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

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2934 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2934

To prohibit trespassing on critical infrastructure used in or affecting 
           interstate commerce to commit a criminal offense.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 17, 2014

  Mr. Schumer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
               referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To prohibit trespassing on critical infrastructure used in or affecting 
           interstate commerce to commit a criminal offense.

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

SECTION 1. TRESPASSING ON CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE USED IN OR AFFECTING 
              INTERSTATE COMMERCE TO COMMIT CRIME.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 65 of title 18, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following:
``Sec. 1370. Trespassing on critical infrastructure used in or 
              affecting interstate commerce to commit crime
    ``(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `critical 
infrastructure'--
            ``(1) means physical systems and assets so vital to the 
        United States that the incapacity or destruction of such 
        systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on 
        security, national economic security, national public health or 
        safety, or any combination of those matters; and
            ``(2) includes a landmark, structure, or other object--
                    ``(A) declared to be a national monument under 
                section 2 of the Act of June 8, 1906 (commonly known as 
                the `Antiquities Act of 1906') (16 U.S.C. 431); or
                    ``(B) established as a national monument by an Act 
                of Congress.
    ``(b) Prohibition.--It shall be unlawful to knowingly go upon on 
any critical infrastructure used in or affecting interstate commerce, 
with intent to commit a criminal offense.
    ``(c) Penalty.--Any person who violates subsection (b) shall be 
fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or 
both.''.
    (b) Technical and Conforming Amendment.--The table of sections for 
chapter 65 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 
end the following:

``1370. Trespassing on critical infrastructure used in or affecting 
                            interstate commerce to commit crime.''.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

MARIANELLA GUADAMUD, AN 

INDIVIDUAL, 

Appellant, 

vs. 

ELIZABETH GALANTUOMINI, AN 

INDIVIDUAL, 

No. 83266 

FILED 

OCT 2 8 2021 

ELIZABETH A. BROWN 

CLERK OttUPREME COURT 

BY S 

DEPUTY CLE1 13- K 

SUPREME COURT 

OP 

NEVRDA 

i.0) 1447A aget. 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is an appeal from a district court order dismissing a 

complaint. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Nadia Krall, 

Judge. 

On October 12, 2021, this court entered an order directing 

appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of 

jurisdiction. Within that order, this court deferred ruling on the parties' 

stipulation to remand this matter to the district court pursuant to 

Huneycutt v. Huneycutt, 94 Nev. 79, 575 P.2d 585 (1978), and dismiss this 

appeal. Appellant has now filed a copy of an October 18, 2021, district court 

order certifying the district court's intent to grant relief from the order 

challenged on appeal under Huneycutt. 

As stated in the October 12, 2021, order, it appears that the 

notice of appeal was prematurely filed after the filing of a timely tolling 

motion in the district court but before entry of a written order finally 

resolving that tolling motion. See NRAP 4(a)(4); NRAP 4(a)(6). It thus 

appears no remand is necessary because the prematurely filed notice of 

appeal did not divest the district court of jurisdiction in this matter. NRAP 

4(a)(6) (A premature notice of appeal does not divest the district court of 

jurisdiction."). Nevertheless, given the entry of the district court's October 

i -31 '8 7 
18, 2021, order, the parties stipulation is approved insofar as it is seeks 

dismissal of this appeal, and this court 

ORDERS this appeal DISMISSED.' 

 C.J. 

cc: Hon. Nadia Krall, District Judge 

Michael H. Singer, Settlement Judge 

Law Office of Karen H. Ross 

Anderton & Associates 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

1Given this dismissal, appellant need not file a response to this court's 

October 12, 2021, order to show cause. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(01 1947A 4119. 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AT SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED
SEPTEMBER 30, 1996 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                       1,637,017
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,301,315
<ALLOWANCES>                                   102,795
<INVENTORY>                                  2,372,361
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,983,523
<PP&E>                                       5,978,024         
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,080,260
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,998,856
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,364,958
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,039
<OTHER-SE>                                   6,353,195
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,998,856
<SALES>                                      8,861,420
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             8,861,420
<CGS>                                        4,550,350
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,550,350
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,596,063
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              (24,300)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,076
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (261,769)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (80,100)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (181,669)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (181,669)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 23.1     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM   To the Board of Directors Mobile Vault, Inc. (A Development Stage Company) Cameron Park, California   We hereby consent to the inclusion in this form 10-K/A, Annual Report pursuant to section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 of our report dated June 22, 2012 relating to the financial statements of Mobile Vault, Inc. as of and for the year ended May 31, 2012.   /s/ ZBS Group LLP Melville, New York August 5, 2013   115 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 350     Melville, New York 11747 Tel: (516) 394-3344     Fax:  (516) 908-7867 www.zbcpas.com
#### Harry W. Wilson v. Rosie Avery Wilson.

*Divorce*— Death *of party*— Appeal.

1. Where no relief is sought not dependent on divorce, there can Be no decree after death has separated the parties. *Zoellner v. Zoellner,*46 Mich. 511.

2. An appeal lies from every decree in chancery which purports to be *final,*and its illegality is a conclusive reason why it should be reversed.

So *held,*where a decree of divorce was granted to a complainant after his death, with alimony to the defendant, which was reversed on appeal.

Appeal from Branch. (Loveridge, J.)

Argued January 25, 1889.

Decided February 1, 1889.

Bill for divorce. Defendant appeals.

Reversed as unlawfully rendered.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Franlc A. Lyon,*for complainant.

*Milo D. Campbell*and *Clayton C. Johnson,*for defendant.

Campbell, J.

In this case complainant filed a bill for *621divorce against defendant on the alleged ground of desertion. She filed an answer, denying any such cause of complaint, and made counter-charges, asking a divorce on her own behalf for his cruelty. The cause was submitted for decision, but complainant died before it was decided. The circuit court of Branch county nevertheless made a decree, and directed it to relate back to a period before his death; thereby granting a divorce in favor of complainant, and at the same time giving alimony to defendant. She appeals.

The bill and answer below were simple divorce proceedings, aimed at no relief not dependent on divorce. In such a case there can be no decree after death has separated the parties. The doctrine of relation does not apply in such a case. There must be living parties, or there can be no relationship to be divorced. *Zoellner v. Zoellner,*46 Mich. 511 (9 N. W. Rep. 831). It follows that, as the parties were still husband and wife when the husband died, she has all the rights and conditions of any other widow. It is fallacious to claim that a decree apparently rendered during complainant’s life, and therefore apparently valid, cannot be appealed from. An appeal lies from every decree in chancery which purports to be final, and its illegality is a conclusive reason why it should be reversed, as this decree must be.

We think no cause existed for the decree, even if it had been timely rendered, and we should be disposed to make defendant an allowance if it were not for the difficulty of providing in this Court, under all the circumstances, for such relief. But, as the widow’s interest in her husband’s estate entitles her to allowances in the probate court as well as otherwise, the hardship is somewhat lessened. We cannot, after her husband’s death, consider her claim to divorce as an injured party, and *622must satisfy ourselves with merely reversing the decree as unlawfully rendered.

Champlin, Morse, and Long, JJ., concurred. Sherwood, C. J., did not sit.
News United States Air Force
 815th Airlift Squadron support Bahamas relief efforts following Hurricane DorianPublished Sept. 25, 2019
                        
                        By Staff Sgt. Diana Cossaboom
                        
                        
                        403rd Wing
                **KEESLER AIR FORCE BASE, Miss. (AFNS) --**
                The 815th Airlift Squadron returned Sept. 17 from a humanitarian mission supporting Hurricane Dorian relief efforts in the Bahamas for a week.
During the response to Hurricane Dorian, Department of Defense forces supported the U.S. Agency for International Development and the governor of the Bahamas with military unique capabilities.
“We were bringing down a Contingency Response Group and their main mission was to establish a mobile control tower to restore some air traffic control capabilities to the region as well as bring some water and sustenance,” said 1st Lt. Zach Underwood, 815th AS pilot. The 815th AS is a tactical airlift unit assigned to the Air Force Reserve Command’s 403rd Wing at Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi.
The crew loaded and flew the vehicles and personnel needed to move equipment and establish a tower, said Tech. Sgt. Gary Bryant, 815th AS loadmaster.
Under Foreign Disaster Relief Authority, U.S. Northern Command assessed critical transportation nodes to facilitate humanitarian assistance and maximize the flow of disaster relief into the area.
The 815th AS Airmen staged out of Homestead Air Force Base, Florida, and made two trips to the Bahamas for humanitarian support.
“We were getting the field set up and getting the group down there for a C-17 (Globemaster III) to come and actually bring the tower itself,” Underwood said. “What they needed was air traffic control capability because they have a mass volume of aircraft trying to get in and out of there from other civilian and government organizations to help bring in what it is they need, food and supplies, to start rebuilding that area.”
Hurricane Dorian, a Category 5 hurricane, hit the Bahamas where two of the major islands, Grand Bahama and Abaco, took severe damage.
“It’s great to be able to help out when there’s a natural disaster,” Underwood stated. “It’s always a rewarding mission to be on and it brought us an opportunity to play a role in that as a Reserve unit getting out there and being able to support the larger Air Force effort.”
Support to USAID and the Bahamas does not impact the DoD’s ability to provide assistance in the U.S. should DoD assets be requested, and the nation’s military, with its unique capabilities, remains fully postured to defend the homeland.LR 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



Hurricane Dorian 



Humanitarian 



relief 



Keesler AFB 



USAID 



US Agency for International Development 



USNORTHCOM 



Homestead ARB 



Foreign Disaster Relief Authority 



Bahamas 



weather 



AFRC 



Air Force Reserve Command
News United States Air Force
 Air Force releases updated fitness test score breakdownPublished May 26, 2021
                        
                        
                        Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs
                **WASHINGTON (AFNS) --**
                The Air Force will resume physical fitness testing July 1 with only three components: push-ups, sit-ups and the 1.5-mile run.
Without the waist measurement as a scored component, push-ups and sit-ups will increase from 10 to 20 points each, while the 1.5-mile run will remain at 60 points. Scoring will fall into five-year age groups, as opposed to the previous 10. Updated charts can be found **here**.
The waist measurement will no longer be required as part of the physical fitness test but a separate assessment of body composition, as required by DoD Instruction 1308.3, will continue starting in October. Testing for body composition may continue to use some form of waist measurement and may be administered during PT testing to reduce scheduling and administrative burdens, but body composition will not be a component of the PT test itself. Further details on the body composition program will be released at a later date.
The Air Force has also worked on alternative strength and cardiovascular testing exercise options with plans to announce them in the coming weeks. Once announced, members and fitness monitors will have approximately six months to familiarize themselves with use and execution of the alternative testing options prior to having them available in January 2022. Members will have a choice of which testing options they choose for their physical fitness assessment components. The six-month timeline will help ensure fitness assessment cells are prepared to train physical training leaders to administer tests using the new options.
“We are moving away from a one-size-fits-all model,” said **Air Force Chief of Staff** **Gen. CQ Brown, Jr.** “More testing options will put flexibility in the hands of our Airmen – where it belongs. We know not all Airmen maintain their fitness the same way and may excel in different areas. Alternate components provide choices while still providing a mechanism to determine overall fitness.”
These changes align under the Air Force’s **Action Order** Airmen, people-first approach.
“Physical fitness is an important part of our everyday lives, it’s more than just a test – it’s a way of life, our readiness and ultimately our future success,” said **Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force** **JoAnne S. Bass**. “July 1st is a chance to refocus on building a lifestyle of fitness and health, and I know our Airmen will be ready.”
For additional information, Airmen can visit **myPers** or the Air Force’s Personnel Center’s fitness program **page**.
The **Space Force** will follow these policies until service-specific fitness policies are developed and fielded.FS 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



physical fitness testing 



push-ups 



sit-ups 



waist measurement 



component 



body composition 



fitness assessment 



Physical Training 



age groups 



action orders
EX-34.2
(logo)pwc


Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


To the Board of Directors of CoreLogic, Inc.:


We have examined management's assertion, included in the accompanying Report on
Assessment of Compliance, that CoreLogic Commercial Real Estate Services, Inc.
(the "Company"), an indirect subsidiary of CoreLogic, Inc. complied with the
servicing criteria set forth in Item 1122(d) of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's Regulation AB for all loans for commercial mortgage loan
outsourcing customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax
service provider (the "Platform"), as of December 31, 2012 and for the year
then ended, only including 1122(d)(1)(iv), 1122(d)(2)(v), 1122(d)(2)(vi),
1122(d)(2)(vii), 1122(d)(4)(xi), 1122(d)(4)(xii) and 1122(d)(4)(xiii), which
the Company has determined are applicable to the servicing activities performed
by it with respect to the Platform. Management is responsible for the Company's
compliance with the servicing criteria. Our responsibility is to express an
opinion on management's assertion based on our examination.

Our examination was conducted in accordance with attestation 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 applicable servicing criteria and performing such other procedures as
we considered necessary in the circumstances. Our examination included testing
of selected servicing activities related to the Platform, and determining
whether the Company performed those selected activities in compliance with the
applicable servicing criteria. Our procedures were limited to the selected
servicing activities performed by the Company during the period covered by this
report. Our procedures were not designed to detect noncompliance arising from
errors that may have occurred prior to or subsequent to our tests that may have
affected the balances or amounts calculated or reported by the Company during
the period covered by this report. We believe that our examination provides a
reasonable basis for our opinion. Our examination does not provide a legal
determination on the Company's compliance with the servicing criteria.

In our opinion, management's assertion that the Company complied with the
aforementioned applicable servicing criteria as of and for the year ended
December 31, 2012 for all loans for commercial mortgage loan outsourcing
customers for which the Company served as the commercial tax service provider
is fairly stated, in all material respects.


/s/PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP


February 6, 2013


PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 1800, Dallas, Texas 75201
T: (214) 999-1400, F: (214) 754-7991, www.pwc.com/us
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED BALANCE SHEET AT MARCH 31, 1998 (UNAUDITED) AND THE
CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED MARCH
31,1998 (UNAUDITED) AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                         344,637
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,425,028
<ALLOWANCES>                                   134,340
<INVENTORY>                                  1,688,405
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,955,476
<PP&E>                                       5,735,780
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,034,153
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,209,646
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,541,580
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,089
<OTHER-SE>                                   5,540,996
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,209,646
<SALES>                                      2,646,417
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,646,417
<CGS>                                        1,513,599
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,513,599
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,402,511
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                58,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,990
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (333,683)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (89,600)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (244,083)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (244,083)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.09)
        

</TABLE>
[No. 44861-7-I.

Division One.

May 15, 2000.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Daniel James Vaughan, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 99-8-02923-3, John M. Darrah, J., entered June 25, 1999. *Reversed*by unpublished per curiam opinion.