alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
News United States Air Force
 117th ARW receives Omaha TrophyPublished Oct. 25, 2019
                        
                        By Master Sgt. Jeremy Farson
                        
                        
                        117th Air Refueling Wing, Public Affairs
                **BIRMINGHAM, Ala. (AFNS) --**
                The 117th Air Refueling Wing was the first **Air National Guard** unit to receive the Omaha Trophy Oct. 19.
The 117th ARW won the award in the strategic aircraft category in recognition of its outstanding mission performance with the U.S. Strategic Command.
The ceremony was conducted in the maintenance hangar with about 700 people in attendance, including distinguished visitors, retirees and families. The award was presented to the unit by **Brig. Gen. James R. Stevenson Jr.**, STRATCOM mobilization assistant to the director of operations.
“To put it simply, the 117th Air Refueling Wing was the most outstanding in their Nuclear Operational Readiness Inspection and their dedication to the mission itself,” Stevenson said. “As a traditional guard unit, but with a total force, they have accomplished unique tasks and in an innovative way that we absolutely need to meet future challenges that STRATCOM faces, and we want to recognize Col. Scott Grant (117th ARW commander) and the wing members for that amazing dedication to the STRATCOM strategic deterrent mission.”
Sen. Doug Jones, who has been an advocate for the 117th ARW, was in attendance.
“I’m just so proud of these men and women, and I’m just so proud of the state of Alabama for having that mission out there, for having those opportunities to show who we are and what we can do and to show how Alabama, and in particular, this unit is to the security of the United States of America,” Jones said. “We pride ourselves in being the national champions, and that’s what this is. This is a national championship, and I’m just so proud of (Grant) and the rest of this team.”
The citizens of Omaha presented the first Omaha Trophy to the Strategic Air Command commander on the 25th anniversary of SAC in 1971. The citizens requested that it be awarded every year to the outstanding wing in SAC. After STRATCOM stood up in place of SAC in 1992, the Omaha Trophy continued to be awarded each year to an outstanding STRATCOM unit. It was expanded to five units within the following categories: strategic aircraft, intercontinental ballistic missile, submarine ballistic missile, strategic bomber and global operations.
“This is a culmination of a lot of hard work on the part of the Airmen and families of the 117th Air Refueling Wing,” Grant said. “Our Airmen have absolutely performed beautifully, and we are committed to doing exactly what America needs to defend the American way of life.”FS 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



117th Air Refueling Wing 



117th ARW 



Air National Guard 



ANG 



Omaha Trophy 



U.S. Strategic Command 



USSTRATCOM 



Nuclear Operational Readiness Inspection 



NORI 



strategic aircraft 



award 



recognition 



tanker
#### H. & T. C. R’y Co. v. I. Hays & Co.

(No. 784, Op. Book No. 2, p. 265.)

Appeal from Harris County.

Opinion by

Clark, J.

§ 759. *Accounts; meaning of, as used in act regulating the collection of; does not embrace a tort.*The legislative purpose in the enactment of the act of April 2, 1874 [Laws 1874, chap. 43], was, as expressed in its title, “to regulate the collection of accounts.” It is scarcely to be inferred that the term “ accounts ” was loosely employed, ’or that it was intended to be given so broad a construction as to cover every piece of paper a party might choose to call an account, and be utilized as. a *prima facie*case, even though the nature of the action disclosed that it was for a tort, and not for a breach of contract. The mischief to be remedied was the delay and expense incident to all suits upon open accounts, no matter how small, and the remedy designed was to dispense with the necessity of proof in cases of dealings between parties in the sale and purchase of specific articles where, as is al*417most universally the case, the actual commodity is designated and stipulated for, and the price agreed on between the parties. To entitle a party to the benefit of the statute, the account should have been contracted in the ordinary course of trade, and should exist by virtue of a ■contract between the parties to the suit, and not be incidental to the suit arising upon a contract between the plaintiff and third partios. The suit must be brought ■on the account, and upon its face it ought, at least, to show a transaction between the parties, by which the defendant is *prima facie*bound for the payment of the several items therein charged for goods sold and delivered, or other transaction legitimately forming the basis of an account proper.

March 20, 1880.

Reversed and remanded.

Note.— The above decision, construing the act of 1S74, is applicable to the present statute, [R. S. 2266; Acts 18th Leg. p. 110.]
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 78 (Thursday, May 11, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4802]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

           WHERE IS THE DEMOCRAT PLAN TO BALANCE THE BUDGET?

  (Mr. HEFLEY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. HEFLEY. Mr. Speaker, I never cease to be amazed at the speed with 
which liberal Democrats are able to rattle off class warfare rhetoric. 
It is as if liberal Democrats get up every morning and drink a 
specially concocted bromide which enables them to spew forth class 
warfare epitaphs with machine-gun like rapidity.
  The most recent example was yesterday when Republicans offered our 
plan to balance the Federal budget in 7 years.
  But what was the response from the liberals?
  Well, they just about tripped over themselves to get to the floor to 
denounce our plan as a devious plot to benefit the rich at the expense 
of children, the elderly, and the poor.
  Mr. Speaker, the liberals are not fooling anyone. Even President 
Clinton's own Cabinet members admit that Medicare is going broke. And 
nobody denies the existence of the national debt.
  But what have the liberal Democrats offered? Nothing but a few well-
rehearsed class warfare epitaphs.
  I only have one question for my friends on the other side. You know 
the problems we face--where is your plan?
  Where is it?

                          ____________________
```
```

[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 80 (Monday, May 15, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H4957]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                          EXTENSION OF REMARKS

  By unanimous consent, permission to revise and extend remarks was 
granted to:
  (The following Members (at the request of Ms. DeLauro) and to include 
extraneous matter:)
  Ms. Pelosi.
  Ms. Slaughter.
  Mr. Kanjorski in two instances.
  Mr. Poshard.
  Mr. Kennedy of Rhode Island.
  Mr. Volkmer.
  Mr. Rush in two instances.
  Mrs. Maloney.
  Mrs. Meek of Florida.
  Mr. Johnson of South Dakota.
  Mr. Gephardt.
  Mr. Gejdenson.
  (The following Members (at the request of Mr. Ehlers) and to include 
extraneous matter:)
  Mr. Bliley.
  Mr. Ramstad.
  Mr. Bereuter.
  Mr. Houghton.
  Mrs. Kelly.
  Mr. Davis.
  Mrs. Morella.
  Mr. Crane.
  Mr. Flanagan.

                          ____________________
```
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pane l unani m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T B E R T HA S OT O- DE T AP I A, P et i t i on er , v. E R I C H . H O L D E R , J r ., A tto rn e yG e n e r a l, R e s p o n d e n t. N o. 09- 71429 A ge nc yN o. A 077- 077- 629 ME MOR AN DU M *

O n P e t i t i on f

orR e vi e w of

an O r de rof

the B o ar do f I m m ig r a tio n A p p e a ls S ubm i tt e d A ugus t23, 2010 ** B e f o r e : L E A V Y , H A W K I N S , an dT H O M A S , C ir c u it Ju d g e s . B e rthaS ot o- D e T api a , ana t i ve and c i t i z e n of M e xi c o, pe t i t i ons f

orr e vi e w of the B oar d of

I m m i gr a t i on A ppe a l s ’ ( “ B I A ” ) or de rde ny i ng he rm ot i on t o r e m and b asedo n i n effecti v e assi st an ce o f co u n sel . O u r j u ri sd i ct i o n i s g o v ern edb y 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 5 2 . W e r e v ie w f o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n th e d e n ia l o f am o tio n to 

# FI LED SEP 07 2010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS09- 71429 2 r e m an d . R om er o-R uiz v . Mukasey , 5 3 8 F .3 d1 0 5 7 , 1 0 6 2 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) . W e d i s m i s s i n p artan dd e n yi n p artth e p e t i t i o n f o rr e v i e w. W e l ac k j uri sdi ct i on t o revi ew S ot o-D e T api a’ s c on t ent i on thather s ta te m e n ts ta k e n a t th e b o r d e rv io la te d8 C .F .R . § 2 8 7 .3 ( c ) b e c au s e s h e f a ile dto e x h au s t th is is s u e b e f

o r e th e B I A . See B a rr o n v . A s h c r o ft , 3 5 8 F .3 d6 7 4 , 6 7 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . T h e B I A d idn o t ab u s e its d is c r e tio n in d e n y in g S o to - D e T ap ia ’s m o tio n to r e m an ddu e to in e f

f e c tiv e a s s is tan c e o f

c o u n s e l b e c au s e s h e f

a ile dto a d e q u a te ly c om pl yw i th the r e qui r e m e nt s s e tf orth i n M at te rof L oz ada , 19 I . & N . D e c . 637 ( B I A 1988) , and the i ne f f e c t i ve a s s i s t anc e s he a l l e ge s i s notpl a i n on the f a c e of the r e c or d. Se e R e

y es v . A s h c r o

ft , 3 5 8 F .3 d5 9 2 , 5 9 7 - 9 9 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) . P E T IT IO N F O R R E V IE W D IS M IS S E D i n p art; D E N IE D i n p art.
News United States Air Force
 CSAF visits Kirtland AFB virtually, talks diversity and inclusionPublished Nov. 23, 2020
                        
                        By Senior Airman Austin J. Prisbrey
                **KIRTLAND AIR FORCE BASE, N.M. (AFNS) --**
                **Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown, Jr.** met with Airmen online Nov. 19, after virtually touring Kirtland Air Force Base and meeting with leaders supporting the Air Force’s nuclear enterprise.AFWN 



USAF 



AF 



Air Force 



diversity 



inclusion 



CSAF 



chief of staff of the Air Force 



Kirtland AFB 



tour 



visit 



virtual
#### JOHN H. HEIDBREDER, Appellant, v. SUPERIOR ICE & COLD STORAGE COMPANY et al.

(No. 2.)

Division One,

November 23, 1904.

CORPORATION: Transfer of. Properties to Stockholder's: Distribution of Proceeds: Costs of Appeal. Where the transfer of the properties of a corporation to its stockholders in payment of money honestly loaned to the company by them and in consideration of their paying its other debts is by this court held to be valid, in a suit by one of the stockholders to have that trans* fer set aside, which was done by the trial court, and the property was subsequently sold while a motion for a new trial was *457pending, an appeal by such -stockholder from an order of distribution of the moneys obtained by such subsequent sale, will he dismissed at the cost of the appellant, since the judgment of this court setting aside the judgment of the trial court necessarily set aside the order of sale and distribution.

Appeal from St. Louis City Circuit *Court.*— Hon. *Warwick Hough,*Judge.

Reversed.

*Barclay & Fauntleroy*for appellant.

*H. A. Haeussler*and *G. S. Broadhead*for respondents.

MARSHALL, J.

This is an appeal by the plaintiff from a refusal of the circuit court to modify the decree relating to the distribution of the proceeds--of the sale of the ice plant, referred to in the case of John H. Heidbreder v. Superior Ice & Gold Storage Company et al., found on page 446 of this report. The conclusion reached in that case makes it unnecessary to consider that decree in this case. As the appellant suffered no loss by the decree of the circuit court, he has no ground of complaint, and, therefore, no right to have the judgment modified. The judgment of the circuit court having been reversed in that case, and the causé remanded to the circuit court with directions to set aside all its orders and decrees and to dismiss the case, and as this will leave no judgment in the case except an order of dismissal of the cause, there is nothing to do in this case but to reverse the said judgment, but as this is done because the judgment has been adjudged wrong on the defendants ’ appeal and not because of any error that was - committed against the plaintiff, the costs of this appeal are hereby assessed against the plaintiff.

All concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-4146

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PETER RIBERHOLT BROCK,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (CR-98-3-A)

Submitted: January 26, 1999 Decided: February 25, 1999

Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Peter Riberholt Brock, Appellant Pro Se. Gerald J. Smagala, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* Although the district court’s order is marked “filed” on

February 9, 1998, the district court’s records show that it was

entered on the docket sheet on February 10, 1998. Pursuant to

Rules 58 & 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the

date that the order was entered that we take as the effective date

of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d

1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986).

2

PER CURIAM:

Peter Riberholt Brock appeals the district court’s order

affirming Brock’s conviction for a violation of the Child Support

Recovery Act and sentencing him to sixty days imprisonment and

$62,368 in restitution. See 18 U.S.C.A. § 228 (West Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion affirming the magistrate judge’s judgment and find no reversible

error. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 58(g)(2). Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See United States v. Brock,

No. CR-98-3-A (E.D. Va. Feb. 10, 1998).* 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
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-4136

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus TONY ALLEN ADAMS, JR., Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Big Stone Gap. James P. Jones, Chief District Judge. (2:04-cr-10064-jpj) Submitted: October 18, 2006 Decided: November 8, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick T. Heblich, Jr., FREDERICK T. HEBLICH, JR., P.C., Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant. John L. Brownlee, United States Attorney, Anthony P. Giorno, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Tony Allen Adams, Jr. pled guilty to one count of assault, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6)(2000), and one count of intimidation of a witness, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b) (2000). On appeal, he claims the district court abused its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Because we do not find an abuse of discretion, we affirm. We review the district court’s denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Ubakanma , 215 F.3d 421, 424 (4th Cir. 2000). Withdrawal of a guilty plea is not a matter of right. Id. (citing United States v. Moore , 931 F.2d 245, 248 (4th Cir. 1991)). The defendant bears the burden of showing a “fair and just reason” for the withdrawal of his guilty plea. Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(d)(2)(B). “[A] ‘fair and just’ reason . . . is one that essentially challenges . . . the fairness of the Rule 11 proceeding.” United States v. Lambey , 974 F.2d 1389, 1394 (4th Cir. 1992) (en banc). An appropriately conducted Rule 11 proceeding, however, raises a strong presumption that the guilty plea is final and binding. Id. Courts consider six factors in determining whether to permit the withdrawal of a guilty plea: (1) whether the defendant has offered credible evidence that his plea was not knowing or otherwise involuntary; (2) whether the defendant has credibly asserted his legal innocence; (3) whether there has been a delay between entry of the plea and filing of the motion; (4) whether the defendant has had close assistance of counsel;- 3 - (5) whether withdrawal will cause prejudice to the government; and (6) whether withdrawal will inconvenience the court and waste judicial resources. Ubakanma , 215 F.3d at 424 (citing Moore , 931 F.2d at 248) (footnote omitted). Because the Rule 11 proceeding was appropriately conducted, there is a presumption that Adams’ guilty plea was final and binding. Adams failed to show his plea was anything but knowing and voluntary. He also failed to show he wasactually innocent of the offenses or that his counsel was ineffective. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions and sentence. 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
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.5

                               LETTER OF INTENT

Macon Holdings (S) PTE LTD. An exempt private limited liability company
organized under the laws of Singapore is desirous of making an investment in
ChatCom, Inc. a California Corporation; the board of Directors of ChatCom, Inc.
has approved the issuance of its' common stock for such monetary investment.

              The common stock price to investor $1.50 per share
            The number of shares of common stock being purchased is
                     666,666 for a total of $1,000,000 USD

Investor understands that the stock certificate will contain such legends 
pursuant to the appropriate Rules of the Securities Exchange Commission. 
Investor is acquiring the shares for investment purposes.

Investor agrees to a one year holding period of said shares after which at 
investors request the shares shall be registered by ChatCom, Inc. and eligible 
for resale after the effective date of registration.

Procedure for completion of this transaction is as follows:

1.   Investor to execute and return signed Letter of Intent to the company.

2.   The company's legal counsel will be instructed to prepare the subscription 
     agreement which will be in accordance with the provisions of this document.

3.   A certificate for 666,666 shares of common stock will be prepared by the 
     company's transfer agent Continental Stock & Transfer Co.

4.   Investor shall execute the subscription agreement, fax and mail the
     original to the company; and investor shall wire transfer $1,000,000 U.S.
     to the Trust account of the company's legal counsel, Troy & Gould. Should
     funds not be received within 5 days after receipt of subscription agreement
     by Troy & Gould the stock purchase offer and agreements shall terminate on
     the sixth day.
<PAGE>
 
Page 2

5.   Upon confirmation of receipt of funds Continental Stock transfer will be
     instructed by ChatCom, Inc.'s counsel to forward the stock certificate for
     666,666 common stock shares immediately to investor.

The Letter of Intent, unless executed shall expire on November 14, 1997. Any 
changes or extensions must be in writing and executed by both parties.

Agreed:   ChatCom, INC.


          By: /s/ James B. Mariner                Date: 6 Nov 1997
             ------------------------------        
             James B. Mariner-President/CEO


Agreed:   Macon Holdings (S) PTE LTD


          By: /s/                                 Date: 6 Nov 97
             ------------------------------
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 three months 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: January 31, 2007     
|---------------------------
|                           
|/s/ Steven P. Wyandt       
|                           
|Steven P. Wyandt           
|Chief Executive Officer and
|Chief Financial Officer    

20

---
# News

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

# Youngstown ARS in Ohio selected as next Air Force Reserve location to receive C-130Js  

              - Published  Dec. 22, 2022
              -                             By   Secretary of the Air Force Public Affairs                                                    

**ARLINGTON, Va. (AFNS) --  **
Secretary of the Air Force **Frank Kendall** selected **Youngstown Air Reserve Station**, Ohio, as the preferred location to replace its eight C-130Hs with eight **C-130J**s. 

This action recapitalizes an **Air Force Reserve Command** C-130H squadron, fulfilling the Fiscal Year 2021 Defense Appropriation and FY22 Omnibus bills, which congressionally added eight C-130J aircraft to AFRC.  

The C-130J reduces manpower requirements, lowers operating and support costs, and provides life-cycle cost savings over earlier C-130 models. It is also capable of climbing faster and higher, flying farther at a higher cruise speed, and taking off and landing in a shorter distance. Youngstown ARS will continue to support **Air Force****Northern Command** aerial spray mission and remain committed to their enduring tactical airlift mission.   

Youngstown ARS was selected to host this mission after a site survey was conducted that assessed the location based on factors related to mission, infrastructure capacity, community support, environmental considerations, and cost. 

The Department of the Air Force will now conduct an environmental impact analysis, which is expected to be complete in summer 2023, before a final basing decision is made.  

**Peterson Space Force Base**, Colorado, **Dobbins Air Reserve Base**, Georgia, and **Minneapolis-St. Paul ARS**, Minnesota, remain reasonable alternative locations. 

LRUSAFAFAir ForceYoungstown Air Reserve StationSecretary of the Air ForceFrank KendallC-130JC-130HdefenseappropriationAFNORTHAFRCAir Force Reserve Command