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

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

# AAFB serves as diplomatic hub to Indo-Pacific

              - Published  April 14, 2021
              -                             By Senior Airman Michael S. Murphy                                                    
              - 36th Wing Public Affairs

**ANDERSEN AIR FORCE BASE, Guam (AFNS) --  **
Service members assigned to **Andersen Air Force Base** and Marine Corps Base **Camp Blaz** have partnered with the **Department of State** to bring **COVID-19** relief to the Indo-Pacific over the last two months.The 734th Air Mobility Squadron, 36th Medical Group, along with the 36th Logistics Readiness Squadron coordinated with six DoS members to receive and load cargo in support of COVID-19 relief measures in the Indo-Pacific.“I take great pride in the 734th’s involvement with these missions,” said Staff Sgt. Robert Swigart, 734th AMS air terminal operating center senior controller. “It’s great that the Airmen get to be a part of something that’s helping those in need in the Indo-Pacific.”Cargo was loaded onto a military-contracted Gulfstream III and distributed to U.S. Embassies in the nations of Mongolia, Vietnam, Brunei, Indonesia, Timor-Leste, Papua New Guinea, Australia and Fiji.The 36th LRS coordinated requirements set by Guam Department of Health and Social Services to DoS members to ensure compliance with local COVID-19 guidelines and restrictions, and located storage for the cargo in a hangar operated by the U.S. Marine Corps, said 1st Lt. Jannell Viera-Hernandez, 36th LRS installation reception officer and reception working group lead.“Our intent is to support every incoming unit for real-world missions or exercises,” Viera-Hernandez said. “We help units navigate the unique requirements and considerations here on AAFB.”Andersen AFB is an ideal location for this mission due to its central location in the Indo-Pacific and proximity to Eastern and South Eastern Asia.“For this specific mission our impact is wide reaching in the fight against COVID(-19),” Viera-Hernandez said. “We have enabled the DoS mission to posture AAFB as a diplomatic hub to the East Pacific, ultimately increasing the quality of life of the population in the region.”Regardless if it’s supporting fighter jets for a Dynamic Force Employment, bombers for a Bomber Task Force deployment rotations, or humanitarian missions, Andersen AFB’s service members are capable of supporting a vast array of operations.  Andersen AFB continues to support global operations, host multinational exercises and cultivate regional partnerships despite COVID-19.“I’m thankful for the opportunity to serve and be able to lend a hand in this historic event,” Swigart said.

LRUSAFAFAir ForcePACAFPacific Air ForcesAndersen AFBCOVID-19coronaviruspandemichealthmedicalDiplomaticIndo-Pacific
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2665 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2665

     To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
 Assistance Act to provide eligibility for broadcasting facilities to 
      receive certain disaster assistance, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 24, 2014

  Mr. Begich introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To amend the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 
 Assistance Act to provide eligibility for broadcasting facilities to 
      receive certain disaster assistance, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Emergency Information Improvement 
Act of 2014''.

SEC. 2. ELIGIBILITY OF BROADCASTING FACILITIES FOR CERTAIN DISASTER 
              ASSISTANCE.

    (a) Private Nonprofit Facility Defined.--Section 102(11)(B) of the 
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 
U.S.C. 5122(11)(B)) is amended by inserting ``broadcasting 
facilities,'' after ``workshops,''.
    (b) Critical Services Defined.--Section 406(a)(3)(B) of the Robert 
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 
5172(a)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``communications,'' and inserting 
``communications (including broadcast and telecommunications),''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 31.4

CERTIFICATION OF PETER J. MILLIGAN PURSUANT TO SEC. 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Peter J. Milligan,
certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2014; 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.



|                     |  |  |                             |  |  |                      
|-------------------- |  |  | --------------------------- |  |  | ---------------------
|April 6, 2015
(Date) |  |  |                             |  |  | /s/ Peter J. Milligan
|                     |  |  | Peter J. Milligan          
|                     |  |  | Senior Vice President      
|                     |  |  | and Chief Financial Officer
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. ROBERT PRINCE.

Dec. 20, 1979.

Petition for certification denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals S an Antonio, Texas

February 1, 2019

No. 04

- 18

- 00974

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF L.G., J.G., AND J.G., CHILDREN,

From the 25th Judicial District Court, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. 17

- 1222

- CV

- D Honorable Robin V. Dwyer, Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

In this parental rights termination suit initiated by the children’s grandparents, the court reporter advised this court that Appellant has not paid for the record and Appellant is not entitled to a free record.

On January 1 8 , 2019

, we ordered Appellant to timely provide written proof to this court that (1) the reporter’s record has been paid or arrangements have been made to pay the reporter’s fee, or (2) Appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the reporter’s fee.

In her response, Appellant make s no mention of any arrangement to pay the reporter’s fee or her right to a free record. Instead, she assert s that the trial court erred in denying her motion for continuance, the error was harmful, and she prays that her response be accepted and for othe r relief consistent with her response. Given Appellant’s response, we conclude Appellant is not entitled to a free reporter’s record and she has chosen to proceed without a reporter’s record.
We ORDER Appellant to file a n appellate brief with this court wi thin TWENTY DAYS of the date of this order . The brief must fully comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See, e.g.

, T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 9, 38 . If the brief fails to comply with the applicable rules, Appellant’s brief may be stricken and Appellan t ordered to file an amended brief.

T he court will only “consider and decide those issues or points [raised in Appellant’s brief] that do not require a reporter’s record for a decision.” See id. R. 37.3(c).

_________________________________ Patricia O. Alvarez, JusticeIN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 1st day of February, 2019

.

___________________________________ KEITH E. HOTTLE

, Clerk of Court
* 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. 

### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-11076 c/w No. 08-11078 & No. 08-11079 Summary Calendar
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee

v. ERIC NELSON BERTRAM, Defendant-Appellant

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas USDC No. 2:86-CR-36, No. 2:82-CR-5-ALL, and No. 2:86-CR-30-ALL
Before DAVIS, GARZA and PRADO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * E ric Nelson Bertram, federal prisoner # 12204-077, seeks this c ourt’s authorization to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in three appeals. Because each appeal presents the same issue, we ORDER case no. 08-11076, case no. 08- 11078, and case no. 08-11079 consolidated. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D July 21, 2009 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 08-11076 c/w No. 08-11078 & No. 08-11079

2 In each case from which these consolidated appeals arose, the district court denied Bertram relief from his sentence, which he had sought under 18 U.S.C. § 3742. The district court reasoned that § 3742 applies only on direct appeal, that each of Bertram’s direct appeals had been dismissed years earlier, and that consequently the district court had nojurisdiction togrant reliefunder § 3742. Bertram’s briefs and IFP motions in thiscourt do not address the question of the district court’s jurisdiction to review his sentence under § 3742. Accordingly, Bertram is deemed to have abandoned any challenge to the denial of his IFP motions and the dismissal of his claims. See Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy SheriffAbner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Yoheyv. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). Moreover, given that Bertram presents no other meritorious challenge and that “it is apparent that [the appeals] would be meritless,” dismissal is proper

. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F. 3d 197, 202 n. 24 (5th Cir. 1997); seealso United Statesv. Early, 27 F.3d 140, 142 (5th Cir. 1994) (“The provisions for modification of a sentence under § 3742 are available to a defendant only upon direct appeal ofa sentenceor conviction.”); 5 TH C IR
. R. 42.2. MOTIONS TO PROCEED IFP DENIED ; APPEALS DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                         13,690
<SECURITIES>                                   1,050
<RECEIVABLES>                                  4,921
<ALLOWANCES>                                   1,696
<INVENTORY>                                    4,365
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               23,884
<PP&E>                                         5,129
<DEPRECIATION>                                 1,666
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 27,347
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          4,232
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       39
<OTHER-SE>                                     22,970
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   23,009
<SALES>                                        18,732
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               18,732
<CGS>                                          9,646
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  9,646
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               6,088
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                3,365
<INCOME-TAX>                                   1,279
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,086
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,086
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0.52
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.51
        


</TABLE>
[No. 22193-4-II.

Division Two.

March 31, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Gene Hultberg, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Pierce County, No. 96-1-01442-9, Sergio Armijo, J, entered June 10, 1997. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Bridgewater, C.J., concurred in by Houghton and Hunt, JJ.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. HOWARD GREEN.

Dec. 10, 1979.

Petition for certification denied. (See 170 *N.J.Super.*292)
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 of SAExploration Holdings,
Inc. (the “Company”) 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, Brian A. Beatty, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of 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 results of operations
of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|Date: April 14, 2014 |  | /s/ Brian A. Beatty                  
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                     |  | Brian A. Beatty                      
|                     |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6846

WILLIAM RADIO BRIDGEMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. CA-97-3348-2-13AJ) Submitted: October 8, 1998 Decided: November 16, 1998 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Radio Bridgeman, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: William Radio Bridgeman filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have thirty days within which to file in the district court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). The district court entered its order on April 30, 1998; Bridgeman’s notice of appeal was filed on June 4, 1998, which is beyond the thirty-day appeal period. Bridgeman’s failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leavesthis court without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Bridgeman’s appeal. We therefore deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned Chief Financial Officer of M.D.C.
Holdings, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that the Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ended March 31, 2010, accompanying this certification, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |                            
|-------------------- |  | ---------------------------
|Date: April 23, 2010 |  | /s/ Christopher M. Anderson
|                     |  | Christopher M. Anderson    
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer    

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Rule 13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Section 1350 of Title 18, United States Code, and is not being filed as part of the report or as a separate disclosure document.
**Exhibit 31**

**CERTIFICATIONS**

I, Steven P. Wyandt, certify that: 

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Nitches, Inc.; 

2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 annual report; 

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

| 4.  I am responsible   for establishing and maintaining the disclosure controls and procedures (as   defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I   have: |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                        | a) | designed such disclosure controls and procedures to   insure that material information relating to the registrant, including its   consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those   entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being   prepared; |
|                                                                                                                                                                                        | b) | designed such internal control over financial reporting,   or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under   my supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of   financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external   purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principals; |
|                                                                                                                                                                                        | c) | evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s   disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this annual report my   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 |
|                                                                                                                                                                                        | d) | disclosed in this report any change in the   registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during   the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or   is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control   over financial reporting; and |
II 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2670 

To prohibit gaming activities on certain Indian land in Arizona until the 

expiration of certain gaming compacts. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 28, 2014 

Mr. MCCAIN (for himself and Mr. FLAKE) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs 

A BILL 

To prohibit gaming activities on certain Indian land in 

Arizona until the expiration of certain gaming compacts. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Keep the Promise Act 

5 of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds that— 

8 (1) in 2002, the voters in the State of Arizona 

9 approved Proposition 202, the Indian Gaming Pres10 ervation and Self-Reliance Act; 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2670 IS

1 (2) to obtain the support of Arizona voters to 

2 approve Proposition 202, the Indian tribes within 

3 Arizona agreed to limit the number of casinos within 

4 the State and in particular within the Phoenix met5 ropolitan area; and 

6 (3) this Act preserves the agreement made be7 tween the Indian tribes and the Arizona voters until 

8 the expiration of the gaming compacts authorized by 

9 Proposition 202. 

10 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

11 In this Act: 

12 (1) INDIAN TRIBE; CLASS II GAMING; CLASS III

13 GAMING.—The terms ‘‘Indian tribe’’, ‘‘class II gam14 ing’’, and ‘‘class III gaming’’ have the meanings 

15 given those terms in section 4 of the Indian Gaming 

16 Regulatory Act (25 U.S.C. 2703). 

17 (2) PHOENIX METROPOLITAN AREA.—The term 

18 ‘‘Phoenix metropolitan area’’ means land within 

19 Maricopa County and Pinal County, Arizona, that is 

20 north of latitude 33 degrees, 5 minutes, 13 seconds 

21 north, east of longitude 113 degrees, 20 minutes, 0 

22 seconds west, and west of longitude 110 degrees, 50 

23 minutes, 45 seconds west, using the NED 1983 

24 State Plane Arizona FOPS 0202 coordinate system. 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•S 2670 IS

1 SEC. 4. GAMING CLARIFICATION. 

2 (a) PROHIBITION.—Class II gaming and class III 

3 gaming are prohibited on land within the Phoenix metro4 politan area acquired by the Secretary of the Interior in 

5 trust for the benefit of an Indian tribe after April 9, 2013. 

6 (b) EXPIRATION.—The prohibition in subsection (a) 

7 shall expire on January 1, 2027. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS