      Executive Officer and
|Chief
      Financial Officer    

This certification is
furnished pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall
not, except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by Nitches, Inc.
for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended. Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
in to any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, except to the extent that Nitches, Inc.
specifically incorporates it by reference.

23

---
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR. 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 is
No. 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.
News United States Air Force
 Reserve Centralized Repair Facility provides strategic depthPublished Jan. 10, 2021
                        
                        By Maj. Ashley Walker
                        
                        
                        913th Airlift Group
                **LITTLE ROCK AIR FORCE BASE, Ark. (AFNS) --**
                A small maintenance operation,**Air Force Reserve Command****’s** T-56-15A engine Centralized Repair Facility, supported by the 913th Airlift Group, sustains agile combat support by upgrading the **C-130H Hercules** engines and returning combat airlift to the Air Force fleet.Since AFRC acquired the T-56 CRF maintenance contract in 2015, more than 190 C-130H engines were upgraded with the 3.5 modifications which provide significant improvements in fuel economy and performance. In addition, 395 of C-130H four-bladed props also received intensive maintenance. Each engine completes a thorough performance check at the T-56 test cell prior to delivery. The upgrades to the C-130 fleet at such a low cost will help ensure longevity across the tactical airlift fleet. 
“I’m incredibly proud of the hard work our contractors perform here on a daily basis and much of it goes unseen,” said Tim Taylor, contracting officer representative. “Many personnel have more than 20 years of active-duty military maintenance experience and their efforts directly sustain the mobility force.”
The CRF team epitomizes cost-effectiveness as the average overhaul cost for a T-56 engine here is approximately $800,000 as compared to $1.5 million per engine from the commercial repair facility. After streamlining the repair process in 2001 to mimic an assembly line, the facility averages 12-16 days, or two days per each section to completely overhaul one engine.
The AFRC and**Air National Guard** still operate a multitude of C-130Hs while the active-duty component has been transitioning the tactical airlift weapon system to the C-130J Super Hercules model. This latest version of the airframe performs the same diverse roles such as airlift, aeromedical, weather reconnaissance, aerial spray, humanitarian assistance and more. Though the airframes are similar, the cutting-edge technology makes the J model perform in a different manner and the parts are incompatible.“The C-130 is the workhorse of the Air Force and we are doing our part to provide long-term operational sustainment,” said Terence Hall, quality manager. “We have nearly 700 more engines to modify across the force and we are the only facility performing this modification. Not only do we service the engines and props, but also reviving associated aircraft ground equipment and creating quick engine change kits.”
Eight government employees manage the T-56 CRF contract, worth more than $4.4 million per year, while supervising 67 contractors.FS 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Air Force Reserve Command 



AFRC 



T-56-15A engine 



centralized repair facility 



C-130H Hercules 



913th Airlift Group 



913th AG 



Air National Guard 



ANG
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 13**  **- 2510** 

BARTON CAREY , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CAROLYN W. COLVIN, Acting Commissioner of Social Security , Defendant

- Appellee

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland , at Baltimore

. Stephanie A. Gallagher , Magistrate Judge. ( 1:12

- cv - 03583

- SAG )

Submitted : June 26, 2014 Decided: July 14, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Paul R. Schlitz, Timothy E. Mering, MERING & SCHLITZ LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Alex S. Gordon, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Barton Carey appeals the magistrate judge’s order upholding the Commissioner’s denial of Carey’s applications for disability insurance benefits and su pplemental security income , and the denial of his motion to alter or amend the judgment

. ∗ We have thoroughly reviewed the parties’ briefs, administrative record, and the materials submitted in the joint appendix, and find no reversible error. Accordingly , we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Carey v. Colvin , No.
1:12

- cv - 03583

- SAG (D. Md. Sept. 6, 2013; Nov

. 7, 2013). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

∗ The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2012).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       8,179,154
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            22,300,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      24,986,431
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        25,033,065
<LOANS>                                     48,824,821
<ALLOWANCE>                                    950,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             106,761,823
<DEPOSITS>                                  82,254,950
<SHORT-TERM>                                   621,922
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            518,523
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,729,064
<OTHER-SE>                                  19,637,364
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             106,761,823
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              2,390,874
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              642,988
<INTEREST-OTHER>                               978,859
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             4,012,721
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                             977,521
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             986,686
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        3,026,035
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  150,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              2,305,384
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,178,700
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                     708,732
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   708,732
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .38
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                       0
<LOANS-NON>                                    511,197
<LOANS-PAST>                                   375,862
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                               800,000
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                        0
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                              950,000
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                           950,000
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
#### Castellanos *v.*Beauville and others.

Where in trespass, separate defences are made by several defendants, in good faith, and not for costs, each is entitled to a full bill of costs on succeeding in the suit.

Where, after being commenced separately, the defences are united under the same attorney, or are in truth and effect united, during the residue of the suit, there can be but one set of costs for all.

Nov. 17, 1849.

*671Taxation of costs.—The suit was trespass, against Beau-ville, Samanos, and W. Jones, sheriff. The latter appeared by his attorneys, Messrs. Brown & Matthews, and put in a plea. Beauville and Samanos appeared, and put in a joint plea by W. Skidmore, their attorney. The defence of B. and S. was jointly conducted until the second trial, when Samanos was-acquitted. At that stage of the matter, Brown & Matthews became Beauville’s attorneys, on a substitution for Skidmore, and conducted the suit till its termination in a judgment for all of the defendants. On taxing the costs, a full bill was claimed for each defendant.

*Brown &*Mathews, for the defendants.

*H. P. Hastings,*for the plaintiff.

By the Court. Oakley, Ch. J.

The defences of Beauvile and Samanos were conducted by the same attorney, and on the same plea while S. continued in the suit, and there can be only a single bill of costs for both during that period. After that, the defence of Beauville and the sheriff was conducted jointly by the same attorneys for both. It is not the case, therefore, of a separate defence by separate attorneys. There separate bills are allowed, where the defences were so conducted in good faith, and not for costs. Where in truth and in effect the defences have been united, there can be only one bill taxed. The result is, there must be one full bill of costs taxed for the sheriff, and another for Beauville and Samanos, to the period when the sheriff’s attorneys became the attorneys for B. No costs will be taxed to B. after that, as there was thereafter one entire defence for him and the sheriff.